In my review of Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, I contrasted Mooney's book with Gross and Levitt's book about the the postmodern left's war on science, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Now Mooney has got together with Alan Sokal (who punctured the postmodernist view of science) to write an article on the Republican war on science.
Norman Levitt seems to agree with Sokal. Here's an email he sent commenting on my review. (Posted with his permission.)
I think some of your remarks about HS are a bit unfair. The book was
written in 1992-93, at the beginning of the Clinton administration, when
Creationism in any form was pretty quiescent, and before most of the
Republican bludgeoning of science that Mooney addresses had really begun.
If there's one thing I do regret about the book, it's the overly-skeptical
attitude we took toward the more dire scenarios of global warming theorists.
That was a consequence of what we perceived to be a kind of group think in
which scientists tended yield to social and cultural pressures to take an
alarmist stance toward the questions at issue. I still think that was true,
as a matter of sociology, however, the climatological facts are what they
are, independent of what's fashionable or not, and, for a long while, I have
been considerably less skeptical about global warming. In fact, I would now
describe myself as deeply pessimistic. See, for instance, my 1998 book,
"Prometheus Bedeviled," which takes the warming threat much more seriously
than HS did. This will also make clear, I think, how little interest I have
in defending "right-wing" science or obscuring its defects.
I think you should also note that Gross's book, with Forrest, "Creationism's
Trojan Horse," has been far more significant in the fight against ID
machinations than you give it credit for. It provided most of the core
ideas for the judge's broad and detailed ruling against the school board and
the ID proponents backing it. Of course, Steve Fuller did his bit, since
his blithely arrogant testimony on behalf of the defendants supplied damning
evidence against them.HS was written, as is clear from its own statements, to warn against an
interesting, though rather limited threat. Specifically, we were most
concerned that postmodern silliness in regard to the legitimacy of science
would tend to create a rather nasty atmosphere in the academic world
dissolving traditional ties among intellectuals of all sorts and damaging
the morale of the scholarly community as a whole. Frankly, we weren't all
that worried about the fate of science; rather, we were concerned that the
antics of the postmodernists would eventually drag down the "humanities" as
a whole, the good along with the bad."Right-wing" abuse of science, on the other hand, as it has evolved under
Bush, is an altogether different and far more dangerous
phenomenon--dangerous in the bluntest and most alarming sense. It is
anything but an academic matter. The interesting thing is that there are
nonetheless some "scholars" reared in the tradition of postmodern
epistemological critique, who are blind to this fact and remain obsessed
with the intolerable (to them) cognitive hegemony of science. Fuller is the
obvious example. His embrace of a politically toxic right-wing movement
exemplifies, in extreme form, where this chronic resentment of science can
lead.My own piece on Fuller's fawning behavior toward the ID crowd can be found at
talkreason.org, which is an archive of anti-creationist pieces, mostly
analytical ones by scientists. You may be interested in knowing that Jeff
Shallit also appears there. We have long since made our peace and are
comrades in the grim struggle against Dembski, Behe and all that lot.
Shallit has done particularly valuable work in demolishing the
mathematical pretensions of Dembski and exposing his fraudulent claims for
what they are--pseudo-mathematics.
It is kind of interesting how the politics of anti-science has changed. When I grew up 60's & 70's it seemed that the threat to science came from the left. It had started with a dislike of science used for military purposes, but also vilified anything with the word Nuclear attached. Now it seems the real Luddites are on the right.
My local federal member Dr Dennis Jensen is a scientist with a PhD from Monash who spent time as a researcher with the CSIRO. He is actively campaigning for nuclear energy. Yet his last newsletter consisted mainly of a roundup of denialist views on AGW, including the claim of a global warming industry amongst climate researchers. He links to the Oregon Petition from his website!
I can't get my head around how someone can be pro-science on some issues and so anti-science on others, particularly as AGW could be used as support for his nuclear energy push.
bitTom, The left's revulsion at science in the sixities is completely different from the anti-intellectual attack on science that comes from postmodernism and right-wing ideologues. The latter want to deny scientific facts in order advance a political agenda.
The left of sixties saw science as a threat for what it could actually do, for the power of science to create things that they felt were morally wrong. It's not as if anti-war protestors denied the existence of nuclear science or chose to doubt Newtonian physics because they didn't like military weapons.
i.e. the assertion is not supported by the evidence. In fact the scientists were yielding to their understanding of the science. Perhaps a better analysis would be that
But from his own words, it would appear Levitt was so busy focussing on a fantasy which was ultimately disproved that he failed to notice what was really going on - even though it was as plain as the nose on his face. Some critic.
I guess this is Dennis Jensen's PhD thesis:
"Jensenâ , D., "Duplex Toughening of Zirconia-Based Ternary Alloys", PhD, 1997"
which was done in the Department of Materials Engineering. People who know much more about climatology than Jensen probably knows have joined the denialist bandwagon.
This is different again from the "left-wing" post-structuralist critique of science associated with Michel Foucault, and also feminist theory, which links scientific knowledge and social power very directly. In this critique, science is understood as an aspect of the naturalization as "true", "rational" and "commonsense" of a range of social structures, such as patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism and so forth.
"...can't get my head around how someone can be pro-science on some issues and so anti-science on others, particularly as AGW could be used as support for his nuclear energy push."
That gives one an idea of just how right-wing politically correct the guy is. Even if something could support a major cause for him, the fact that it's verboten is enough cause to deny.
"Right-wing" abuse of science, on the other hand, as it has evolved under Bush,..."
Abuse of science might have reached a pinnacle under Bush, but it started long before. It is really an outgrowth of the attempt by the religious right to merge church and state. A significant part of that effort has been the push to establish right wing "intstitutes" (think tanks) to get out the "truth" --- on science and other matters --, which itself has been in the works for over 20 years.
The idea that "everybody abuses science so get over it" seems to be the current fashionable view among some political scientists (particualarly those concerned with science policy).
I know nothing about Jensen except what's reported here, but I do know that endorsing the veiew that AGW poses great risks because it would "support his nuclear energy push" would be contrary to principles of scientific method. That something would support a cherished agenda is not evidence either for or against that something.
Bob, that was not my point. My point was that, even when the scientific consensus on something would be otherwise favorable to him, he'll reject it if it's politically incorrect.
but I do know that endorsing the veiew that AGW poses great risks because it would "support his nuclear energy push" would be contrary to principles of scientific method.
Actually, it would have nothing to do with "the scientific method".
"This is different again from the "left-wing" post-structuralist critique of science associated with Michel Foucault, and also feminist theory, which links scientific knowledge and social power very directly."
And yet again different from, though related to, Feyerabendian anarchism (see, e.g., How to defend society against science; I wonder how Feyerabend would react to the "Junk Science" and ID movements of today since while he was enthused by some advances of creationism, I think the way they mobilize power would cause him to side with science; I was never quite sure what to make of Feyerabend's enthusiam for alternative medicine and telepathy -- he could well have been joking).
While Feyerabend is an extreme (self-consciously so), he is also deeply rooted in mainstream philosophy of science (esp. the backlash against naive Popperism). I think he would oppose the abuse of science we see today because that abuse is part and parcel of an objectionable acquisition and exercise of power. That is, it is not part of a resistance to a domineering ideology, but a weapon of an ideology (well, that's a bit simplistic; there are a lot of groups that use science abuse; some are systematically ideological, like fundementalism, while others are more opportunistic, like tobacco companies; and these have complicated interrelationships, of course).
But from his own words, it would appear Levitt was so busy focussing on a fantasy which was ultimately disproved that he failed to notice what was really going on - even though it was as plain as the nose on his face. Some critic.
It wasn't plain at all. The early nineties models for AGW were horrible. There were major predictive failures, which were finally explained and fixed, e.g. by including the effects of aerosols. AGW is also far more complex and messy than described in most popular accounts. I am far more inclined to trust the judgement of someone who was skeptical early on and became convinced as the science improved, than someone who jumped on the bandwagon right away, because the latter person probably has an ulterior motive for embracing the theory.
Except that is not why he opposed AGW early on. By his own account, he was suspicious of scientific "group think", and allowed this to sway his analysis of the science. Meanwhile the obvious group think of the corporate world, already clearlyy documented in the response of tobacco companies to anti-smoking measures, for example, was ignored. In many cases this kind of ignorance even extended to the era of astro-turf, when the behaviour of these corporations was clear for all to see - especially for those who are bothering to write books about the topic and therefore, presumably, doing something resembling research.
Since Kyoto, these "critics" have been confusing consensus with group think. Which is unsurprising when one considers the preponderance of libertarians ("there is no such thing as society") amongst AGW skeptics - an ideology that can`t distinguish collective action from tyranny.