Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science.
Edward O. Wilson, biologist
E. O. Wilson is, of course, the author of Sociobiology, a highly controversial 1975 book on evolution. He experienced a politically- and ideologically-based backlash against his book, which offended some people by claiming that certain aspects of human behavior are based on our genes. (For more on this, read the excellent book The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.)
In his quotation above, he refers to the danger of allowing political ideology to interfere with science. But it is equally dangerous to allow political ideology to interfere with good policy. I am a democratic-leaning independent, and when in discussion with friends, I feel that ideology often gets in the way of a clear discussion, and impedes attempts to get to the best solution for a problem.
For example, take “clean coal“. The idea is to process coal in clever ways to prevent it from emitting lots of CO2 and other harmful chemicals. At a recent environmental event I attended, the speaker was talking about alternative energy sources, and proclaimed loudly, “And let’s not forget that there is no such thing as clean coal!” The crowd cheered and clapped.
But the speaker didn’t have any facts to back up his statement! He wasn’t claiming a fact; he was asserting an ideology. And his audience shared the same ideology. To be clear, I personally believe the future is in renewable energy sources, and that we need to move away from oil and coal toward power from solar, wind, geothermal, etc. But I object to his fact-free approach. Whether he likes it or not, there is such a thing as clean coal. He might argue that it won’t solve our problems, or that coal mines are dangerous for workers, or whatnot, but denying the existence of something just because you don’t like it lowers the level of discourse.
Democrats, of cours, don’t have a monopoly on this sort of thinking. A friend of mine, a fiscal conservative, opposes taxes. I understand the arguments against many taxes, but for many fiscal conservatives it is an article of faith that taxes are bad. This sort of faith ends any discussion, and makes it impossible to move forward. Ideology isn’t much better than superstition, in my mind.
How do you know if you are being superstitious, or how do you show someone else that they are being superstitious? Ask this simple question: What conceivable evidence would convince you that you’re wrong? If no evidence will convince you that you’re wrong, you’re allowing your ideology to get in the way of productive discussion. An artful dodger will reply with a piece of evidence that is so far-fetched that it is, for practical purposes, impossible to obtain. (Creationists, for example, often claim that they will accept evolution only given a complete fossil record, which we will never find.)
So let’s all do this exercise now, together. Pick something you hold dear, and think about what would convince you that you’re wrong. I’ll start. I think that global warming (1) is occurring, (2) is at least partly human-caused, and (3) will wreak havoc on the world if drastic action isn’t taken to reverse the increase in CO2 emissions. As I am not a climate expert myself, I base my position on the general consensus in the scientific community that global warming exists, is at least partly man-made, and will lead to big problems. If I started reading articles that referenced studies in peer-reviewed journals, and these studies found miscalculations in our current climate models, and these miscalculations led us to overestimate the impact of industry on CO2 emissions, or of CO2 on global warming, I would reconsider. I would do more research and try to suss out whether the scientific community accepted these studies or not.
Your turn now. What would it take to convince you to reconsider? Pause a moment, right now, and think about that before moving on.
I’ll point out that I do think there is a place for some ideology in politics. Most people believe, for example, that our democracy should be more participatory. People should vote more. People should contact their representatives. I happen to believe that this is important even if evidence shows it doesn’t lead to government that is any better, because I believe that participation is important.
The key, in my mind, is that you need to acknowledge when you are being ideological. That’s what intellectual honesty requires.