{"id":3056,"date":"2013-01-22T10:25:33","date_gmt":"2013-01-22T10:25:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=3056"},"modified":"2013-01-22T10:25:33","modified_gmt":"2013-01-22T10:25:33","slug":"jeff-forshaw-on-science-and-politicians","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2013\/01\/22\/jeff-forshaw-on-science-and-politicians\/","title":{"rendered":"Jeff Forshaw on science and politicians"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A good article in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/science\/2013\/jan\/13\/jeff-forshaw-climate-change-science\">Observer<\/a> last week from Jeff Forshaw. \u00a0He's a mate of Brian Cox \u2013 Oh, and a professor of physics and astronomy at Manchester. \u00a0It begins:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In an editorial for the\u00a0<em>New Statesman<\/em>, my colleague at the University of Manchester\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/science\/brian-cox\">Brian Cox<\/a> and comedian Robin Ince wrote that \"<a href=\"http:\/\/www.newstatesman.com\/sci-tech\/sci-tech\/2012\/12\/brian-cox-and-robin-ince-politicians-must-not-elevate-mere-opinion-over-sc\">politicians must not elevate mere opinion over science<\/a>.\" They cited\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/environment\/climate-change\">climate change<\/a>, saying that it has become \"controversial for primarily non-scientific reasons\", with the result that confidence in the very idea of science is undermined. This echoes the sentiments of\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/profile\/david-nutt\">David Nutt<\/a>, the sacked government adviser on drugs, who was presumably letting off some steam when he said of ex-home secretary Jacqui Smith that<a href=\"http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/politics\/9688040\/Jacqui-Smith-admits-cannabis-reclassification-was-wrong.html\"> she, \"like most politicians, has the delusion that whatever they think is right. \u00a0They lack all humility\"<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Well, accusations that scientists are arrogant or, according to journalist Simon Jenkins, in the business of making\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/commentisfree\/2010\/jun\/24\/rees-makes-religion-out-of-science\">a religion out of science<\/a>, are not uncommon. \u00a0For journalist\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/brendanoneill.co.uk\/\">Brendan O'Neill<\/a>, the scientific panel of \"know it all\" experts surrounding government is \"<a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/brendanoneill2\/100190663\/the-law-on-drugs-should-not-be-based-on-evidence\/\">little different to the Guardian Council in Iran<\/a>\". \u00a0The key criticism appears to concern the issue of democracy and the notion of choice. \u00a0In O'Neill's words, people should be \"fully free to make a choice, unencumbered by the hectorings of do-gooders\". \u00a0It is the removal of this choice by a scientific \"priesthood\" that Jenkins and O'Neill seem to find so repulsive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It ends ...<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Curiosity about how things work leads directly to better understanding and that is not really a matter of opinion. \u00a0In other words, scientific experts know better than anyone how nature works and we should be prepared either to develop sufficient expertise to engage in a scientific dialogue or defer to their better understanding. \u00a0In a democratic world, there is a temptation to allow everyone to air their ideas and on complicated matters of social policy that may (or may not) be appropriate. \u00a0However, the scientific evidence \u2013 the data, the models, their predictions and the associated uncertainties \u2013 should never be viewed as a mere matter of opinion.\u00a0There is no suggestion here that scientists should dictate government policy, only that the scientific evidence should serve as valuable input to the political decision-making process and that those making the decisions should make it their business to understand it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Indeed. \u00a0For once, I read the comments at the foot of the piece, and so discovered a Patrick Stokes <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.edu.au\/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978\">piece<\/a> on opinion in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.edu.au\">The Conversation<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as \u201cphilosophers\u201d \u2013 a bit cheesy, but hopefully it <a href=\"http:\/\/secure.pdcnet.org\/teachphil\/content\/teachphil_2012_0035_0002_0143_0169\"><strong>encourages active learning<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Secondly, I say something like this: \u201cI\u2019m sure you\u2019ve heard the expression \u2018everyone is entitled to their opinion.\u2019 \u00a0Perhaps you\u2019ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. \u00a0Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it\u2019s no longer true. \u00a0You are not entitled to your opinion. \u00a0You are only entitled to what you can argue for.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument \u2013 and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible. \u00a0The problem with \u201cI\u2019m entitled to my opinion\u201d is that, all too often, it\u2019s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. \u00a0It becomes shorthand for \u201cI can say or think whatever I like\u201d \u2013 and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. \u00a0And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Quite so; this is widespread I'm sorry to say.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A good article in the Observer last week from Jeff Forshaw. \u00a0He's a mate of Brian Cox \u2013 Oh, and a professor of physics and astronomy at Manchester. \u00a0It begins: In an editorial for the\u00a0New Statesman, my colleague at the...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,3,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-new-publications","category-news-and-updates"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3056","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}