« Coming soon, a new philosophy blog | Main | Letter to The Atlantic Monthly on modularity theory »
December 20, 2005
Letter to the NYT Magazine on the science wars
I sent the following letter in response to this article by Jim Holt in the NYT Magazine:
Jim Holt (Dec. 11) maps the politicized landscape of American science, and argues it has been shaped by cynical evasion of well-known scientific facts. This may be true in certain cases, but I fear that Holt too often confuses scientific fact with scientific "consensus." The list of theories he defends against conservative skepticism is a mixed bag. For example, there is a radical difference between the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of manmade global warming. The first is supported by vast and diverse evidence from geology, paleontology, and anatomical morphology; its explanatory power in molecular biology and population genetics is unrivaled. The second is supported by computer models with vastly simplified assumptions and statistical correlations of questionable context; its explanatory power is anecdotal. To question the first requires evasion; to question the second, merely reasonable doubt. The only common element between the two is that each is supported by some "consensus." If politicized science is the problem, a political definition of scientific validity is not the solution.
Posted by Ben at December 20, 2005 04:41 AM