Gerson’s Science Strawman

The Post’s tradition of abysmal op eds continues with Michael Gerson’s piece today: A Phony ‘War on Science’:

For the most part, these accusations are a political ploy — actually an attempt to shut down political debate. Any practical concern about the content of government sex-education curricula is labeled “anti-science.” Any ethical question about the destruction of human embryos to harvest their cells is dismissed as “theological” and thus illegitimate.

As Kevin Drum points out:

The disingenuousness here is breathtaking. Yes, liberals and conservatives have different views about sex education and stem cells, but those aren’t even close to being the core issues in the liberal critique of the Republican war on science. The core issues, rather, are global warming denialism; creationism and intelligent design; the Gingrich-era shutdown of OTA; the promotion of phony cost-benefit analysis; and politically motivated lying about things like Plan B, breast cancer links to abortion, and condoms and STDs.

Even on its face, Gerson’s critique is less than honest; the debate over stem cells isn’t “about the destruction of human embryos to harvest their cells,” but whether cells contained in embryos which are going to be destroyed in any event should be used to further science and alleviate human suffering, or whether such use should be prevented in order to score political points with the theological base of the Republican Party. In addition to the issues cited by Drum, there is the shining example of Terri Schiavo, where the scientifically valid diagnoses of her treating physicians, confirmed by MRI and other scientific methods over an over again, was rejected by the Right in favor of video diagnoses from Senator Frist and opinions repeatedly rendered by a Fake Nobel Nominee over Fake News.

The hostility of the Right to expertise and professional analysis on virtually any subject when it interferes with political goals — look at Iraq — is stunning taken in its entirety. To pretend, as Gerson does, that it is imaginary is simply another example of the rejection of making analysis and drawing conclusions based on observation, and instead subjugating reason to political ends.