Re: Unorthodox science projects

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

Scott Bonham wrote:
> The central question is whether science is simply a (very good)
> method of gaining understanding about the natural world, or whether
> it provides the basis for an all-encompassing philosophy about the
> nature of the world.

No, that is not "the" central question.  It is not even a
"central" question at all.  It is an extreme question, far
removed from the pressing issues.

The idea that science might become all-encompassing is not
_quite_ unheard of -- Leibnitz was interested in it -- but
I see verrrry little danger of it happening anytime soon.

The real threat is near the opposite extreme, i.e. the
total or near-total triumph of dogma over reality.

A lot of people are very worried about this.  Some details
are available in the recent UCS report on "Scientific Integrity
in Policymaking" available at
  http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/RSI_final_fullreport.pdf

I quote from the executive summary:

> > 1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and
> > distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush
> > administration political appointees across numerous federal
> > agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public
> > safety, and community well-being. Incidents involve air pollutants,
> > heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant
> > bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military
> > intelligence.
> >
> > 2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to
> > manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent
> > the appearance of advice that might run counter to the
> > administration's political agenda. These actions include:
> > appointing underqualified individuals to important advisory roles
> > including childhood lead poisoning prevention and reproductive
> > health; applying political litmus tests that have no bearing on a
> > nominee's expertise or advisory role; appointing a non-scientist to
> > a senior position in the president's scientific advisory staff; and
> > dismissing highly qualified scientific advisors.
> >
> > 3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes
> > restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about
> > "sensitive" topics. In this context, "sensitive" applies to issues
> > that might provoke opposition from the administration's political
> > and ideological supporters.
> >
> > 4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the
> > manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the
> > Bush administration are unprecedented.

And there's a lot more to that story.



I'm tired of being lied to by government officials.

And let me define my terms:  Some people narrowly define "lying"
to mean saying something you know isn't true.  So in this narrow
sense these guys aren't lying -- I think they really believe
this stuff, even though it can't possibly be true, which gives
an Alice-in-Wonderland atmosphere to the discussion.  This is
a real problem, because these guys have a duty to find out
what's true and what's not.  It's their job.  Therefore in my
book lying also includes saying things with reckless disregard
for whether they're true or not.

This triumph of dogma over reality is a clear and present
danger.  Leibnitz is not.