From the Tech Central Station interview, “Rebel with a Cause: The Optimistic Scientist” (April 10, 2007):

Benny Peiser: In the first chapter of your new book, “The Scientist as Rebel,” you write that the common element of the scientific vision “is rebellion against the restrictions imposed by the locally prevailing culture,” and that scientists “should be artists and rebels, obeying their own instincts rather than social demands or philosophical principles.”

Contrary to this liberal if not libertarian concept of scientific open-mindedness, there has been growing pressure on scientists to toe the line and endorse what is nowadays called the ‘scientific consensus’ – on numerous contentious issues. Dissenting scientists frequently face ostracism and denunciation when they dare to go against the current. Has Western science become more authoritarian in recent years or have rebellious scientists always had to face similar condemnation and resentment? And how can young scientists develop intellectual independence and autonomy in a bureaucratic world of funding dependency?

Freeman Dyson: Certainly the growing rigidity of scientific organizations is a real and serious problem. I like to remind young scientists of examples in the recent past when people without paper qualifications made great contributions. Two of my favorites are: Milton Humason, who drove mules carrying material up the mountain trail to build the Mount Wilson Observatory, and then when the observatory was built got a job as a janitor, and ended up as a staff astronomer second-in-command to Hubble. Bernhardt Schmidt, the inventor of the Schmidt telescope which revolutionized optical astronomy, who worked independently as a lens-grinder and beat the big optical companies at their own game. I tell young people that the new technologies of computing, telecommunication, optical detection and microchemistry actually empower the amateur to do things that only professionals could do before.

Amateurs and small companies will have a growing role in the future of science. This will compensate for the increasing bureaucratization of the big organizations. Bright young people will start their own companies and do their own science.

Benny Peiser: In a Winter Commencement Address at the University of Michigan two years ago you called yourself a heretic on global warming, the most notorious dogma of modern science. You have described global warming anxiety as grossly exaggerated and have openly voiced your doubts about the reliability of climate models. These models, you argue, “do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.” There seems to be an almost complete endorsement of the world’s scientific organisations and elites of these models together with claims that they reliably epitomize reality and can consistently predict future climate change. How do you feel belonging to a tiny minority of scientists who dare to voice their doubts openly?

Freeman Dyson: I am always happy to be in the minority. Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Benny Peiser: In a chapter about the scientific revolutions in modern physics and mathematics, you describe the deep intellectual confusion in Weimar Germany in the aftermath of the First World War. You portray a society troubled by a mood of doom and gloom, a milieu that was conducive for scientific revolution as well as political upheaval. Unmistakably, the Great War set off a major shift in German thought, from the idea of progress and technological confidence to cultural pessimism and apocalypticism. As we know, the consequences of this mood of despair was calamitous. Do you see any comparison with the gloomy frame of mind that seems to be on the increase among many Western scientists today?

Freeman Dyson: Yes, the western academic world is very much like Weimar Germany, finding itself in a situation of losing power and influence. Fortunately, the countries that matter now are China and India, and the Chinese and Indian experts do not share the mood of doom and gloom. It is amusing to see China and India take on today the role that America took in the nineteen-thirties, still believing in technology as the key to a better life for everyone.

You may have heard about the vegan parents who were recently convicted for killing their baby with a vegan diet. Put simply, veganism is not natural. Adults may be able to get by on a vegan diet in the modern world thanks to a global market economy. Ironic, considering that many of them are probably enemies of the very thing that enables them to live their preferred lifestyle: laissez-faire capitalism. But veganism would not be viable in a more primitive non-market society, which cannot provide the food alternatives and supplements needed. The human body quite simply needs the fats and proteins and other nutrients found in meat, fish, and dairy products. This is especially true for children.

Nina Planck, author of Real Food: What to Eat and Why, writes in more detail about this (minus the economic aspect) in a New York Times article “Death by Veganism.”

We hear all the time how poor the American diet is. It makes me wonder then, and this is nothing but speculation on my part, whether the continued the rise of cases of autism, childhood asthma and the like result from poor nutrition – from the womb through the first few years of life on through early childhood.

(Disclaimer for hypersensitive politically correct types: I’m not saying that vegans ought to give up their diet. I’m just saying that those who aren’t grateful to global market economy for their lifestyle ought to be. Also and more importantly, vegan parents ought not to force their diet on their children, starting from conception onwards. It’s just not healthy for them.)

David Boaz, “Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?” Cato@Liberty (March 21, 2007).

Steven Milloy, “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Electric Bill,” Fox News.com (March 12, 2007).

Tennesee Center for Policy Research, “Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own ‘Inconvenient Truth’.”

Criticism from the Left:

Joshua Frank, “How the Kyoto Protocol was (Al) Gored,” DissidentVoice.org (July 18, 2006).

Joshua Frank, “Al Gore the Environmental Titan?,” DissidentVoice.org (June 6, 2006).

~*~

[Update (06/01 6:30pm): See this later post of mine for more on Gore’s hypocrisy.]

If you’re not familiar with Arthur C. Clarke’s Three Laws of Prediction, it won’t affect my point here (but please do enlighten yourself by following the link).

Clarke’s First Law: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

I have heard that Isaac Asimov wrote a corollary to Clarke’s First Law: “When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervour and emotion — the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.”

That’s all very well and good. Both laws are sensible and true. But what happens when the scientists themselves rally around an idea with great fervor and emotion? When they seem to lose sight of that essential characteristic of scientific inquiry: rational skepticism? When it comes to questions of an empirical nature especially, is it not unscientific not to temper with at least a shadow of doubt the acceptance and advocacy of one’s findings?

Thus, Plauche’s Corollary to the Corollary: “When scientists, no matter how distinguished or elderly, rally around an idea with great fervor and emotion, announce a crisis of potentially catastrophic proportions is imminent, call for drastic and coercive action now, and denounce skeptics as ignorant laymen, partisan hacks, or enemies of science – they probably haven’t looked in the mirror in a long time.”

Alternate ending: “something fishy is probably going on.”

A couple of weeks ago I successfully defended my dissertation research proposal. The dissertation’s working title is “Aristotelian Liberalism: An Inquiry into the Foundations of a Free and Flourishing Society.” If you’re interested, you can read the proposal here (pdf).

The Epigraphs
Freedom is, in truth, a sacred thing. There is only one thing else that better serves the name: that is virtue. But then what is virtue if not the free choice of what is good?
− Alexis de Tocqueville

The practical reason for freedom, then, is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fibre can be developed.
− Albert Jay Nock

The Abstract
My dissertation seeks to build on the recent work of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl in developing an Aristotelian liberalism. They argue that the right to liberty is a metanormative ethical principle necessary for protecting the possibility of self-direction, which is central to and necessary for all forms of eudaimonia (human flourishing, well-being, happiness). Contra Rasmussen and Den Uyl, however, it will be argued that rights are also, and more fundamentally, a set of interpersonal ethical principles the respecting of which is a necessary and constitutive part of eudaimonia. The dissertation will attempt to show that not only does a neo-Aristotelian philosophy provide (classical) liberalism with a sounder foundation, it also provides liberalism with the resources to answer traditional left-liberal, postmodern, communitarian and conservative challenges by avoiding some Enlightenment pitfalls that have plagued it since its inception: atomism, an a-historical and a-contextual view of human nature, license, excessive normative neutrality, the impoverishment of ethics and the trivialization of rights. It will be further argued, however, that there is still an excessive focus on the State and what it can and should do for us; and that the focus needs to return to the notion of politics as discourse and deliberation between equals in joint pursuit of eudaimonia and to what we as members of society can and should do for ourselves and each other. In order to fully answer left-liberal, postmodern, communitarian and conservative challenges it will be necessary to elucidate the ethical and cultural principles and institutions that are necessary for bringing about and maintaining a free society that promotes human flourishing, and this can be done without endangering liberalism’s commitment to liberty and pluralism.

It looks like Democrats and other leftists now have a reason to be against immigration: immigration apparently harms the environment, since poor people come to America in the hopes of increased consumption and increased consumption necessarily, in their view, leads to environmental damage. Hence, they now have another environmentalist reason to prevent poor people from bettering their lives. See here and here.

Sheryl Crow wants to ban excessive toilet paper use.

Will the idiocy and immorality of environmental alarmists never cease?

Now Sheryl Crow apparently wants to ban people from using too much toilet paper. (Here’s the BBC on it.)

Sorry, Sheryl, one square, or even three, just aren’t enough. I’ll use however much I damn well please, thank you very much.

It’s all well and good to be concerned about the environment and advocate voluntary measures to improve it, although it is obvious to anyone who does a little research that Al Gore’s alarmist brand of environmentalism exaggerates immensely from even the “consensus”, but it is another thing entirely to advocate rights-violations and useless nonsense like this.

Aside from the unjust statism inherent in Crow’s idea, what economic and environmental good will it do? It certainly won’t help the economy or improve people’s lives. And does Crow think we are running out of trees? Many environmentalists often speak as if we are, as if trees aren’t a renewable resource that are generally replanted by tree farming firms after each harvest.

Oprah, at least, to my knowledge simply tries to persuade us to use one less napkin a day (among other voluntary measures).

Crow also seems to think she’s the American People, or at least their spokeswoman. She’s not mine. I wish she would just speak for herself.

And what’s this “dining sleeve” invention she is talking about? She wants us to wipe our mouths on detachable shirt sleeves? How barbaric!

~*~

Update (4/27): Sheryl is now claiming that her toilet paper “suggestion” was a joke. Perhaps she’s telling the truth. It was a ridiculous “suggestion.” On the other hand, environmentalists have said crazy things before and she is only a rock star, not a scientist or an economist. It is equally possible she realized how ridiculous it was only after the fact…after countless people ridiculed her for it…and then she decided to let us in on “the joke” in an attempt to save face. You decide.