Oct 28 2007
Politically correct and intolerant science
Many of us were taught about the intolerance of the Church when faced with inconvenient scientific theories, from Galileo’s ground breaking work on the place of the Earth in the solar system to Darwin’s Origin of the Species. We were instructed that true scientific method was the way to reach closer to the truth, depending as it does on the construction of hypotheses which can be tested to destruction or to near perfection. Science advances by people challenging the conventional wisdom and seeking to substitute a better theory with greater predictive qualities.
Today it is worrying that those in government and the establishment who claim to believe most strongly in science often now seem to be intolerant of sceptical discussion, questioning or alternative theories themselves. If a scientific theory is strong and widely accepted by most scientists they should be happy to propose and defend it patiently and wisely, winning others over to their view. It is counter productive to seek to shut down debate, or to vilify their critics in the way the original Galileans and Darwinists were attacked.
A recent Radio 4 Moral Maze started to highlight this issue with their discussion of scientific work on intelligence amongst different people based on the recent controversy about whether this work is racist. There are three other cases which I think illustrate rather better a foolish intolerance on the part of some seeking to uphold scientific method and the primacy of a scientific approach to truth.
The first is the theory of evolution itself. When Darwin eventually released his theory contemporaries were shocked by the idea that man descended from the apes. Most of us are now relaxed about the idea that we are all a more successful (but not all necessarily nicer) kind of monkey. When I was discussing education with some clever and well educated sixth formers the other day who were condemning Creationist teaching,I decided to see how far I could get running the views of the Creationists. The first impact of doing this was of course to worry my audience about my grasp of science, but the second impact was to worry them about a fundamental scientific truth they accepted which turned out to have an element of belief rather than proof in it. They were unable to establish how the first primitive life forms emerged from the primordial slime. The assumption appears to be that some combination of naturally occurring materials and energy came together to produce a simple living organism. It would be too dificult to believe inert matter and energy could produce a sophisticated life form, but science is unable to say exactly how this took place and is unable to replicate the process. Everyone should still share some wonder at the unexplained magic of life and accept that science does not yet have all the answers.
The second is climate change theory. All too often the scientific establishment declines to set out its evidence for believing that this period of global warming, unlike the others that preceeded it, is driven by human generation of CO2. The large sums of research money are spent on developing and supporting the theory, which allows sceptics to doubt and to wonder what would happen if more money were spent on trying to disprove it. It is this refusal of the believers to seek to persuade the sceptics and unbelievers which underlies the reluctance of many to pay higher taxes for CO2 reducing causes - in addition to the normal dislike of higher taxes generally.
The third was the treatment of the case of the MMR injection. The medical establishment claims good evidence to support the good this injection does, and to deny that it can do harm. Some parents need more reassurance, which means meeting the critics in debate and dealing with their doubts with evidence.
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
You have put your finger on the problem when you write “Today it is worrying that those in government and the establishment who claim to believe most strongly in science often now seem to be intolerant of sceptical discussion, questioning or alternative theories themselves.” The people to whom you refer, particularly politicians, have hijacked “science” to promote their own agendas and will brook no opposition. Time and again government ministers use the word “science” as a shorthand way of saying therefore there can be no opposition
The major problem with science is that it can only quantify what can be measured empirically. So scientists attempt to cover any discrepancies with conjecture. Much of the argument about climate change rests on such conjecture. Much like the ancient debates about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, or the theories of Einstein and Freud, the question of climate change is not one that cannot be proven one way or the other.
On the subject of inoculation I did not have my son inoculated against whooping cough when he was recommended for inoculation as an infant. At the time there were several scare stories about inoculation and the danger of brain damage and I aired on the side of caution. At the age of eleven my son caught whooping cough and had to spend five months off school, unfortunately this coincided with his SATs. My son went through a very traumatic illness which included waking several times each night and retching violently. Fortunately my son made a full recovery, was able to catch up on his studies and is now at university. However it was nontheless a very traumatic period in our lives which I wouldn’t want anyone else to experience. So the question of inoculation is one that certainly needs to be addressed.
What I want to know, is if the scientific study on intelligence is racist, does this mean the government backed ‘Equalities Review’ is also racist by the same definition.
The race relations industry play exactly the same game. They carve the population up into racial groups and study their achievements in education and the workplace. Except the try to explain differences with political theories, not scientific ones.
I studied physics at university and I find the direction that science is moving in very worrying. Our university science departments are continually declining as students choose less rigorous courses. This will lead to ever more people the government can ‘blind with science’.
Scientists are very keen to apply their favourite ‘double blind’ testing to anything they disagree with. However, this certainly doesn’t apply to their own consensus conclusion forming.
Take the consensus on climate change and use the analogy that it’s a defendant in a criminal court case. This means the case will have been brought because a majority of police believe it’s guilty. Peer review would mean a jury of police, rather than lay people, would decide if the case was made or not. We would not allow this sort of travesty in our legal system, but many people seem perfectly happy that it’s increasingly the set-up for science.
Given the cases of Prof Roy Meadow and Dr David Southall, I think there’s a good argument that the theories and opinions of doctors and scientists should be treated with a great deal more scepticism.
I have lived off solar energy for over seven years now. I wrote Exposed; the Solar Energy Con which is available at Amazon.com. This is written from a woman’s perspective and is an accurate representation of what it is like to live off the utility grid. My point is that if you can read it and still support solar you need your head examined.
The country is so focused on solar energy that any one who doesn’t support turning the world into a solar array is an anarchist. I fear that by the time our country wakes up it will be too late.
http://www.rockinblues.com/House/solarenergy.htm
On June 26th 2006 my dog BooBoo died from water intoxication because living on solar energy I was unable to keep him cool. When I began to crunch the numbers I documented the fraud that the environmentalists have perpetrated on the American public. I challenge you to read the information I have put together for you. After you read this, make up your mind for yourself and I urge you to write your legislators.
In the 1970’s The Greens were the nutters, but now the ones who don’t belive are. Who apart from George cannot be against energy conservation. Less than
Mr Redwood, on evolution please don’t fall crashing into the argument from disbelief. Your final para on evolution leaves out the crucial word: yet. Science hasn’t yet worked out how life spontaneously arose from inanimate precursors, just as in 1857 it hadn’t (yet) worked out the theory of evolution by natural selection (although the work was there in Darwin’s note books). In the 1600s, a lot hadn’t (yet) been observed, hypotheses suggested nor data analysed, but elements were still radioactive and DNA still made us and made us what we are.
there is no ‘magic’ in life, science just hasn’t got all the causes and all the answers: yet. But I’d keep an eye on Craig Venter’s work in the next few months.
A few points on science.
They dont research either supporting climate change or against it. The research is to learn more about whats happening.
Mankind and Monkeys have a common ancestor, were not descended from monkeys.
Im sorry Bobo died, but the idea of the UK or the USA being focused on solar power is laughable. We’re focused on fossil fuel, and should be going to renewables. I think solar hot water is now cheap enough to be viable for homes even in Brtain, Solar Photo Voltaics is still quite expensive. Are you sure Bobo died from water intoxication, apparently that occurs when people dont urinate enough. Seems an odd way for a dog to die. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865
Dear Mr. Redwood, MP for Wokingham, a town i am well versed with and frequented before you ever became their MP, Mr. Congdon was shitting his pants on news night, can you please have the decency to advise what his vested interest is in Northern Rock?
You would do your supporters and constituents more justice by attacking the reckless policy of Gordon Brown when he was chancellor for fueling unsustainable house price inflation and making our country to most indebted country on earth through the credit binge with recklessly low interest rates and high public borrowing, fueling a credit frenzy which will all end in tears for us all for decades to come?
Why do the conservatives not highlight this madness? One can only assume that David Camarons fine party have mewed and brought numerous BTL properties and are also afraid that if the Titanic (UKPLC) hits the iceberg soon, then they have much to lose?
The British banking system is insolvent and Britain is a lost power, in the next few years with peak oil and Gas upon us, the old empire would have truly sailed into the sunset for the very last time, never to return again, i just hope that a tory government does not have to control the unruly masses, and that it happens on Crash Gordon’s watch.
Psmith67@gmail.com
Reply: If you read previous pieces on this site you will see I have frequently criticised the former Chancellor for keeping interest rates too low and going on a public sector borrowing binge in recent years. I have commented on Mr Congdon’s shareholding in Northern Rock, which he should have mentioned on TV. I leaned of that after posting my first blog comment on the Newsnight exchanges.