Michael Shermer takes a shoe to the Left

[william.scherk]

Michael Shermer takes a shoe to the left's slack record on science, from his February column in Scientific American.

How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum

Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there’s a liberal war on science. Say what?

We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup Poll found that “58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women’s bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.

[...]

There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (Public Affairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”

Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left’s sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)

Edited February 8, 2013 by william.scherk

[studiodekadent]

Shermer is a good guy (he's also a moderate libertarian) and I like this column of his.

People's ideological values systems have always governed their acceptance of science. Whilst I am a "lukewarmer," the environmentalist left accepted hysterical levels of AGW panic principally because it validated their "man is poisoner of the earth mother, an evil unnatural alien with a detached rational scientific intellect that is fixated on the rape of the biosphere" worldview.

[william.scherk]

Shermer is a good guy (he's also a moderate libertarian) and I like this column of his.

People's ideological values systems have always governed their acceptance of science. Whilst I am a "lukewarmer," the environmentalist left accepted hysterical levels of AGW panic principally because it validated their "man is poisoner of the earth mother, an evil unnatural alien with a detached rational scientific intellect that is fixated on the rape of the biosphere" worldview.

Rowr.

Interesting to learn you are whatever a 'lukewarmer' is. What is a lukewarmer? AGW panic earth mother poison evul alien science intellectual biosphere ranting aside. As Facebook's interrogation algorhythm might ask, "What's happening, Andrew? What's going on? What's happening, Andrew?"

What happens when the Objectivish meet the notion of anthropogenic global warming of the atmosphere?

[caroljane]

What happens when the unpredictable meets accepted theory, except that there is no accepted theory, until it can be proven.?

I read an interesting article recently, about how the need for science to accord with beautiful and the symmetrical, and to reduce to the basic simplicity, no longer seems to meet the questions of actual science.

I don't pretend to understand it all but it is interesting and I'm just saying.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Kewell that you posted this.

I wonder where Progressives would stand on AGW without Joseph Campbell, Gaia and Avatar--and of course, the intrepid voyaging hero and media mogul, Al Gore.

Probably looking at real science instead of mythological hysteria, but I speculate...

At any rate, this shows just how deep the need for a religion story is in man. The dispute on the political stage is not about science versus religion, but about which religion will prevail over science--Abrahamic or Pagan.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

William,

Kewell that you posted this.

I wonder where Progressives would stand on AGW without Joseph Campbell, Gaia and Avatar--and of course, the intrepid voyaging hero and media mogul, Al Gore.

Probably looking at real science instead of mythological hysteria, but I speculate...

At any rate, this shows just how deep the need for a religion story is in man. The dispute on the political stage is not about science versus religion, but about which religion will prevail over science--Abrahamic or Pagan.

Michael

The conflict is even closer than that.

Both the Green and Christian religions see man's sin as trying to rise above our predestined place in the 'natural order' by exercising our intellect (Fall of Man, Tower of Babylon, Prometheus, etc). They believe this transgression sets us apart from the natural order/will of god (roughly the same thing if you believe the natural order is created by god) and that only through repentance and rejection of our intellect (either by embracing faith or giving up much of our technology) can we be 'saved.'

The Green and Christian religions share the same basic narrative. There's the will of an higher power, and we're set apart from that due to the nature of our consciousness/intellect, and this is pathologized and we are seen as sinners that need to re-integrate ourselves into the will of this higher power. We are meant to do so by a process of sacrifice.

Remember that Al Gore went to Harvard Divinity School.

The simple fact is that the Green and Christian religions are competing products. They are alike in so many ways and as such they see eachother as a threat. They aren't polar-opposite worldviews. They're substitute goods.

Anyway, WSS,

What happens when an Objectivists accepts there's credible evidence of some level of AGW? Simple: Go For The Tech Fix!

That way, human Promethean ingenuity solves YET ANOTHER environmental disaster. This is the ULTIMATE subversion of the Green's narrative; our sinful reason/intellect/technology saves us all.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

I agree that the different religions under discussion share a common theme: man is inherently evil and must redeem himself during life by submitting his individual sovereignty over his mind and free will to something greater than he is.

(I refer to the part of his mind and soul that can be sovereign, not to the automatic mental processes that operate without awareness.)

Should he not submit, the sacred stories and rituals should be slanted so he will tortured by guilt feelings.

If that doesn't work, he should have his actions restricted by law. Then if he does not comply, he should be jailed, and in impossible cases of unrepentant free thinking, tortured and/or killed.

That's their commonality and where they always end up, regardless of what they say along the way.

It's hard to save a soul, ghost or green...

Michael

[Samson Corwell]

In response to the thread's title: I love taking a shoe to any kind of idiot. Über-environmentalists who display a callous disregard for the well-being of others become a desirable target to debate and challenge.

William,

Kewell that you posted this.

I wonder where Progressives would stand on AGW without Joseph Campbell, Gaia and Avatar--and of course, the intrepid voyaging hero and media mogul, Al Gore.

Probably looking at real science instead of mythological hysteria, but I speculate...

At any rate, this shows just how deep the need for a religion story is in man. The dispute on the political stage is not about science versus religion, but about which religion will prevail over science--Abrahamic or Pagan.

Michael

The conflict is even closer than that.

Both the Green and Christian religions see man's sin as trying to rise above our predestined place in the 'natural order' by exercising our intellect (Fall of Man, Tower of Babylon, Prometheus, etc). They believe this transgression sets us apart from the natural order/will of god (roughly the same thing if you believe the natural order is created by god) and that only through repentance and rejection of our intellect (either by embracing faith or giving up much of our technology) can we be 'saved.'

The Green and Christian religions share the same basic narrative. There's the will of an higher power, and we're set apart from that due to the nature of our consciousness/intellect, and this is pathologized and we are seen as sinners that need to re-integrate ourselves into the will of this higher power. We are meant to do so by a process of sacrifice.

Remember that Al Gore went to Harvard Divinity School.

The simple fact is that the Green and Christian religions are competing products. They are alike in so many ways and as such they see eachother as a threat. They aren't polar-opposite worldviews. They're substitute goods.

Anyway, WSS,

What happens when an Objectivists accepts there's credible evidence of some level of AGW? Simple: Go For The Tech Fix!

That way, human Promethean ingenuity solves YET ANOTHER environmental disaster. This is the ULTIMATE subversion of the Green's narrative; our sinful reason/intellect/technology saves us all.

To comment on the stuff about technology being sinful and Gore's documentary: An Inconvenient Truth touted the ingenuity of the human spirit and the ability to overcome obstacles when driven in its conclusion and all that good stuff.

With the reference to Gaia and Avatar, I thought Michael was talking about the guy who came with the Gaia Hypothesis. Instead, its someone who writes about mythology and monomyths.

[william.scherk]

I love taking a shoe to any kind of idiot.

I did not yet read beyond this. It makes sense, and I like the spirit. I too love taking a shoe to idiocy. The hanging chad, the test of the pudding, the long smear on the road, though, is in determining the idiocy. Mere slogans and labels do not do that job.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

With the reference to Gaia and Avatar, I thought Michael was talking about the guy who came with the Gaia Hypothesis. Instead, its someone who writes about mythology and monomyths

Samson,

It sounds like you are dismissing this as unimportant. That's a premise well worth checking.

Do you know the importance of myths (ancient and modern) to epistemology and, especially, to politics? And how deeply they resonate in the human mind?

Ayn Rand sure did.

She wrote one of the world's most enduring ones of last century.

Michael

[Samson Corwell]

With the reference to Gaia and Avatar, I thought Michael was talking about the guy who came with the Gaia Hypothesis. Instead, its someone who writes about mythology and monomyths

Samson,

It sounds like you are dismissing this as unimportant. That's a premise well worth checking.

Do you know the importance of myths (ancient and modern) to epistemology and, especially, to politics? And how deeply they resonate in the human mind?

Ayn Rand sure did.

She wrote one of the world's most enduring ones of last century.

Michael

It was not my intent to dismiss it as unimportant. I had just never heard of the man before and I am puzzled as to how this man is associated/connected with environmentalists. His schtick appears to be the hypothesis that most common narrative in myths and stories is one of a hero, and I cannot see how environmentalism correlates with it. Or to put it another way, why do environmentalists find him to be important? Might make for a great DaVinci Code. But I certainly understand how important myths are assuming you mean the kind that focus on a person's journey in a story format, like Gilgamesh or Hercules. One of my friends more in touch with his cultural nerd, I suppose, told me the idea of a hero/superhero is a romanticized notion. Things like this will certainly motivate people through identifying with such a tale, so I understand the importance of myths, just not how Joseph Campbell's ideas connect with environmentalism.

[9thdoctor]

The Comrade Sonia of ‘Atheism’, PZ Myers, has published a 2^nd hand rape accusation against Michael Shermer. It looks like he’ll being sued for libel, there’s even a fund established to help him do so.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/michael-shermer-legal-fund

A connection I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that Myers has shown himself to be a very intolerant left-winger, while Shermer is, of course, a libertarian. Could this be part of Myers’ motivation? To purge the ranks? Watch your back, Penn Jillette.

[BaalChatzaf]

What happens when the unpredictable meets accepted theory, except that there is no accepted theory, until it can be proven.?

You mean the unpredicted event. Any event is predictable since an ad hoc can be contrived to explain it. Of course such "unpredictable" event become predicted only after they happen.

In the real world of physical science the unpredicted event is a wake up call to check the current theories very carefully and if necessary modify them to handle the unforeseen and not predicted even. That is how science grows and improves over the years. The history of science is a trail of dead, discarded or fixed up theories. Facts trump Theory which is why Science works and philosophy is mostly warm air and nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf