People
The New Party News

News from the New Party

Friday, March 16, 2007

Sovietised science betrays Enlightenment values

Mike Hulme, the Professor of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia has written a chilling piece for the Guardian, in which he rejects the scientific method in favour of ideologically driven pseudoscience.  He calls this post-normal science.

“Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives.”

So far so good, but then:
“But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.” [our emphasis] 
Although we would agree that scientific knowledge should always be provisional (and the attempt to close off debate on issues around climate change rather go against that principle), the suggestion that scientific knowledge might be modified by interaction with society.  Surely scientific knowledge should only be subject to modification through the application of scientific method.  Public policy might be modified by new scientific discoveries, but the scientist’s role is not that of policymaker.

 “Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.

It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.”

What Hulme is describing here is not science at all, but politics – or more to the point, the politicisation of science.  By downgrading the scientific method to the same level as professional or office politics is hardly an inspiring vision for budding scientists of the future.
But it gets much worse:

 “Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.” [our emphases]

By the “socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science”, what Hulme is basically talking about are ideological presuppositions and prejudices.  And by suggesting that scientists trade truth for influence, and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity, he is explicitly inviting scientists to depart the scientific for the political realm.  Worse still, there is an implicit threat in the final phrase: Hulme would require scientists to declare their personal ideological standpoint – which should in any case be irrelevant to any proper scientific enquiry.  This is where the conspiracy theorists come in: are scientists who challenge current climate change orthodoxy in the pay of the oil industry?  Do they have some political agenda of their own?  Are they just evil – “climate change deniers” who should be ostracised from civilised society, or worse?  What Hulme is describing is the Sovietisation of science – a totalitarian impulse to subvert the fundamental scientific quest for objective truth objectively sought.  It is the ultimate betrayal of science itself.

Melanie Phillips comments:

“The real fight is between scientists who believe in empirical observation and the truth, and ‘post-normal’ scientists who believe in ideology and lies. It’s a battle between Enlightenment values of rationality and those who wish to return us to a pre-rational era where thought was controlled and truth was a heresy. The stakes could not have been delineated more clearly.”

We have stated before (paraphrasing Oliver Kamm), that the ideological battle of the twenty-first century will be between those who are prepared to defend liberal values and those who would see them betrayed.  While this is clearly demonstrated by the politics of the climate change debate (and this is true regardless of whether the claims for man-made climate change are correct), the same mindset is evident in other fields of scientific and academic inquiry. 

David Conway in the Civitas weblog refers to the case of Oxford University’s Professor of Demography, David Coleman, whose dismissal is being demanded by a group of students associated with a group lobbying on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers, on the grounds of the professor’s association with Migration Watch UK.  Conway remarks:
Among their several complaints against Professor Coleman is that he has used his status as a university professor to legitimise the views and reports produced by Migration Watch UK.

In the apparent absence of any reasons or arguments adduced by the students against these views and reports, one feels like retorting it is they who are using their status as Oxford university students to de-legitimise free debate about an important public issue and to stifle academic freedom.”
In this case as well, ideological concerns are not only prioritised over academic concerns – the academic concerns are not even considered.  The rightness or wrongness of Coleman’s views, or even those of his detractors, are not relevant in this context.  As Professor of Demography of Oxford University Coleman is practically obliged to have an opinion on the subject of mass immigration to this country.  The fact that some students have taken exception to his views is unfortunate, but beside the point.

A third case has come to light today in Leeds; the Telegraph reports:

“A leading university has been accused of "selling out" academic freedom of speech by scrapping a talk on links between the Nazis and Islamic anti-semitism after allegedly receiving emails from Muslims protesting about the event.

Matthias Küntzel, a German author and political scientist who specialises in the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, was told yesterday by the University of Leeds that a talk scheduled for yesterday evening, and a two-day workshop, on Hitler's Legacy: Islamic Anti-semitism in the Middle East, had been cancelled because of security fears.

In a statement yesterday, two academics in the Leeds German department, which had organised the event, claimed the university had bowed "to Muslim protests". Dr Küntzel said he had given similar addresses around the world and there had been no problems.”

Strong, independent universities serve a hugely important role in society as exemplars of the objective search for truth.  However, the pervasive influence of malign forces such as the overt politicisation of science, the harassment of scientists and academics who do not conform to externally defined ideological imperatives, and the simple surrender to mob rule are fatally weakening this essential pillar of western civilisation.  Science, and intellectual inquiry generally, is on the threshold of a new dark age.