One of the rewarding things about publishing The Republican War on Science has been to sit back and watch as the book's title phrase has caught on. Now and then one finds bloggers using the words "Republican war on science" without any attribution--which is fine with me. Meanwhile, "war on science" panels are now popping up at conferences. The phrase hasn't exactly achieved the exalted status of other book titles-turned-expressions like "tipping point," of course. But it has taken on a modest life of its own.
Politicians are using it too. For example, at the Yearly Kos science panel in Las Vegas, Wesley Clark referred to the "Republican war on science." And now, the latest acolyte is House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who authored this post on the Hill Blog about the FDA's latest Plan B move. "The Republican war on science suffered a defeat today when the Food and Drug Administration finally approved Plan B for over-the-counter purchase," Pelosi's entry begins. For what it's worth, I don't entirely agree with Pelosi's point here. I would actually argue that the "war on science" is one reason the FDA came up with the bogus idea of imposing age limits on Plan B's availability in the first place. But I will forgive Pelosi for this minor oversight given the title of her post.
The significance of Pelosi's statement goes beyond mere words, of course. That Democrats are adopting this language suggests to me that they think science issues offer a potent means of criticizing the party in power, potentially tying together topics ranging from stem cells to global warming and helping to reinforce the image of a president who's out of touch with the best available information (thus in turn linking the "war on science" to central political issues of the day like Iraq and Katrina).
Given that I have become increasingly convinced that certain politicians must pay an actual price at the ballot box for their misuses and abuses of science, I'm certainly not about to discourage this approach. However, I would strongly advise that, while adopting "war on science" language, Democrats cease forthwith using the phrase "sound science," which many of them seem quite addicted to. As I detail in Chapter 6 of the book, that phrase does not mean what some Democrats apparently think it means. And they are shooting themselves in the foot by using it.
- Log in to post comments
Chris:
I was under the impression that you had borrowed that phrase from someone/somewhere else. I'll take your entry to mean that you did not, that you created it, and from now on will be sure to give you the attribution whenever I find myself using it.
Plus, I'll never use the term "sound science" if I can avoid it. so, kudos to you.
P.S. Speaking of poor use of science-related language, did you notice that in the ads for Ira Flatow's show today on dark matter, he used the the word proof to describe the recent announcements about dark matter? Made me want to fling the radio across the room. Somebody needs to put a bug in that guy's ear--not "proof", but evidence
The phrase "sound science," in a political context, means that they are going to make science sound less authoritative than it really is.
A clarification: Anyone can put the words "war on science" together and many have done it before me. Adding "Republican" just adds one more word and I wouldn't be surprised if that had happened as well, though I can't think of any examples. But I think it's safe to say that the book's appearance and the attention that it generated caused people to start using such phrases more than before.
Not sure about the origin of the phrase "Republican war on science", but I'm pretty sure "Sound Science" comes from the "Study of Sound Bites" (by political "scientists", naturally), to determine those that are most effective in the furtherance of one's political agenda.
"Somebody needs to put a bug in that guy's [Ira Flatow's] ear--not "proof", but evidence"
I agree.
It's very basic, but even some who should certainly know better do not seem to appreciate that in science, one can never "prove", only "disprove."
... which, of course, is why it is critical that every scientific theory be falsifiable.
Any "theory" that can not be disproven is basically useless from a scientific standpoint.
Give Ira a break. Even the title of the article describing the new evidence uses the word "proof."
A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter by Clowe, et al.
No you can't prove something in science in an absolute sense, but you can come very close. Often times, as for evolution, the evidence does lead one to accept the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Even better if the theory is useful in a positive sense for generating hypothsesis based on natural explanations as opposed to supernatural non explanations.
"Even the title of the article describing the new evidence uses the word "proof."
That does not make it OK. They should fix their title and Ira Flatow should get his terminology correct. He is supposed to be educating the public about science.
To say that one has used the scientific method to "prove" something is not only sloppy use of terminology, but actually misrepresents the way science works.
"No you can't prove something in science in an absolute sense, but you can come very close."
Unfortunately, to "prove" (as in mathematics) implies that one has shown -- once and for all -- that something is "true." This is not what science does.
This is not simply a matter of "splitting hairs about the use of the word proof." The whole concept of "proof" is actually the source of a lot of the misundertanding among the general public with regard to scientific theories in particular.
Here's a fairly good explanation:
http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml
"Sound Science" indeed. It would pay to remind everyone that Steve Milloy, probably a major bud of yours, took seed money from Philip-Morris and founded the Committee for Sound Science. The CSS posited, amongst other things, that cigarette smoking wasn't all THAT unhealthy, indeed, it would actually be beneficial to those suffering from Parkinson's Disease. They, or rather, he, also claimed that second hand smoke was not an issue.
"Sound Science" indeed. If Orwell were alive today, he wouldn't be able to stop ejaculating.