[PREV - COAL_DEATHS] [TOP]
MERCHANTS_OF_DOUBT
December 21, 2010
September 23, 2013
"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 I often want to raise the question:
willing advance that is it *only* conservatives who may
cause, even if it feel this temptation?
means being traitors
to science. I realize that this is a standard
accusation from the right-wing at this
But the "higher good" point, but you know, just because
might even be a there's someone blowing smoke doesn't
scientific cause: mean that there's no fire.
They might feel that
scientific consensus For example, if a scientist stumbled
needs some rebels to across a result that indicated we'd
keep it honest, some overplayed the alarm about Global
challengers that need Warming slightly, wouldn't there be a
to be disproved. temptation to sit on it, if only
because you know what the conservative
critics are going to make of it?
To take a more recent
case: I regard Freeman
Dyson's remarks about
Global Warming as
sincerely motivated-- I have some sympathy for this:
he truly believes in I have contrarian impulses
the value of being a myself, the impulse to play
"heretic". heretic is all too familiar.
THE_HERETIC
So when I look at a book
like "Merchants of Doubt",
But I don't know much I admire the work they did
about Seitz and Singer. in documenting the right's
It's easy to project assault on the truth, and
the image of villainy then check the index to
on a blank. see what they say about
the nuclear power issue.
Nothing about "nuclear power"...
"nuclear war", yes,
"nuclear winter", yes,
but that's all.
I submit that if you're
interested in cases where
the public has been
convinced to Doubt the
consensus among technical
experts, nuclear power
would be a prime example.
NUKE
Instead, Oreskes & Conway
have written solely about
right-wing purveyors of
Doubt:
A valuable book, but
limited in scope.
--------
[NEXT - SPECTER_OF_DENIALISM]