I really didn’t intend to listen to the Moral Maze, in much the same way I don’t go looking at road accidents. But it was about science and what can I say: I was weak, I listened and I paid the price. Let that be a moral lesson to me.
If you didn’t hear it (it was supposed to be about the controversy over certain climate-change emails) you have a few days to catch up with it. For those who didn’t get there quickly enough, in a nutshell: scientists are biased, follow their own interests, like attention and have opinions. My goodness, I think the panel just declared scientists to be human.
Yes, we are all that, like everyone else, and we know it but collectively we want to be something better. Because of that we have built in a system of checks and balances which includes publication of results and methods to our peers. It didn’t take a parliamentary enquiry to do that, the community did it for itself.
Because we might have been partial in our research, we use the science community to act as a check (because our vanity devotion to science means we love to catch someone else out try our hardest to ensure inaccuracies in data or procedure are eradicated.) And because of this people do get caught ‘cooking’ their data which, for the rest of us, is embarrassing and annoying because it lets us all down and worse still it lets ‘science’ down (I’d have them coated in jam and staked out on fire ant hills, I’d even buy the jam.)
Thanks for the offer but I don’t think we need politicians to bring us the gift of skepticism, though they might employ their skeptical eye to their professions’ expense claims if they are looking for something to do. And, for reference, a scientist is not defined as someone with a PhD. Don’t see why you should listen to someone who doesn’t have one? Do you have one?
Referring to the evidence (‘hiding behind the science’ as you so beautifully put it) shuts down the debate, yes? Er, no, it moves the debate to the evidence itself. ‘I don’t care about the evidence, I just believe in freedom’, now that’s an example of shutting down a debate.
Thankfully, before I concluded that Radio 4 were losing their claim to purvey intelligent speech, I listened to the repeat of the first episode of a new series: The Infinite Monkey Cage. What a contrast: people talking and other listening; intelligent questions and room for the audience to think. Was it biased? Yes, it was full of opinion and comment but didn’t claim not to be. Again, if you missed it you can still catch it if you’re quick.
Infinite Monkey Cage