Michael Crichton on Propaganda, Religion, and Environmentalism

[WillJ]

Originally posted by DamnCommie
I really wish he'd cited the journal articles from which he draws his facts though, rather than just claiming he could. As it is, he just asks us to blindly believe him, the very thing he is condemning in his essay.
Believe that DDT is a carcinogen and you are a foolish, religious sheep, he claims, but when he tells us that the banning of DDT has killed 10 million poor children, we are expected to swallow it without question.
Cite the journals and let us draw our own conclusions please. The scientific method is, after all, what he is advocating in this essay.

I agree. When someone claims that DDT and second-hand smoke are harmless, I'd like some sources.

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
This particular speech contains many vague statements about scientific positions "DDTs are good", "Climate change is a farce", "renewable energies are useless", and instead of giving sources, he tells us to take his word for it, because "we won't listen anyways." Without sources, his statements about the scientific specifics are in question, especially with his particular history.

I think his point is to show the initiative and find these things out for yourself. You obviously have internet access, and Google is a wonderful tool. Have at it.

 

[Chauliodus]

Isn't selling out just another way of saying success?

Hardly, he could have pushed to have his novels made into atleast decent movies(minus The Andromida Strain, the first Jurassic Park and the 13th Warrior, course the latter two I really overlook their faults cus I'm fond of them), but signed them away to be action films.

Look at Timeline, completely butchered.

 

[Gothmog]

A nice essay, but certainly nothing new. I totally agree with this part

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures.

but he forgot the part that goes ‘kids today are lazy, violent, immoral, and don’t respect their elders’ .

A lot of my work is in environmental science and when discussing my work I often find myself explaining to people that life has always been a struggle to survive and that nature is in no way benevolent and that humans have never lived ‘in harmony’ with nature.

Really he is discussing the gap between science and policy. For example from the current consensus on climate science many different policies can be supported. This is not a scientific question but a political one. There is no question, scientifically, that we have changed the radiative balance of our atmosphere (by way of greenhouse gasses and aerosols). The unknown is how the climate system will respond to that change.

As far as DDT, the kids he is referring to dying die from malaria and other blood born diseases that are transmitted by mosquitoes. Widespread use of DDT is amazingly effective against mosquitoes and nothing else comes close (yet). DDT was not banned because it is a carcinogen (apple peels on the other hand are chock full of ‘carcinogens’). DDT was banned because it is a bioaccumulator that, along with some of its metabolites, mimics hormonal action in some animals and so has tetrogenic effects. It is not unique in this respect, but again the decision was political and not scientific.

I also take issue with his characterization of the blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine. I read the summary and it did not contradict the IPCC report, it did not say that the UN was wrong. It just had a different emphasis. The question of economy weighed much more heavily in their report.

IMO, his statement that we need to ‘get politics out of your thinking about the environment’ is naïve and his statements about the problems of an ‘environmental religion’ can just as easily be applied to any religion. Eyrie makes a nice point about how environmentalism differs in that most of its tenants can actually be addressed by hard science, but still a value judgment (and so political decision) must be made even when the science is clear.

Environmental science continues and his extollation that we base our policy decisions on it is nice but much easier said than done (especially with recent moves by our president to hand pick members of scientific review comities rather than allow selection by peers).

That said, I would welcome increased funding for hard science and an increased political roll for scientists. But that is much more likely to come from our political left than our political right (here in the US).

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by Gothmog
Anvironmental science continues and his extollation that we base our policy decisions on it is nice but much easier said than done (especially with recent moves by our president to hand pick members of scientific review comities rather than allow selection by peers).

Wow, another reason to hate Bush. Why is it not obvious to everyone that this man and his administration decide policy first, then find "facts" to back it up. What an *******.

Nice post BTW.

 

[Gothmog]

Thanks.

I didn't need another reason to hate Bush but the politicalization of 'blue ribbon panels' is now at the top of my list. There has been a lot of discussion about it in the pages of Science in the last year. Scientists were actually asked about their political leanings and whether they voted for Shrub as part of decisions as to who would serve on certain scientific advisory panels. As well as their scientific opinion, totally unprecedented.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I'm taking a leap here, Gothmog, but I'd dare say that many scientists are heavily politicized in today's climate (no pun intended) and are more bent on using science to back their solid political beliefs than pure science for science' sake.

If this is what Bush did, I'm sure it is because he knows of this very real problem. Still, I certainly would want scientists who are respected by their peers more so than their stances on particular issues.

 

[Gothmog]

@CK

Yes, scientists are people too and some of us have been known to misuse scientific authority. This is probably more true in climate science than other areas, but in general scientists are too busy doing science (and trying to maintain funding) to be 'heavily politicized'.

But the scientific community is well aware of who these people are, of which scientists have given up their credibility in the name of political expediency, and those people are not respected. Further, they do not publish in well respected journals nor are their publications well recieved. Quality of science is a harsh metric and cannot be faked. It is much harder for outsiders to make these distinctions. This is why peer review is so valuable.

Take a look at the IPCC report and you will see good science, state of the art, meant to inform policy makers and not to set policy. The scientists that compose the IPCC committee are highly respected people at the top of their respective fields.

It is the opinion of many scientists (from all over the political spectrum) that GWB took the actions that he did because he has a very specific agenda he wants carried out and he discovered that scientific advisory committees were causing him problems. Basically what Kilroy said above.

Even scientists who support GWB are worried by this because it will be very hard to undo the damage he has done, the precedent he has set. It seems that the real problem is that he wants to put the cart before the horse.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Thanks, Gothmog, for your very nice, poignant response.
I figured what you said to some degree, but not that concisely. Point well made. Well said.

Thank you,

CK

 

[Laughing Gull]

no DDT---> lots of mosquitos ---> lots of disease, like malaria -----> booming populations ----> more disease

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Gothmog; numbered by me
(1) IMO, his statement that we need to ‘get politics out of your thinking about the environment’ is naïve and (2)his statements about the problems of an ‘environmental religion’ can just as easily be applied to any religion.

Care to elaborate on (1)?

On (2), it sounds like he'd be all too happy to complain about the similar problems of other religions, especially those not officially recognized as religions. I know I would.

Unfortunately, I'm supposed to get back to work now. More later.

 

[Gothmog]

(1) Environmental decisions are at their core value judgments and thus political decisions. Do we want an ozone layer, or more efficient refrigerators? Do we want cheap energy or to risk potential climate change? (note that technologies do exist that could remove CO2 from exhaust systems just like we do for SO2, it’s just prohibitively expensive to do so – currently it would increase costs associated with energy by roughly an order of magnitude).

Science can inform policy but will never set policy. If there were a perfect solution everyone would agree, but there are always trade offs to be made and that is where the value judgments come in. Is what you are gaining more valuable than what you are losing, and visa versa. What is your metric? Even people who agree on the science involved will not necessarily agree on the politics (see the arsenic in water debate). Environmental policy decisions are political by their very nature and IMO it is naïve to think otherwise.

(2) Complaining doesn’t solve anything but he claims to have a “fundamental answer”. However, he also says "I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead" because he knows (as I do) that “These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith”. So how is it different for people who treat environmentalism as a religion? This is just how most humans think.

My point is that he is really just discussing how humans make value judgments, but he points to environmentalism as a particular problem. For myself, I have more sympathy for people who make their value judgments based on a pagan sort of love for nature, than for those who make their value judgments based on dogmatic interpretations of the Bible by church bureaucracies (not to imply that all religious people do that but many certainly do).

Ever hear of the term ‘manifest destiny’? The justifications certainly were the sort of dogmatic religious stuff I refer to above.

 

[MummyMan]

Classic crichton, he does this in all his books, working it into a great plot, which is why he's such a good author.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Kilroy

I think his point is to show the initiative and find these things out for yourself. You obviously have internet access, and Google is a wonderful tool. Have at it.

Perhaps, but in my opinion it was a real big whole in his article. I am mostly critiquing the way he presented his case. I don't agree with him on a couple points, but they are mostly superficialities, so I am criticizing his presentation ability, as it damaged his position a bit.

I believe his point mostly has to do with ditching "religiosity", and I agree with him.

 

[Smidlee]

separating religion from science is like trying to separate money from science. it seems down thur history that religion ( and war) is what drives science. In order to remove religion from science you have to remove people also .

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Gothmog
(1) Environmental decisions are at their core value judgments and thus political decisions. Do we want an ozone layer, or more efficient refrigerators? Do we want cheap energy or to risk potential climate change?

Agreeing that decisions require value judgments and political decisions, to what extent do you think that scientists can and should assert controversial factual claims? Also, suppose just for the sake of argument that the vast majority of scientific experts in a given field agree on the broad outlines of a particular policy decision. Should they hold their tongues, for the sake of maintaining a "wall of separation" between science and politics?

If there were a perfect solution everyone would agree,

That's not true, by the way. It's not even true that if there were a perfect solution along with clear evidence that it was perfect, then everyone would agree. But I think I get your point.

However, he also says "I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead" because he knows (as I do) that “These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith”. So how is it different for people who treat environmentalism as a religion? This is just how most humans think.

It is different in that the overlap between faith and fact is more blatant in the environmental religion. By overlap, I mean that issues of fact are being treated as issues of faith. By "more blatant", I guess I just mean that the religion in question is young enough that it hasn't had time to get people used to the idea of treating these factual issues as if they were not to be addressed scientifically. Therefore people will still have the decency to be embarassed when the overlap is brought to their attention. Strike while the iron is hot!

My point is that he is really just discussing how humans make value judgments, but he points to environmentalism as a particular problem.

I wouldn't say this is how humans make value judgments. This is how humans make all judgments, unless they make a valiant effort not to. And even then, some will slip through.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Michael Crighton, quoted by Kilroy

Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

The disinformation age, yup. To me, this is the most vital point. The example of environmentalism is only that: one example. The real problem is general: weeding out disinformation and self-delusion is a demanding task.

I have to take exception to the sloppy "which [perceptions] are false because they are handed down". Despite the disinformation, what is handed down contains more truth than error. Nor would it be possible, much less wise, to independently verify everything one was told, or to reject it all until verified. Putting disingenuous communications aside for a moment, there is no particular priveledge of my own thought over that of others. I am just as human as they are.

However, there are two obvious things one can do. 1. Exercise more care. 2. Form a "support group". Addictions are much easier to conquer when you have support, and self-delusion has a lot in common with standard addictions. Belief, sadly, is definitely habit-forming.

Anyone want to join my support group? Just kidding, sort of. The worldwide community of rational inquirers is a support group. But - here's the serious part - it would help a lot if we recognized it as such.

 

[Gothmog]

@Ayatollah So – A late response for you.

to what extent do you think that scientists can and should assert controversial factual claims?

Scientists have a right to assert controversial claims just like any other member of our society so I am not sure what you are asking here. I don’t think there should be a wall of separation between science and politics, I am just pointing out that science can inform policy but not set policy. If a politician wants to say that there is no credible scientific evidence for the ozone hole, then scientists need to speak out. If a politician wants to say that he does not care about the ozone hole more than he cares about efficient refrigerators, then a scientist can disagree just like any one else but that is not a question for science. If a bunch of scientists agree on a policy decision it has more to do with their shared values than anything else.

For example we recently had a poster who claimed to be a graduate physics student at Cal saying that science showed that life begins at the moment the sperm and egg combine, and so all abortion should be outlawed. This claim has more to do with his values than with anything that science has to say about when a collection of molecules become an individual human with rights. He has the right to his opinion, but was misusing scientific authority to try and sway other people’s opinions.

That's not true, by the way. It's not even true that if there were a perfect solution along with clear evidence that it was perfect, then everyone would agree.

Well, if you want to play the semantic game then I would say that a perfect solution is by definition one that everyone agrees on .

It is different in that the overlap between faith and fact is more blatant in the environmental religion. By overlap, I mean that issues of fact are being treated as issues of faith. By "more blatant", I guess I just mean that the religion in question is young enough that it hasn't had time to get people used to the idea of treating these factual issues as if they were not to be addressed scientifically.

I don’t know what you were trying to say here. How is the ‘overlap’ more blatant? What factual issues are you referring to?

I wouldn't say this is how humans make value judgments. This is how humans make all judgments, unless they make a valiant effort not to.

The vast majority of judgments are value judgments, but not all. If you want to decide which rock is heavier, or which car faster, you do not need to make a value judgment. You need a way of measuring mass or velocity. If you want to decide which rock to move, or car to buy, then you need to make a value judgment.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Gothmog
@Ayatollah So – A late response for you.
If a politician wants to say that there is no credible scientific evidence for the ozone hole, then scientists need to speak out. If a politician wants to say that he does not care about the ozone hole more than he cares about efficient refrigerators, then a scientist can disagree just like any one else but that is not a question for science. If a bunch of scientists agree on a policy decision it has more to do with their shared values than anything else.

We are close but maybe not in agreement. Scientists are unrepresentative of the general public, but not wildly so. If the vast majority of them agree that CFC's should be tightly restricted or banned, that is because the main variation in the public's political beliefs on the ozone question results from variation in scientific beliefs. In other words, very few people are willing to say "damn the solar radiation, full speed ahead!" Pretty much the only live question is the scientific one.

I don’t know what you were trying to say here [on environmentalism-as-religion]. How is the ‘overlap’ more blatant [for environmental-religion]? What factual issues are you referring to?

With traditional religions, the factual issues include the evolution of species. With "environmental religion", an example factual issue is whether agricultural, pre-industrial people suffered lower mortality from pollution.

Even though both are scientific issues, a lot more people are willing to insulate their beliefs about evolution from scientific assessment.

Clear now?

The vast majority of judgments are value judgments, but not all. If you want to decide which rock is heavier, or which car faster, you do not need to make a value judgment. You need a way of measuring mass or velocity. If you want to decide which rock to move, or car to buy, then you need to make a value judgment.

Then you need a way to measure value. Ultimately, I think this does become a scientific issue, although current science is so inadequate to the task that all conclusions are highly debatable, including the very possibility that any science bears on value questions. Ultimately, though, the fact-value dichotomy doesn't have a leg to stand on.

That's way off-topic though. (Good thing this is the off-topic forum )

 

[Gothmog]

@Ayatollah So
Indeed we are close but not in full agreement.

I was not saying that scientists are unrepresentative of the general public, but that they share values based on similar backgrounds and living conditions the same way that coal workers might.

You state that the only live question wrt CFC’s is the scientific one, but in fact the most common argument I hear against the CFC ban is that CFC’s can’t reach the stratosphere because they are heavier than air. This is not a ‘live’ issue in any sense of the word (that mixing between the troposphere/stratosphere is dominated by convective rather than diffusive forces) and shows me that people in general do not understand science well enough to use it as a basis for their judgments on the CFC ban. They use ingrained belief systems. I may not agree with these, but in a democracy I must live with them.

Additionally, there are lots of people who think that man cannot harm the ozone layer, or global climate, or deplete global forests, because only God can mess with such large systems or something to that effect. This relates to my reference to ‘manifest destiny’ above, it was one of the first environmental policies ever and was based solidly on the bible and the belief that the world was put here for our exploitation.

In the climate debate many people do in fact say ‘damn the change in the radiative balance, full speed ahead’, but even more just deny that humans have changed said balance in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.

I think that people in general are very happy to insulate their beliefs from scientific assessment.

A value assessment can potentially be approached from a cost/benefit pov, and these do lend themselves to a scientific analysis if a purely dollar sign approach is used (and the science is advanced enough). But really this is my point, there are many costs/benefits to which an objective cost cannot be assigned. For example, in many cases a dollar sign must be attached to the quality or length of life of other humans. This price tag is not a scientific question but a value judgement.

Sure you can try to assess the economic value that a forest provides through cleaning the air and water, and through sustainable cultivation of forest products. But what about the aesthetic? What if you simply feel better knowing there are old growth forests in the world? How do you put a value on a walk through an old growth redwood forest? What if you believe that the forest is sacred and priceless? Once again science can only inform this debate, not decide it.

What if the decision is between having old growth forests and providing economic growth for the current populace?

In the arsenic debate I mention one must decide if the number of person-years saved by reducing arsenic levels in drinking water from 50 ppb down to 10 ppb is worth the expense of doing so.

The fact/value dichotomy stands strong and will never change. People value things in different ways, even people with access to, and agreement on, the same facts.