Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Let's consider 4 hypothetical statements uttered by politicians

a) Evolution is hogwash. Man did not descend from apes

b) Price controls work. They can help counter inflation

c) Minimum wage laws do not cause unemployment

d) Unemployment insurance does not disincentivise work

While A is an example of ignorance of an important, albeit esoteric, scientific theory, which has very little implications for public policy, B, C and D are instances of very basic economic illiteracy, often harbored by policy makers, with massive consequences for economic policy

However let's suppose 4 different politicians make these four statements -

A will grab the headlines

B, C and D will not even be acknowledged as gaffes, leave alone making it to headline news!

For some reason, the "liberal" society we live in, regards "scientific" ignorance as something close to a theological sin (after all, "science" claims to be the religion of our times).

Yet economic ignorance, as well as a lack of common sense (as indicated by statements B, C and D) is not "ignorance" at all!

In fact it is fashionable in the times we live in to challenge very basic economic truisms (that go back to 19th cen theory) as long as these heterodoxies help bolster the cause of "progressive" politics.

"Science" on the other hand, exercises a certain tyranny on thought to the extent that proclaiming ignorance of even highly esoteric and complex theories can attract opprobrium and ridicule

So it's fashionable to say "Oh yes...I know all about Evolution, it's so wonderful" even if one hasn't read a page of Darwin or Huxley

Economics on the other hand is after all "Social Science" - it's a poor cousin of "true science". So it is OK to say anything one likes when it comes to Economics.

But Science ("True science") is sacrosanct. IT has its own theology, and Trimurtis. Darwin ofcourse is the supreme "Lord", with Einstein and maybe Newton making the cut ;)

It exerts a certain ideological despotism which makes any criticism of it or its figures amount to "heresy"

Even within the fold of "Science" not all theories are "equal" ofcourse. Some are "more equal" than others.

Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" ofcourse has a special status. Because it helps the "progressives" browbeat us religious types.

So if you say -

"Oh...I have no clue about Theory of Relativity" or "Chaos theory"...

THat's OK.

But you are not supposed to say - "Hey..I just don't understand Evolution"

That's NOT on!

But Science, notwithstanding its "know it all" arrogance needs "Non Science"

Science revels in "incontrovertible" statements. It adores the "Fact-value" distinction

Facts are the domain of "Science". But societies also need "Values"

Science cannot provide us with values

That's where Religion raises its ugly head. Unlike Science, Religions are many. Because values differ from one culture to another

The Hindu idea of a good life is different from a Muslim's. Which in turn is different from that of a Jew

This troubles the "votaries" of Science

Science needs "Non Science" yet it dislikes it very much!

"Values" create diversity. They create hierarchies. They generate debate. Things that are not in tune with the "scientific spirit"

The great Harvard philosopher Harvey Mansfield summed it up best -

"Science has an implicit argument that science is important; it is a grand project for making human life more reasonable, less customary, less concerned with ambition and greatness"

(Contd..)

"in sum, science seems more democratic. It undermines all traditional elites, but quietly, implicitly, replaces them with a scientific elite hostile to all elitism except its own. Science democratizes everything but its own despotic self"

Science is for "progress". It is by nature "progressive".

Tesla is "better" in an objective sense than Chevrolet.

Chevrolet is better than Model T.

Model T was better than bullock carts.

So Science naturally generates and engenders a "linear" view of history.

But "Non Science" defies linearity.

We cannot quite say that Machiavelli is "better" than Aristotle.
Nor can we say whether Picasso is "better" than Michelangelo.
Or if "Mulholland Drive" is a "better" movie than "Citizen Kane".

Non Science defies "linearity. Defies "progress"

Politics too is very much the domain of "Non Science". Hence it is ofcourse "dirty". "Progressives" like to impose "linearity" in politics. But these efforts are usually problematic.

For instance a century ago it was deemed that "universal adult franchise" is the way to elect lawmakers in any "civilized country".

All countries, big and small, poor and rich, were exhorted to move towards "democracy". As "Democracy" meant "Progress".

But there are always examples that defy this idea of "progress" in politics

There is that guy Lee Kuan Yew in SIngapore, who did a great job, while remaining undemocratic

There's "undemocratic" China that grew at a faster rate than any country in human history for 3 decades

This is ofcourse very very "problematic" to both "progressives" as well as votaries of social "science" who like to move towards a "progressive" ideal of ever increasing "liberty" and eventually hit the "End of history" so to speak.

Non Science keeps getting the better of Science in the world of affairs where Science, notwithstanding its mathematical precision and its incredible self confidence, is often as helpless as a babe in the woods.

Science, much to its discomfort, also has to take the help of "Non science" to sell itself!

Eg: NASA needs funds from those "dirty", "irrational" politicians to function

The various AI labs need the investment from businessmen in Tech companies to sustain their operations

Despite this existential dependence on "Non Science" and the world of "values", Science can be very petulant, ungrateful kid!

It owes no gratitude to the world of "values". Instead it merely sees the social support for it as the "duty" of the rest of society towards it.

It is a different matter that this stance itself is a "value" of sorts. But not surprisingly it is the only "value" that Science heartily accepts!

After all, "Science" is good for its own sake. It can never be evil ;)

Postscript: Thanks everyone for the feedback.
A qualifier: The thread was not an attack on Science per se. But more a critique of the hegemony of the "scientific mindset" esp when extended to other domains

I don't wish to be misinterpreted as someone who supports "creationism"