Eric Falkenstein blogs:
I note many of today's full-time intellectuals, those writing about ideas, have no such humility. They think everything they believe is simply true; there is no legitimate argument against their beliefs...Two points in rebuttal:
In Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science (discounted to $3.99 at my local Barnes and Noble), the book jacket lists several examples of 'war' on science...Is it really a huge problem that the US federal government does not fund all stem cell research, given that several states have earmarked hundreds of millions towards these select lines, and several other countries are massively funding this unproven thread?
1. When assessing these seemingly self-assured public intellectuals, Falkenstein might want to consider the Hegelian dialectical issue. There are a lot of people getting paid to loudly put forth certain viewpoints (e.g. the oil-industry hacks who get paid to deny anthropogenic global warming). When writing about global warming, one must ask oneself the question: "Should I write a nuanced, self-reflective piece, or should I make some attempt to balance out the uni-directional noise of the mercenary opposition?"
Some pundits surely think every word they write is true. But others are simply frightened that being fair will hand the battle to the enemy. Such is the lamentable nature of mass media; in a shouting match, it's hard to yell something fair and balanced and still be heard.
2. As for stem cell research, the actual funding is not the point; it's the precedent. We don't want to become one of those countries where state deference to religion really does stifle science in a big way (currently, all of those are Islamic countries, but not historically). We are not yet close to becoming one of those countries. Good. It's worth fighting to keep us from getting any closer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment