Hi all,

I get so dreadfully few moments to post but I have been lurking. I found this article in the Times by David Aaronovich; thought it might be interesting amongst the boffins here at LGF.

The article itself simply highlights various instances of recent memory of scientific denialism as practiced by various groups. The irony the author does give bit of attention to is how proponents of anthropogenic climate change (most environmentalists) are quick to cite scientific evidence for this development. However the same group of people (tenuously) were quick to deny the science in genetically modified (GM) foods.

I suppose that the overall theme is something that translates into all policy and government making: one cannot crunch/disregard facts in order to perpetuate a a erroneous view.

One of the great features of modern thought is the reliance on evidence, otherwise known as the scientific method. This is what propelled technology to the heights we are seeing today. There is no shame in being wrong about an assumption; that only comes when ideas are held onto even though such ideas are shown to be patently wrong in the light of evidence.

So what of that policy making I was on about a paragraph or so back? Often I have written that political parties cannot seriously regard themselves as simply liberal or conservative. The Republicans, for example, haven’t shred of conservatism left aside from some vague notions of tax cuts and ‘limited government’. Yet, in the same breath many Republicans will talk of protecting social values. This is anomolous since the only way a political party may achieve its ends are through legislation (which means more government!). This small and highly generalised example is only to demonstrate that we are left with ‘blue team-red team’ politics. The parties identify themselves by what the other isn’t.

So my link with the article - yes, right away. Holding on to principle is a admirable quality in many situations. However, this is not the case when dealing with public policy. One must be flexible enough to examine a conflicting view without the sole aim of destroying that counter-point. Where is comes to science, we only have the evidence to rely upon, nothing more.

If a person feels that a study seems flawed, then point out the flaws but at least constructively. We needn’t go on a rampage against the producer(s) of reports. Fight evidence with evidence. Only in the realm of morality are principles to be truly admired. In science (and subsequent public policy), strict devotion to principle and ideals is self-defeating.

And with that, I am off to work out here in London. Good day all.