Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

As to the liberal label put on scientists, there is a problem with the
label.  Being liberal meaning being open to new ideas is very different from
the political label "Liberal".  Economic liberalism is in favor of
appropriate governmental action, while economic conservatism would be
categorized as being more laissez faire.  These are just differences based
on differing philosophies and what they see as evidence.  Both sides can be
illiberal in that they are closed to any of the ideas from the other camp.
Similarly various social positions are labeled as liberal or conservative
merely because conservatives tend to espouse them as a package.

So scientists should have liberal scientific thinking (liberated), but they
might be socially Liberal and economically Conservative, or other
combinations of the latter.  So perhaps I should say that because scientists
are "liberal" they are categorized by Conservatives as being Liberals, which
then brings in the label "Godless Communists".

William Buckley was an intelligent conservative, but he even admitted to
smoking marijuana, in his yacht outside the 3 mile limit where it was not
illegal.  Hmmm, how did he get it there legally?  So would Buckley be
considered liberal but Conservative???  If you read Christopher Buckley's
short article about how he settled his father's estate, you get some
interesting views on Buckley's blind spots.

The problem as I see it is that the term Liberal or Conservative are used to
divide the spectrum into two pieces with the Conservatives rejecting liberal
science.  Dawking may be an illiberal scientist, and I don't know what his
social or economic philosophy is.  But he is Godless, so of course that
makes him anathema to the Conservatives who have liked the words Godless and
Communism.  I am sure there are atheist political conservatives, but they
are probably cowed in the current American scene.  Communism is like the
Titanic, it sank, get over it, its gone.

Maybe I should have said it is "mislabeling" to consider science "Liberal".

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> I strongly agree with everything John Clement says here with one important
> exception.  Like John, I believe we do a grave disservice to science by
> saying transparently ridiculous things like "there is no evidence for
> Intelligent Design."  Those who subscribe to ID see virtually nothing BUT
> evidence for their beliefs.  The only relevant point is that ID is
> manifestly NOT science because it is inconceivable that anyone would ever
> find evidence AGAINST it.
>
> The only point of disagreement I have is with John's claim that it is a
> "mislabeling" to call science "liberal."  I could take the sarcastic, if
> not also defensible, position that "reality has a liberal bias," but I
> will note only that science requires above all intense skepticism,
> openness to new data, and willingness to change one's viewpoint in the
> face of evidence against one's cherished positions, traits that I have no
> trouble whatsoever characterizing as "liberal."  I don't deny the
> existence of "religious scientists," but I would maintain that anyone who
> brings traditional religious habits and "ways of knowing" into the lab
> with them, at the very least operates under a very significant handicap.