Mile Zero
no matter where you go, there you are
Jul 13, 2006
Rescued from comments over at Design Synthesis. I think it's an argument that needs more exposure.
And for that reason, while I personally find it irritating when people advocate mysticism and New Age thinking as equivalent to science, I also find it immoral. It provides cover to the NGOs who won't provide condoms and vaccines to developing nations, the politicians who won't do anything about carbon output, and the fake psychics who take money from people who--thanks to the faithful--will never be informed of just how unreliable those psychics are. Perhaps a placebo can cause cancer remission some of the time--but it's not going to stop HIV, ever. Science might, if people will stop devaluing it by acting like it's just another "faith."
UPDATE: Now, before anyone says anything crazy in comments, remember--that's my job. Patrick notes that this is still a democracy, and that I might simply be mad at the neanderthals occupying power. Fair enough: it is (so far) and I am. But he doesn't link the two together, and perhaps I should have to forestall discussion. After all, the neanderthals in power got there because they were (discussions of voter fraud aside) elected through the democratic process. And therein lies the point of my ethical appeal.
The deciding factor in the last election, we are told and I believe, was "moral values." Most of the time in this country, that's code for "gonna hate me some gays and some Muslims," but I would like to think that it does actually signify some amount of identification with a code of ethics--thou shalt not kill and the rest. Frustrated by a set of policymakers who only pay lip service to these values ("Constitutional amendment to protect marriage! Massive carving of the ten commandments! Mr. Bush, build up that wall!"), many voters find themselves driven toward the fringes--and there they become the subject of animosity by people like me, and the cycle continues.
But what if there were a way to bridge the gap? To appeal to those people in terms they can understand, but not sell out freedom and the scientific method in the process? Much has been made in recent times about the need for political liberals to trumpet their own moral values: fairness, standing up for the little guy, giving everyone access to a good education and healthcare. The same moral case can be made for science--and should be! True, we will never win over the fundamentalists (any more than they will convert me), but we can try to make the case to the decent human beings huddled somewhere around the middle of this country to say that scientists aren't all bad. We can point out that doing good is more effective with science, that it helps us achieve the humanitarian goals that we all, on some level, share. We can save the planet--science can help!
That's my real point here. Yes, I think that an argument for moral authority can be a real rallying point for those already on the side of science. And true, I consider it one of the real differences between me and the "hippies." But I also hope that it might be influential for those who simply don't know the difference, and need someone to explain in simple, inspiring terms why the scientific method is one of hope.
