{I actually started writing this weeks ago, got bogged down and
distracted, and never finished it. Now, I have decided to
just go ahead and finish it up, even though I am not entirely happy
with it. Hey, I am not getting paid for this, so so what if
it is not a polished piece of work.}
I just finished reading
rel="tag" href="http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/about.php">Chris
Mooney's column in Seed Magazine,
href="http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/as_science_goes_so_goes_the_na.php?utm_source=SB-rightcol&utm_medium=linklist&utm_campaign=internal%2Blinkshare">As
Science Goes, So Goes the Nation, which is a
thought piece about the war on science. Then I read his
href="http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/06/as_science_goes_so_goes_the_na.php#more">blog
post about the column. I'm not going to rehash what
he says there; it is perfectly clear as it is. I do want to
mention one thing that this reminded me of, that I had intended to blog
about long ago, but never did.
One of the main reasons that Microsoft is a successful company, is that
they perfected the marketing technique of
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD">FUD: fear,
uncertainty, and doubt. Just like their operating system,
they did not invent FUD; they merely used it more effectively that
others did. In this post, I argue that there is a striking
similarity between the FUD strategy, and the current Administration's
approach to science.
Chris argues that the concept of the "Republican War on Science"(RWOS)
is a durable meme. In fact, it could be an effective
component of a strategy to undermine the popularity and effectiveness
of the political techniques employed by the Administration.
He says that he often gets questions about the concept of the
RWOS. It particular, people wonder whether it is too narrow
of a conceptualization of the Republican strategy:
When I give talks about what I dubbed the "war on
science" that has been waged during this administration, I often get
questions asking whether that isn't too narrow a framing of the issue.
Shouldn't I be talking about a "war on expertise," or even a "war on
truth"? Whenever I hear this, I generally agree with the person asking
the question, and then go on to crack a joke about how the attacks on
science alone are more than enough for one writer to handle.
What those questions are about, is the idea the the RWOS is just a part
of a larger strategy. When he responds that "the attacks on
science alone are more than enough for one writer to handle," he is
saying that the larger strategy is so large that it is difficult for
any one person to comprehend. No doubt, there are parallels
to the war on science in other fields, such as foreign policy, energy
policy, environmental policy, and so on. The efforts in
energy policy, for example, include attacks on the science, but also
attacks in the area of politics, commerce, and public opinion.
I would argue that the RWOS is fact a component of a broad strategy,
and that the strategy involves so many areas of expertise that it is
indeed difficult for any one person to grasp.
I agree with those who propose that conceptualizing the Republican
strategy as a FUD
strategy can make the complexity of it more understandable.
Once it is understood, perhaps, it can be defeated.
The element of fear certainly is present, as embodied in
href="http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3227">this line:
“the first sign of a ‘smoking
gun' … may be a mushroom cloud.”
The debate about immigration, and even the debate about gay marriage,
can be viewed as example of fear-mongering. I don't need to
belabor this point; it has been done, amply, in the excellent BBC
documentary,
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm">The
Power of Nightmares. The documentary
consists of three 1-hour parts, and can be
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=nightmares">downloaded
from Google Video, or from
href="http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares">Internet
Archive. (I originally downloaded it from a link
found on
href="http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives/2006_01_01_amleft_archive.html#113830670320680749">American
Leftist, but that link is no longer valid.)
Politicians used to be seen as mere managers of
public life. But now, they have discovered a new role, that
restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering
dreams, politicians now promise to protect us...from nightmares.
This is discussed by others in the blogosphere.
href="http://www.blogpulse.com/search?query=%22The+Power+of+Nightmares%22&offset=0&operator=&start_date=&end_date=&sort=&max_results=&x=0&y=0">Blogpulse
lists 426 matches. For example,
href="http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2006/06/power-of-nightmares_05.html">this,
at Blondsense:
How frighteningly familiar is this? We've all stated
and reminded each other time and time again that there is no 'quick
fix' to our current problems and that the neo-cons have been plotting
for years, but even I was shocked to see how far back and how deep
seeded their plans run. But once you read the articles and/or see the
documentary a LOT of things are going to click.
a review of the series, which,
incidentally, can be purchased from Amazon, if you don't care to
download three hours of video. They refer to the film as "a
deliberately, audaciously provocative piece, with a great deal of
cheeky smart-alecky humor." I mention that to let people know
that it is kind of fun to watch, in addition to being disturbing and
enlightening.
The concepts of uncertainty and doubt
are a little harder
to define. It is not always easy to differentiate
between
the two. For the purpose of this essay, I will define uncertainty
as a state of mind that arises when one is uncertain of one's own
capacity to make a good decision. Doubt,
on the other hand, I will define as a state of mind that arises when
one lacks confidence in the decision of another person.
What is the psychological effect of fear, uncertainty, and doubt?
As it happens, in the face of FUD, what most people do is to
turn to someone who seems like a leader.
Then, they just do what the leader tells them is the right
thing to do.
That being the case, all a good dictator has to do, is to sow FUD, then
figure out how to seem like a leader.
This is something that I never understood very well.
It is basically the same thing as winning a popularity
contest.
I think that if we can get people to see this two-pronged (sow FUD,
seem like a leader) strategy for what it is, then there is a good
chance that we can defeat the (Republican) War on Science.
- Log in to post comments
The Bush administration has not been against science in any conceivable way. I hate to see people use a lie to push a politcial cause. I would ask all those concerned with the advancement of science to stay true to the calling of using empirically backed reason to further our understanding of the universe. We should also be more prudent in how we as scientists enter public discourse. Many scientists today have resorted to crying wolf instead of laying out clearly what we know and what we don�t. The global warming debate is one area where scientists have gone too far in entering the realm of politics in the name of science. It is shameful and intellectually dishonest to paint a picture of what is happening that extends far beyond what we know. If we sell our discipline for political ends we will lose forever our voice of empirical based reason.
Simon, I'd encourage you to read any of the documented cases of Bush administration meddling in the scientific process at:
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.h…
If scientists don't stand up for themselves, all of society loses.
Considering the ultimate impact, I don't think that one could say the various opinions about global warming have made or are likely to make an impact. And scientists are as much entitled to opinions as anyone else. The real "wolf" (terrorism) we hear too much about isn't being cried by the scientists.
With the recent rise in gasoline prices, opinions were voiced that, if anything, we need higher prices to encourage people to reduce consumption, an argument that has its merits, but I don't know that it necessarily means that record refinery profits necessarily contributes anything useful to society.
Exactly so, Greg. Environmentalists point out that the price at the pump does not reflect the true cost of the gas: it leaves outthe costs of cleaning up the mess. If gasoline were taxed at a higher rate, and the tax money used to keep the enivornemnt clean, it would be perfectly fair.