Conventional Wisdom v. Science

One of my favorite blogs, Climate Resistance, has a post today skewering a Green member of the European Parliament, Caroline Lucas. The most interesting and relevant part to me of the post is where they start trying to track down some of Lucas 'scientific' claims such as "that 'increasing numbers of scientists' are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals and breast cancer, or that 75% of cancers are caused by environmental factors." They even called her office to ask for the source of her claims and figures, and didn't get much response.

What has made the debate about the environment so complex is precisely situations like these. Conventional wisdom, prejudice, superstition used to be much more distinguishable from science. Conventional wisdom took the form of something like 'don't go to sleep with your arms crossed, because you're tempting death.' To the extent superstition took the form of testable propositions, science could distinguish between the actual wisdom contained therein and plain old superstition. An example might be herbal remedies for various colds, or the boiling of willow bark for pain. Now, however, the boundaries are much more difficult to establish, ironically because the authority of science is so hegemonic. Conventional wisdom and superstition are expressed in the language of science; to state something in scientific terms is to make it acceptable without it necessarily having any scientific basis. When Climate Resistance comes across someone claiming '75% of cancers are caused by environmental factors,' it already sounds scientistic, and the fact that it is expressed that way is enough to lend it de facto plausibility, even though it appears that there is no study to support it. What's more, some deeply unscientific and anti-modern (one might even say, superstitious) ideas, are expressing themselves in these scientific phrases. As the Climate Resistance post points out, there is literally no mention of the upside of chemicals, of the way they have extended and improved human life, and that is because the actual interpretation of the facts is driven by a hostility toward modern advances. (Others have pointed to how selectively science, for example science on genetically-modified organisms, is used to defend certain positions) The plausibility of the 'scientific statements' is driven by an unscientific mentality, but one that is difficult to address directly because of the way it expresses itself.

One upshot, I suspect, is that it is inadequate simply to defend science itself, at least in the narrow sense of a procedure for generating knowledge about the natural world. Something probably needs to be said about the way science is more than just a technical procedure for producing neutral facts to fit any particular outlook. And something more probably needs done unwinding the way the authority of science is misused in politics. None of this is very easy, it seems to mean, because of how deeply science and superstition are now intertwined.