Classic False Equivalence on Political Science Abuse
Political conservatives in the U.S. today have overwhelming problems with science. They reject, in large numbers, mainstream and accepted knowledge on fundamental things about humans and the planet–evolution, global warming, to name a few. I also recently posted about how systematically conservatives undermine science with respect to reproductive health.
And this is still just the tip of the iceberg.
When this kind of thing gets pointed out, there is one response you can count on: Someone tries to show that liberals do the same thing. This typically involves finding a few relatively fringe things that some progressives cling to that might be labeled anti-scientific. But usually, the allegedly anti-science position is not mainstream or has relatively little political influence. Sometimes, the argument is even weaker still, because science-related policy disagreements are confused with cases of science rejection, ignoring a very basic distinction that is central to any discussion in this area.
Case in point: An oped in USA Today by one Alex Berezow, arguing that
In short, for every anti-science Republican that exists, there is at least one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy. Indeed, ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway.
This is a truly mind-boggling statement. What is this numerical claim based on? I can give you polling data on Tea Party followers, for instance, who reject evolution and climate change in dramatic numbers. I’d love to see similar data on a scientific topic where liberals reject a widely accepted scientific fact in similar numbers, and do so for clear political reasons.
The cases adduced for liberal science abuse by the author are similarly flimsy. For instance, PETA is cited, because it opposes animal research. First, this is mostly a moral issue. Second, and as I noted in my book The Republican War on Science, animal rights activists actually do reject the science on this issue, by saying that animals aren’t really needed in medical research…but the author doesn’t even note it. Third: The fundamental point is that PETA is not a liberal group commanding wide assent for its views on the left, doesn’t drive mainstream Democratic policy, etc. The example is completely non-parallel to conservatives’ increasingly monolithic rejection of climate science.
Something similar could be said of the other examples: GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccine denial:
1) GMOs: there’s some progressive resistance and some misuse of science in this area–no doubt. I wrote about that in The Republican War on Science too. But again, it is not a mainstream position, not a significant part of the liberal agenda, etc. The specific case cited by the author (some Pacific northwestern Democratic senators resisting GM salmon) may contain a misuse of science–I don’t know–but it is not obvious that it does. This looks at first glance like a policy disagreement, rather than a dispute over the facts of science in which liberals are wrong. Certainly no case is made here that it is more than that, though I would be open to such a case.
2) Nuclear power–this is a pretty good one, because for a long time the left really was anti-nuclear. However, I don’t think that is the case today, and in fact, President Obama’s administration is pretty much pro-nuclear. And again, the author makes no case that nuke opponents are factually wrong about, say, the risk of low-dose radiation. (Although some of them are.)
3) Vaccines–polling data suggests that distrust of vaccines is rather bipartisan, but I actually agree with the author in suspecting those data aren’t that good and that this is more of a left wing thing. But of course, liberal journalists like myself, and liberal commentators, have pretty much chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse. We’ve held our own accountable and really, you cannot defend this view any more without being pilloried.
Which, of course, is how it works for liberals. We work with scientists and respect them–there is far too much psychological cost for most of us to openly contradict a consensus they’ve reached. Why that’s the case is a much longer story…and perhaps will be for another post.
Comments on this article
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge The Intersection Privacy Policy and agree to The Intersection Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
