Political Science

Over at the New York Times, John Tierney has some excellent analysis of Obama’s choice of John Holdren to be his science advisor.

The Bush administration was often criticized — rightly, I think — for pursuing faith-based science policies. With Holdren as science advisor, it appears this will not change in the new administration. This is to be expected. President Bush is a thoroughly political creature. So is President Obama; you don’t get to be president if you aren’t.

The most important part of the scientific method is its humility. At its very heart is the ability to admit that maybe, just possibly, you could be wrong. If that’s what the evidence shows, then it’s ok to admit it. If you (gasp) don’t know something, that’s ok, too. Instead of just making up an answer, you try to find it out.

The new political science is very different. It replaces humility with Certainty. A large part of the politicized scientist’s job is simply to disagree with the other party. It’s an effective way to raise funding. At least, it is when funding is allocated by political means.

Holdren displays all the hallmarks of The Certainty. For one, he accuses people who disagree with him as being operatives of the other party. Of course they’re wrong, just look at how they vote!

This is not a strong argument. Neither is his primary defense for his party’s preferred global warming policies – the argument from authority. Scientific consensus is on his side. Of course, there once was a time when scientific consensus said that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe. The world as it actually is matters more than merely what people think about it. Millions of people can be wrong, and often are.

But Holdren is Certain. He knows he is right. Scientific consensus is on his side. Just as it was when he and Paul Ehrlich lost that famous bet with Julian Simon. Just as it was when he and others attacked Bjorn Lomborg — who is no Republican — for the crime of dissenting. Tierney notes that Holdren and his co-writers actually “made more mistakes in 11 pages than they were able to find in [Lomborg’s] 540-page book.”

This is faith, not science. President Obama ran on a platform of change. I have no doubt that he will change some things for the better. But his science policies will probably just as faith-based, and just as Certain in the face of contrary evidence, as his predecessor’s.

So it goes.