“A Separation of Science and State”

Some things are so stupid they’re hard to think about.  I mean that literally.  See, Nick Rizzuto has written a column for conservatives called, “Time for a Separation of Science and State.”  He really has.  He starts off with:

While many people take for granted the fact that it is dangerous to use articles of faith as the basis for public policy, we often fail to realize that science too represents an extremely dodgy justification for law.

He supports this by saying,

Arguably, scientific fact changes more rapidly than religious dogma.

Now, I would rephrase that as:  Science corrects its errors more rapidly than religious dogma. But Nick continues:

What was undeniable truth one day might be discovered to be quackery the next. The most glaring example of this in the 20th century is the science of eugenics.

Eugenics is a discredited theory about racial and genetic purity.  Nick claims it led to the Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924.  This horrendous law permitted forced sterilization and banned interracial marriage.  All because of science, he alleges.  Never mind the that Virginia passed its first ban on interracial marriage in 1691, long before eugenics.  Never mind that that in 1959, the last time interracial bans were upheld, the judge supported them on religious grounds.   Nope.  It’s all science’s fault

Nick’s really taking a shot in the global warming debate, of course.  Since he can’t deny the scientific consensus, he’s trying to argue we should ignore it.  Bizarrely, he reasons that because scientists are capable of admitting they’re wrong, we shouldn’t pay attention to them when we make policy decisions.

Once again, we are beset by a group of people who are insisting that the science is settled and unquestionable. Policy, they argue, must reflect this absolute truth. The problem with this is that the very idea of unquestionable science makes it no different than faith. Any scientist will tell you that the only way scientific progress even occurs is if science is constantly and rigorously questioned.

Well, he does sort of have a point.  Scientists don’t deal in certainty, and generally won’t say they’re 100% of anything.  Nick recognizes that.  Surely, then, his advice would be to dismiss the idea that we can achieve certainty in worldly matters, to operate as best we can within the limits of our knowledge, and to adjust our policies as our understanding of the world improves.  In other words, to be more genuinely scientific.

Did I fool you?  Ha!  Here’s the last sentence of his article

It’s time to take science out of the realm of politics and return it to its rightful place.

Wow.  He’s not just dismissing the policy implications of global warming.  He’s dismissing the policy implications of…science.  He’s not merely saying we should remember that scientific findings can change – he wants us to take science out of the realm of politics.  What kind of world would that be?  Consider a few very real-life possibilities:

• Let’s bring back cholera! Englishman John Snow invented the science of epidemiology when he traced an outbreak of cholera to a tainted water pump.  He convinced local officials to disable the pump and stopped a potential epidemic.  Nick Rizzuto  would have discarded this policy suggestion as worthless because physicians of the day thought cholera was the fault of “bad air.”  And if science changes then we shouldn’t base policy on it, right?
• Let’s fight wars with rocks! A strong defense is central to conservatism, but who needs science when debating defense policy?  Who needs radar and satellites and flying machines?  Who needs to think about science when researching new defense technology?  Let’s go back to the pre-science weapons: rocks and sticks.
• Let’s starve! The Dustbowl years of American agriculture –

No, I can’t go on.  Really, it hurts too much to deal with so much stupid.  I could explore his notion of returning science “to its rightful place,” whatever unspecified place that is (apparently an objective, questioning view of the real world has no rightful place in political decisions) but why bother?  Because he’s not really making an argument.  You know what he’s doing?

He’s inventing a talking point.  Yes, a talking point, a pet phrase, a new bit of jargon: “separation of science and state.”

As a sound bite, it’s a nice attack on the separation-of-church-and-state idea.  First, it sneaks in an implicit but unproven equivalency between science and religion (even though, as he’s admitted, science is much quicker at updating and correcting itself).  And on top of that, it opens the door to making religion into law:  If we don’t separate science and state, why should we separate church and state?

I come back to this theme over and over, but it seems like the Right is offering up another thought experiment to see if it takes hold.  An experiment in the politics of sound bites.  And do you know how we can be sure that Nick Rizzuto isn’t making a serious argument?  Because he never answers a basic question:  If we take science out of policy-making, then on what basis do we make policy?

Nick may have an answer.  But if so, he’s not willing to say it.