After almost a decade are we actually reaching agreement on the science as a religion question? That is cause for astonishment. I'll agree with you that the titular heads of the two schools of debate are not normally in the same league wrt intellectual honesty. I also recall, to reuse the stem cell example, that the major proponents caveated their arguments. However, they were perfectly happy to allow others to make more exorbitant claims (an argument I advance for the simple reason that the public debate does not and never has been as nuanced as were the proponents of the research in their public statements).
That leads to another line of thought, and one I'd like to get your opinion on. When you were discussing the Mos Def/Christopher Hitchens smackdown, and Ta-Nehisi Coates' assault on the the failure of the 'elder' generations to educate the younger ones and force them to grow intellectually, you also seemed to promoting the utility of using those who agree with you, but for the wrong reasons to advance your own stance.
I'm not sure where you stand on this, but the thing is, once I thought about it, I realized that I agree with both of the assertions I thought you made. In other words, I'm a hypocrite on this issue (though not a delestivus, since I'm acknowledging it :) ). I get intensely agitated when someone makes a statement without backup; the bar mentality that you expect out of undergrads and the uneducated. Into this category I place such pearls of wisdom as "The Republicans just want the oil", "Democrats want to take our guns", "Dick Cheney controlled the White House, because Bush is a moron", and "Of course there was a conspiracy [9-11, Kennedy, whatever]. The [insert favorite group here]
A brief aside is in order here, one which ties together the current discussion as well as the science as a religion tangent. I was recently out in the field with a coworker when she started talking about a test that you can have done for ~$125 that the Discovery Channel has been hawking for several years now. It involves swabbing your mouth to get some genetic samples and then sending them off for testing. The results will then tell you your genetic history.
Allright, cool. Interesting idea. I raised the point though that only a few years ago, there was a mini-controversy when it was revealed that the several companies involved in this business tend to provide different histories for the same genetic sample. In other words, the science isn't complete yet on this one, as we're still developing our collective understanding of humanity's genetic history. When I raised this point, my coworker said, and I swear this is almost verbatim, "Yeah, that's true, but I trust them, and you have to start somewhere." I asked why I should trust the results from her company and not some other company, to which she replied that these guys were professionals. Pressing her further, she explained that she's read up on this topic and has experience that I lack which makes her more trusting of the results. This experience, I shit you not, is a couple of undergrad courses in genetics she took...over 25 years ago. It's equivalent to my asserting a detailed knowledge of Gregor Mendel because I completed a worksheet on the genetic qualities of peas in a High School chemistry class. I about lost it, and actually accused her of treating science as her own religion, as we've been discussing.
The main point of this story is that I agree that we have an obligation to educate those who might agree with us, but for the wrong reason. In fact, I agree that genetic testing can reveal our deepest ancestry. I don't think we can tell with any deep degree of accuracy exactly where we come from yet (nor do I particularly care about the results myself, but that's a different rant), but I've little doubt a consensus will be reached fairly quickly on how to proceed. However, I also follow your other line of argument in my daily life. That people are better off holding the point of view I hold, even if it's for the wrong reasons, than following the alternative.
In other words, like you say, "as long as they're voting the way I want them to", I don't argue that much. I've displayed this tendency in arguments with you in the past. We'll be discussing something, and a third party will agree with some contention I'm making, but for reasons that I don't think are particularly compelling (this has been the case with Q on a couple of occasions). I don't break and say "yeah, you're right, but at the same time you're wrong". No, no I continue to hammer my point home, using the support of the third party to wear down my opponent. It's intellectually dishonest, and something I really need to address in the future.
- DH
P.S. I really wish I could come up with something quantifiable to back up my still gestating assertion that a majority (or at least a plurality) of people in this country treat scientific work with the reverence normally reserved for the supernatural, but I haven't yet managed to do so. If you come across any evidence, either for or against, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I really dislike making unsubstantiated claims based only on my gut, and this one's definitely a doozy.
