Political Preconceptions and "Science"

Image credit

There seems to exist a continuum, on one extreme point of which we have pure science (the correct application of the scientific method), while on the other end of which we have pure religion/magic (an erroneous subjective belief to be in possession of absolute truth/objectivity).

What impresses me is just how easy it is nowadays — in an era that is supposed to be scientifically enlightened — to push public perception steadily to the magic end of the continuum in a whole number of issues that are of vital concern to all of us.

I agree with Heller's conclusion that government funded science entails tremendous risks of manipulation (systematic deception of the public), which are the more likely to occur the farther the political class manages to remove itself from effective democratic control, as in a totalitarian regime, or during the present historical phase in Europe, where politicians have found ways to insulate political decision making from stringent democratic control — as by the institutions of the EU, which emaciate national sovereignty and national democratic effectiveness, or a Grand Coalition, as in Germany, where all (major) parties participate in the government, quickly finding ways to accommodate themselves while losing touch with the electorate, and increasingly manipulating the latter instead of exercising democratic control on their behalf.

Where I part company with Heller is in his apparent belief that government is intrinsically evil. I think, in fact, I know government can be exceedingly useful, in ways that cannot be attained by any other institutional arrangement, and that includes organising and financing education and scientific research. But this requires effective democratic control, which is a process subject to its own risks. Democratic control will tend to undergo cyclical swings and needs to be fought for continuously, inevitably leaving a trail of mixed results. But we have no other choice than to try to make it work felicitously, time and again. There are simply too many positives to be missed and too many negatives to be harvested unless we continue to try to make government a thoroughly pluralistic and democratic event.

Those closer to classical liberalism tend to demonise government, ignoring the tremendous contribution that it keeps making to modern civilisation, while at the same time being unaware that, on a selective basis, they are quite happy to rely on government when it is instrumental in enforcing their interests and values. Wishing away government is a nonsensical position in our day and age. We ought to concentrate our efforts on improving the quality of government, rather than wishing it away or trusting in its coercive powers as a guarantee for policies that must be good as they originate in our preferences.

Those closer to socialism tend to glorify government, developing some sort of effervescent and uncritical tunnel vision the moment they sense government to be the tool that will make them realise a pet project of theirs.

This is the entry point of modern secularised religion into political matters: a blanket prejudice concerning the nature of government.  

The "right" believes  all government is evil (subject to the above qualifications), whereas the "left" thinks government is unconditionally good if only it makes itself instrumental in implementing the left's favoured programmes.

For more on data credibility see here.

And a related post on stunted science.