A Foolish Consistency in the “War on Science”

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Self-Reliance,” Essays: First Series, 1841

Some folks are having trouble with, or just having a cow over this recent George Will column where he encourages Congress not to cut research spending or support for research universities.  Apparently folks can’t handle the fact that Will could possibly support research funding after he misrepresented and/or cherry-picked facts to argue that global warming just isn’t happening (though Andrew Sullivan notes a different inconsistency involving the stimulus).

(Don’t worry, his use of facts remains selective and inconsistent in this column.  Note the lack of any mention of the research funding in the stimulus or the recently passed COMPETES legislation – can’t credit Democrats in a column meant to encourage Republicans.  And my U.K. readers could probably attest better than I to the disconnect between Lady Thatcher’s words supporting science research and her actions that, well, didn’t.)

Putting aside the ill-considered notion that paying attention to George Will is ever a good idea (Colbert makes the case for no), these demonstrations of brow-furrowing and calls of hypocrisy help highlight another part of the rhetorical straitjacket that is the notion of a ‘war on science.’  If there’s a war on science, then that’s the focus of political choices and policy issues, and you must be for science or against it across the board.  It’s simplistic, but to borrow again from Colbert, we’re at war, pick a side (5:18).  To act in favor of science in one place and against science in another piece (or vice versa) would therefore be counterproductive.

Why expect such a foolish consistency?  Perhaps those who are suffering  cognitive dissonance (making Mooney’s reaction title ironic) are expecting their ‘anti-science’ opponents in the ‘war on science’ to subscribe to the same frames that they do.  But for most, regardless of party, the important political issues are not approached from a perspective first informed by what the science suggests.  Other interests, be they the advancement of a party or an ideology (which seems to be Will’s raison d’être), usually come first.  Take another look at the ‘pro-science’ Will column.  He lists patents and invention before science, and then links it all to his motivation in the very next sentence.

“Such research is what canals and roads once were – a prerequisite for long-term economic vitality.”

This pro-economic growth perspective is pretty consistent with the one identified by Neil deGrasse Tyson when he was asked about which party was for or against science.

While I think Mooney’s concern over cognitive dissonance is relevant, I think it’s directed at the wrong target.  Will is acting consistent to his particular interests, which are not dominated by science, but by conservative ideas and a desire for a relatively (?) unfettered capitalist economy.  By trying to fight a war on science, Mooney and his fellow warriors can’t help but get a bit of a brain freeze over Will’s apparent inconsistency.  Will’s not fighting a war on science; it’s just occasionally collateral damage in his other conflicts.

To be fair, Mooney does raise a good point in his reaction, perhaps wrestling with his own cognitive dissonance.

“Will’s pro-science pretensions are politically beneficial. He’s much more likely to be heeded by incoming Republicans than I am. They don’t consider themselves anti-science either, I’m sure.”

…

“Does this mean we should praise Will when he’s right but attack him when he’s wrong? Does it mean we should nod knowingly? I’m not sure. In a world of gray, rather than black and white, I’m open to suggestions.”

It’s hard for me to read the first question in the last paragraph and not think it rhetorical.  But I don’t know Mooney’s mind.  If he’s really not sure, it might be because to do so would challenge the ideal of the foolish notion that boosted his career.  Would he rather get some political wins for science interests, or maintain this foolish consistency of his war?  Follow your inner Peirce and Dewey, Mooney, and be pragmatic.