One of the most profound things about the move to silence critics of scientific orthodoxy or those open to questioning it publicly is how anti-enlightenment the notion is.
As John G. West, vice president of the Discovery Institute, pointed out last week in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, thinkers such as atheist John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century utilitarian philosopher and author of On Liberty and “Utilitarianism,” argued for the freedom to question science in his day.
Mill’s logic and West’s application of it is one that can be applied not only to the physical sciences, where global warming is sacrosanct under the Obama administration, but also the social sciences, where Keynesian economics reigns supreme in Washington, whenever politicians wave the authority of science over our heads to persuade us to move in the direction of their policy priorities.
After all, the policies could be based on bad science.
West quoted the following passage from Mill’s On Liberty:
“If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they now do. The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded.”
According to West, atheist philosopher and NYU professor Thomas Nagel, is a modern Mill in the sense that he advocates for the freedom to discuss opposing views in science. In 2012, Nagel himself wrote a book called Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False which argued, among other things, that the reigning Neo-Darwinian purely physical account of consciousness was inadequate.
West also highlighted that what 19th century scientist Charles Darwin wrote in his introduction to The Origins of Species was at least good in principle: “A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
West titled his lecture “Scientism in the Age of Obama,” which was simply about the Obama administration’s overuse of science to reach certain political ends. He pointed out that in President Obama’s first inaugural address, the president promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” which West argued the administration is doing the opposite.
He discussed six points that bolster his argument:
The Bush administration was not free from West’s criticism. But he notes that when it came time for the Obama administration to ditch or defend a controversial study on premature babies based on bad science, rather than ditching it, the administration “circled the wagons,” as West put it, and defended it.
As a corrective measure, West said that allowing criticism of prevailing scientific orthodoxies will make their defenders better communicators of them. “And if they can’t do that, then that’s a warning sign that maybe the consensus isn’t based just on overwhelming scientific data,” he continued.
“We really need to push back at unjust claims of people being anti-science simply for raising questions,” West said. After all, scientific orthodoxies change over time. But also, there are people who have recently publicly advocated for the jailing of climate change critics.
Watch the complete lecture here.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.