Science, science über alles

Yuval Levin continues his string of hits with a snark-filled review of Congressman Diana DeGette’s new book . DeGette’s confusion about somatic cell nuclear transfer dovetails nicely with one of Levin’s earlier points . Namely that the mere fact that “being on the side of science” is integral to the left’s self-conception does not mean they understand science any better. Still, I find the more interesting point to be revealed in the following:

DeGette takes any argument about science that is not itself a purely scientific argument to be essentially illegitimate. . . . for instance, she writes “While many of the goals stated in the guidelines are admirable, they are not science-based.” But of course the goals of policy need not be science-based, even if some of the means towards acheiving them might be.

All of which nicely highlights the unfolding reality that science has moved on from being a mere method of considerable instrumental utility to being, in the minds of some at least, an end unto itself. Perhaps the only legitimate end. And why not? As Levin explains: “All these other kinds of views, she argues, are merely personal, and only science is universal and public.”

While this could be the subject of a further post, perhaps entitled “Unicorns, Public Reason, and Other Things that Don’t Exist”, Eve Tushnet has already done the work for me . I’ll restrain myself, then, into just quoting her twice:

I need you to tell me what makes your abstractions boringly obvious and mine scarily sectarian, and so far, no argument I’ve seen has convinced me that this can be settled a) without reference to metaphysical beliefs or b) faster than we’d settle things if you just let me argue politics in whatever way comes naturally.

This is an especially knotty problem for my opponents because my whole claim is that our culture conditions us to find some claims obvious and other claims risible, and those divisions don’t match up well with the truth .

. . .

Political arguments are about what is just, what is good, what is honorable, what is natural, and what is sacred. (They sometimes pretend to be about what is efficient or what is safe, but in order to rank efficiency and safety highest you must already have made a judgment about the relative ranking of the just and the good.) Those terms might seem like they’re arranged in order from least to most religious, but I think really they’re only arranged in order from least to most obviously religious given current philosophical mores.