[PREV - COAL_DEATHS]    [TOP]

MERCHANTS_OF_DOUBT

                                             December 21, 2010


 "Merchants of Doubt" (2010) by
 Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway

 A very good book, about the history of a
 not-so-vast right-wing conspiracy to transform
 scientific results into scientific controversies.

 On various different issues, the objections
 keep coming from the same small set of names
 representing for Conservative Science
 (e.g. Fred Seitz and Fred Singer).

 A handful of tame "scientists" is all it
 takes to turn a near scientific certainty
 into a "controversy" with two-sides that the
 press can cover with equal weight and call
 their job done.


     What is the character of these scientists?

     You're often left with the impression
     that the Seitz and Singer's of the world
     must simply be corrupt: they're opinions
     are for sale to the highest bidder.

     Oreskes & Conway paint a more
     nuanced portrait of Seitz, as an
     anti-communist cold warrior, a hawk
     isolated from his colleagues by his
     increasingly unpopular opinions (e.g.
     support for the Viet Nam war).

            They point to his background in
            research on the atomic bomb, a
            sense of gratitude toward the
            tobacco industry funding of
            scientific research, cite his
            general disgruntlement with other
            scientists.



     So, it is possible that these are
     people they believe that they're
     serving a higher good, and bending (or
     breaking) the truth toward that end.

     That higher good might easily
     be a political one: they're
     confirmed conservatives and
     willing advance that cause,       I want to raise the question:
     even if it means being            is it *only* conservatives
     traitors to science.              who may feel this temptation?

     But the "higher good" might                   Yes, I know that that's a
     even be a scientific cause:                   standard accusation from
     They might feel that                          the Right at this point,
     scientific consensus needs                    but you know, just
     some rebels to keep it                        because there's smoke
     honest, some challengers                      doesn't mean that there's
     that need to be disproved.                    no fire.

        For example, to take a more
        recent case: I regard Freeman
        Dyson's remarks about Global
        Warming as sincerely                 I have some sympathy for
        motivated-- he truly believes        this: I'm a confirmed
        in the value of being a              contrarian myself, so
        "heretic".                           being a heretic makes
                                             sense to me.
           THE_HERETIC

        But I don't know much                So when I look at a book
        about Seitz and Singer.              like "Merchants of Doubt",
        It's easy to project                 I admire the work they did
        the image of villainy                in documenting the right's
        on a blank.                          assault on the truth, and
                                             then check the index to
                                             see what they say about
                                             the nuclear power issue.

                                             Nothing about "nuclear power"...
                                             "nuclear war", yes,
                                             "nuclear winter", yes,
                                             but that's all.

                                                If you wanted to write a
                                                book about technical issues
                                                where the public has been
                                                sold on Doubt when little
                                                exists among the technical
                                                experts, I submit that
                                                nuclear power would have to
                                                be part of the story.

                                                Instead, Oreskes & Conway
                                                have written solely about
                                                Right Wing purveyors of
                                                Doubt: this is a valuable
                                                book, but limited in scope.



--------
[NEXT - SPECTER_OF_DENIALISM]