Science tells us we must…
Science has been abused for political purposes for centuries. However, it seems that the abuse of science for political ends is lately on the rise.
This article discuses the matter:
To see if our suspicions were correct, we decided to do a bit of informal research, checking Lexis Nexis for growth in the use of what we would categorize as “authoritarian” phrasing when it comes to scientific findings. We searched Nexis for the following phrases to see how their use has changed over the last 30 years: “science says we must,” “science says we should,” “science tells us we must,” “science tells us we should,” “science commands,” “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science compels.”
What we found surprised us. One phrase, in particular, has become dramatically more frequent in recent years: “Science tells us we should.” Increased usage of this phrase leads to a chart resembling a steep mountain climb (or, for those with a mischievous bent, a “hockey stick”). The use of the phrase “science requires” also increases sharply over time. The chart (below) vividly shows the increasing use of those particular phrases. Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not.
It is not speculation that this abuse is going to find its way into the debate about of marriage redefinition. It already has. One of Dr. J’s debates prominently featured an example of just this kind of abuse on the part of Dr. J’s opponent.
Loading ...
What if science tells us that the unborn are living beings, whose unique life began at conception?
Leo,
Get real. Do you think science could ever have anything to say that would contradict leftist orthodoxy?
Puuuh-lease.
Leo,
On a serious note, science can tell us that an abortion would have all of the same effects as the murder of an ordinary newborn by an equivalent method would have. It is up to us to realize that to cause these effects is an act of evil. Science does not tell us anything about whether or not we must stop abortions from happening.
The gay activists are proposing to boycott Target stores simply because the company donated to a candidate who opposes gay “marriage.” Of course this is getting tremendous sympathy from the MSM. I hope many of your readers will write in support of Target!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011983-503544.html
I agree that science would not automatically tell us the required solution to the moral or legal issues at hand. Science per se is morally neutral. It tells us what is, but not necessarily what should be. But “science” and particularly “science says” does tend to frame the debate, often in an authoritarian fashion and often in a fashion used by the left. We should not, however, assume that science favors either the left or the right.
So far science hasn’t been able to tell us what causes homosexuality, when it will occur (pre-birth, or later in life), whether or not it’s “innate” or can be changed (but we do have many examples of change over time), nor has it devised any biological test to determine sexual orientation one way or the other in an infant, cadaver, or unconcious person… So far, science hasn’t explained very much at all on the subject.
But science has shown that we are all born AS either man or woman (barring a few extremely rare abnormalities), and we are all born FROM the union of exactly one man and one woman. Without exception.
Therefore “the science says we must” be extremely cautious about redefining the family unit, away from it’s sin qua non example, to something as ambiguous fluid and not well-understood as “sexual orientation”.
Leo,
Therefore “the science says we must” be extremely cautious about redefining the family unit, away from it’s sin qua non example, to something as ambiguous fluid and not well-understood as “sexual orientation”.
Not really. It depends on the goals of society, now doesn’t it?
Just a turn of the phrase Arly, and maybe a poor attempt at being clever.
“It depends on the goals of society, now doesn’t it?”
Care to expand that a bit?
It depends on what you want from society. If you want to maximize prosperity for all, then you do one thing.
If you want to maximize sexual pleasure for a small elite, you do a completely different thing.
Frankly, one can attempt to organize society around pretty much any principle or set of goals you can think of. It might not work, but that’s a different issue. What issue you choose depends on your goals. And your actions will depend on your goals.
Marty makes a good point that science has not answered a number of important questions at hand. Science is also subject to some degree of uncertainty, sometimes a great degree, and “scientific opinion” should be open to the possibility of future revision when new data come to light.
Arlemagne is, I think, replying to Marty, but in any event makes a point I agree with, that science doesn’t tell us (at least not directly) what our goals (or basic moral values) should be.
Leo,
You wrote: “science has not answered a number of important questions at hand. Science is also subject to some degree of uncertainty, sometimes a great degree, and “scientific opinion” should be open to the possibility of future revision when new data come to light.”
This, in no way, prevents “science” from telling us what we should do. Those who would boss us around do not need to concern themselves with these trifles.
[off-topic]
Fred, thanks for the bulletin. Wrote my letter. And made a point of going in to a pro-marriage purchase* and to personally and warmly and express my support to the store manager, as well. It was not difficult to overhear me along the checkout stalls.
*I picked-up his and her’s bath towels for the latest newlyweds in the neighborhood.