When science became doctrine

Held at the RSA in December, Tzvetan Todorov’s discussion of the enlightenment was altogether thought provoking, however it was a minor reference that really caught my attention. Todorov highlighted what he thought to be one fault line left by the enlightenment movement, namely the idea that science can take us anywhere and can teach us everything. A relatively benign concept, it was initially recognized by enlightenment thinkers as both fallible and containing limitations. It has been steadily revolutionized, however, to the point where “scientism” forms what many conceive of as an ideological movement. The basic understanding of scientism is that it is a view that espouses the superiority of science over all other interpretations of life, for example the religious and philosophical. The radicalization is in the overreaching of the discipline into other areas where scientific enquiry may not have jurisdiction, and the sense that there is no other appropriate means of interpreting our reality.

Todorov discussed scientism as fuelling the evolution of totalitarianism within Europe through the growing sense of biological understanding. Resultantly, we are capable of accelerating the work of nature and eliminating whatever is perceived as a “lower” form of life. An apt example that could be brought in would be the prominence of scientific experimentation and profiling used under the Nazi regime, or even the elimination of bourgeois or minority groups, a commonly repeated formula in European history. For Todorov the permanent cycle of ‘improvement’ we are seeing from science is dangerous, potentially leading us on a path which could very well end disastrously, either for environmental reasons, or because of the encroaching involvement of science in the creation or reconfiguration of humans. And this is something with which ethicists in particular have been grappling for as long as science has been experimentally intervening with humans; the fear that in offering the ability to, for example, ‘design’ our children we will create a race which eliminates everything that is seen as an ‘unwanted characteristic’.

However, another equally provoking application of scientism is in relation to the global warming debate. The leaked emails of some of the most senior environmental scientists in the country revealed a startling level of data manipulation and peer pressure in the struggle to gain footing as the definitive scientific view on present environmental circumstances. I am not going to discuss the truth behind global warming claims, my focus instead is on the extreme scientific perspective displayed by some global warming scientists, what Melanie Phillips called ‘green totalitarianism’. Michael Egnor, in his piece “Scientism and Totalitarianism” sees a ‘militant’ sense of certainty in scientism which, coupled with a severe fanaticism against dissent, is becoming increasingly totalitarian in its practice. The strong-arm tactics employed by the global-warming scientists as revealed by the emails, offer a frightening insight into the lengths that will be gone to in order to gain a unity of opinion within the scientific community. The emails reveal the intent to exclude alternate interpretations or theories, and to delete and doctor raw data. Although this isn’t a representation of the entire field, it represents an influential group of scientists with what I find to be a frightening approach to their craft.

In 2002 the Cobb County Board of education approved the use of stickers in biology textbooks stating, “evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered" only to find themselves in court. The sticker had been added after more than 2,000 parents complained that no other alternative explanations were offered. In court, the school defended its actions in saying that “science and religion are related and they’re not mutually exclusive… this sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science.” The court ruled against the school board, saying that the disclaimers were unconstitutional in their endorsement of religion. The science that I used to learn about at school was one of the pursuit for truth, the acceptance that you are most likely never right but that a theory is true for as long as it goes without being disproved or replaced. Science has undoubtedly grown in its prominence and its scope since the first conceptions of it, and it plays a greater role in modern life than ever before. If there really is a developing scientific fanaticism in what always seemed to be one of the most logical and rational disciplines on any curriculum, I for one find that a sight unsettling. 

Posted via web from Writing from the Cafe

Just another meat-free Monday

Ghent might have one of the largest car-free zones in Europe but there is now a new reason for the environmentally concerned to give it some attention; as of last year Ghent has made every Thursday a lentil-lovers haven of meat-free bliss. Restaurants, canteens, schools and even the odd hospital have signed up to ditch meat one day a week in the hope that they can make a real, and lasting difference to climate change. This isn’t the first example of large-scale vegetarianism; the Pythagoreans are one of several groups who choose to abstain, granted they were concerned more about their souls than the environment. Still there has been an increasing trend towards “meat-free Mondays”.

Jesus College, Oxford became the first member of an educational establishment in the UK to vote for the move to instate a moratorium on meat, at least for Mondays. The movement, which began with the JCR last year, had a steady support from those who wanted to make a change and reduce the carbon footprint of their lifestyle. The JCR President accepted that the impact wasn’t earth-shattering but that one of the main benefits is getting people to start making small sacrifices,  “there isn't going to be a day when suddenly everyone drops what they’re doing and starts trying to save the planet, it's got to be a slow change in the way we live, so making little changes like this is ideal.” With both undergraduate and graduate support, the motion is only waiting for the staff stamp of approval to make meat on Mondays a thing of the past for Jesus.

And its not just our future leaders-in-training that are extolling the benefits of a modified diet, the current, ever-active, cultural leaders from across entertainment and business are putting their names to the cause. Led by Paul McCartney the likes of Sheryl Crow, Chris Martin, and Sir Richard Branson are advocating what Dr. Rajendra Pachwari, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has called “the most attractive opportunity” we have in terms of “bringing about reductions in a short period of time”.  The figures released by the UN bring the swelling popularity of this simple idea into sharp focus. The livestock contribution to climate change, as a percentage of CO₂, is roughly 18%, notably more than the 15% produced by transportation and far easier to reduce. Not only that, but the same report documents the fact that livestock levels are aiding food shortages, now consuming more human edible protein than they produce, a difference of roughly 21million tonnes.

As far as McCartney is concerned "having one designated meat free day a week is actually a meaningful change that everyone can make, that goes to the heart of several important political, environmental and ethical issues all at once." Check out www.meatfreemondays.co.uk if you are interested in giving it a go, without having to sacrifice taste.

 

Posted via web from Writing from the Cafe

Crossing the Line

After the recent strike, planned by British Airways cabin crew, was deemed ‘illegal’ by the High Court, the Unite Joint General Secretary Derek Simpson remarked “we'll see at the end of the day who wins this, we will see at the end of the day proper democracy, proper justice”. But what exactly did this central term ‘proper democracy, proper justice’ mean? BA described the “old-style trade union militancy” as far from welcomed by its customers, an estimated one million of whom were likely to have their travel plans disrupted. The idea that the proposed strike served the aims of democracy and justice seems at odds with the fact that the face of those most directly affected soon emerged as customers, and their families. Those who had saved for years to take the dream holiday, those traveling abroad for medical treatment, or even those who were simply visiting family over the festive period. It wasn’t justice for these patrons, nor for the wider company whose ability to pay salaries at all depends on continuing to provide the service they offer. Granted, enticing people to strike, more often than not, takes a real level of dissatisfaction, but my question isn’t the validity of their action, rather the overwhelming reaction of the public against them.

One affected customer stated “I don't blame BA for trying to stay in the game against the likes of Virgin. I do blame the vicious cynicism of the cabin crew.” It seems the public, at least in Britain, have lost their patience with strikes and their proponents. Gone are the days when collective sentiments went in favor of those fighting their injustices, or perhaps it’s just that the battlefield has changed. The recent tube strikes, far from rallying anti-governmental, anti-institutional sentiment infuriated the general public. The overriding sentiment seemed to be that the rights of those who used the services were being severely impinged, no different from the sense of being personally besieged following the repercussions of the postal strike. Thomas Jefferson, reflecting on the tax that led to the Boston Tea Party, and resultantly the American Revolution, stated, “so inscrutable is the arrangement of causes and consequences in this world that a two-penny duty on tea, unjustly imposed in a sequestered part of it, changes the condition of all its inhabitants”. That was an age when the sole understanding of injustice went deeper than a longer holiday or greater job security. In the wake of the economic meltdown the predominant feeling is to be lucky you have a job and to just get on with it.

From a business perspective companies and individuals are under more pressure than ever to stay ahead of the ever-amassing competition and to keep up with consistent technological advancements whilst staying afloat in a turbulent economic world. This means implementing change on what seems to be a near daily basis. As ArLyne Diamond discusses, “adapting to new demands is an important mechanism for both personal and organizational survival. Individuals and groups that do it well seem to be more successful than those that resist and accept the inevitable slowly. But change is so difficult and is almost always resisted”. Most of those in the workforce accept, if not with an always fully welcoming attitude but at least a passive acknowledgment of inevitability, that change is part of what it means to live in the modern climate. The change felt by those in the unions who seek to highlight their plight fail to realize that what they put on banners, most people in modern times accept by adjusting their work levels or heading to the job centre. Arguably everyone is facing the sort of insecurity and financial cutbacks that the minority voice, and the not un-expected response, is a hostile reception for not only complaining about it, but also making the lives of everyone else that little increment more difficult.

 However, modern sentiments towards striking cannot simply be chalked up to recent economic circumstances. Trade unions have been steadily declining in most industrialized Western societies since the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the USA the national average union membership is 12.1%, while in the UK it stands at around 30%.  The reasons behind this are inevitably diverse, including the altered nature of the workforce and economic system, but it makes you wonder whether there is a declining sense of what a good picket line can achieve in modern Britain. Protests are no longer a rare event. When typing ‘protest London’ into Google my computer retrieved 20,600,000 entries on the subject. The advent of celebrity involvement in public outcry for change altered the landscape of protest; unfortunately often their individual efforts sustain a following only for as long as they continue to front the cause. This does not mean that something palpable and positive is not occurring; rather it demonstrates a changed mindset, one in which people want to help but feel overwhelmed by those asking it from them. Since 1980 BBC Children in Need has raised over £500 million, with the most recent event having raised £20,309,747 by the end of the broadcast. It seems evident then that the British public still cares about injustice and actively engages in attempting to alter it. The outcry following the violent clampdown by the Iranian government on those protesting the results of the election is another clear sign, one of many experienced on a daily basis, that ‘what is right’ remains an ultimately fundamental cornerstone of modern Western thought.

Michael Sandel, in his lecture to the LSE, discussed the ‘populist outrage’ felt regarding bailouts in recent times and interpreted it as a return to an almost Aristotelian sense of justice as in accordance with one’s virtues. Strikes in modern Britain, quite simply, make people mad. But it is not a matter of apathy to injustice or selfishness that those affected do not want their lives made harder. It is a matter of getting to the core of what the big issues of today are. For many it seems entirely logical to realize that everyone struggles with similar issues at work because all companies have, at heart, similar basic needs which are being increasingly challenged. The problems our world is facing go beyond pay disputes, and the perspective that affords has helped shift public consciousness, to some extent, into a different way of looking at the problems we face.  Strikes are committed to real and impacting change, but the public very often has bigger concerns. The Boston Tea Party was about freedom, can the modernization of the post office be said to hold itself on par.

 

Posted via web from Writing from the Cafe