Don't Worry, Be Happy

What can you do when science and belief are contradictory? There are few choices. You can compartmentalize – accept the idea that both have merit but they have nothing to do with each other; you can make them both parts of a larger system – using one to explain its apparent antagonist; or you can discard one in favor of the other – at least for the subject being considered.

Among models for each choice are the acceptance of miracles in an otherwise scientifically ruled world; the idea that evolution was part of the system of creation and the “days” of creation were actually periods; or the earth is not the center of the universe, not withstanding Church doctrine. There is room, though, for discussion and sometimes even compromise.

Not so science and politics. Politics is a world that can only countenance complete domination. There is no option to compromiseⁱⁱ or to take prisoners. It seems to be a belief system that is stronger than religion. It may be possible to accept the idea that there are other religions and their views are valid for their adherents, but if someone disagrees with your political opinions he's a fool. And if his science says something other than yours – if it supports a political view divergent from the one you hold – it is “junk science,” and not worthy of discussion or compromise.

The problem with scientists is that they're human.ⁱⁱⁱ They have all the faults, prejudices, and agendas of the rest of us. And while we may want to believe that the “science” they produce is objective and free of their personal biases, that belief is not scientific. It is not rational. Thus we look for confirmation; we demand that all results be reproducible and that others testing the same theory come up with the same conclusion.

But scientists do have agendas.^iv And the questions they choose to answer – the ones they study – are often based on those agendas and their desire to support their beliefs.^v Or, sometimes, the wish to disprove the claims of those who disagree with them. Whether taxes, medical care, or water pollution, there are numerous numerous studies to support any political view you held before looking at the science. (And it is that kind of determination to make a point that animates other political opinions as well. It's an open secret that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee favors those whose actions support whatever political position they support – especially one that opposes the United States or war or, preferably, both.^vi)

One of the best current examples of the conflict between science and political belief is the vituperative debate over global warming. Those who promote the concept as proof of man's desecration of the earth, and as the cause of a predictable end of the world as we know it, warn us of these dire consequences unless we take immediate action in mending our ways. There has been a rise in the earth's temperature, in the human production of carbon dioxide (CO₂), and in the level of the oceans. We are the cause of our own destruction and if we don't stop burning fossil fuels and lower the levels of CO₂ in our atmosphere, we shall surely compromise the environment we are leaving to our children.

Their adversaries, however, maintain that the weather, and its effects, result from regular cycles affecting the earth, rather from any action taken by mankind. They contend that past geological records demonstrate episodes of “global warming,” like that existing at present, to have occurred on many occasions in the past. And the studies they cite show that CO₂ levels have been elevated on many occasions in the past – long before people or human production of the gas – and they don't correlate at all with temperature elevations. Not only that, higher temperatures will increase agricultural yields.  Don't wrorry.  Be happy.

The two sides attribute the most unscrupulous of motives to each other and freely dispense accusations of “cherry-picked” studies which are scientifically invalid. Opponents of what they consider hysteria, claim that warming is an inevitable event, and since the actions we are currently taking are not the cause, ceasing them is not the solution. Proponents of a human authorship of global warming tell us that those who oppose them are industrialists who will profit from the sale and use of fossil fuels, and the use of processes that elevate environmental CO₂. Both sides tell us that the warming will continue, but neither sees any truth in the position of the other, nor even concedes any honesty or good will on the part of those who hold a contrary view. Both will tell us that their perspective is the only correct one.^vii Indeed, if CO₂ levels fall but the temperature continues to rise, it will be used as proof that we waited too long and doom is inevitable. And if both rise, it will be proof that elevated CO₂ causes temperature elevations. After all, post hoc, propter hoc.

How can we test the different views? Computer models? After all, computers have no political point of view. But the people who design the programs and input the data, do. So the likelihood is that both sides will be able to provide computer models to prove their existing positions. Shall we put our trust in the scientific “majority,” if that can be determined? There is hazard in accepting the received wisdom, even from scientists. It is too severely restricted by their own and local biases. As I noted earlier, scientists are human, very much like the rest of us. And scientific “truth” depends on where you live and your society's views. There was a time in some areas when acquired characteristics were claimed by the scientists in favor to be heritable. And there was a time when phlogiston was accepted by the scientific community. Even respected scientists are capable of error, sometimes caused by current opinion and politics. And since lesser scientists often follow the lead of the “experts,” numbers are suspect.

So what is the solution? I don't know. It's not something we can test since we have no comparable laboratory to earth. It may take a few centuries before any reliable answer is determined. In the meantime, I suppose, the best we can do is split the difference – make reasonable cuts in fuel usage even if we're not convinced they'll help. We'll have to recognize that the information available is less than certain, and be careful not to overdo it since it would be counterproductive to harm the industries that have made modern life possible. In the meantime, it's likely that things will heat up more – both the science and the rhetoric – although it's not clear that is bad or preventable. So just lean back and enjoy what we have.

Next episode: “Knowing The Unknowable” – It's not who(m) you know, and it's certainly not what you know.

i     Even if it's not often

ii    Consequently we have legislative gridlock – not that it's altogether bad.

iii   Those who see science as the final answer to all questions (though the answer may change, as was the fate of the belief in alchemy) may have turned scientists into demigods, but, in reality, that is not the case.

iv   Apart from what they list on disclosure forms which document what they may have received from interested parties.

v     Or those who pay them.

vi  Belief also motivates vindictive literary discourse. A supporter of the Earl of Oxford, for example, is completely unable to understand why some attribute “his” works to Shakespeare.  

Similarly, other prejudices, as exemplified by racism or religious hatred, are not susceptible to rational dispute, only to sophistry and historical revisionism. Too many, for example, deny the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust and demand the opportunity to “prove” that it never happened. And too many, for purposes of propaganda, equate murder and suicide with virtues. Belief conquers reason.

vii    In fact, my perspective is the only correct one. And I don't know what it is.