Last time, I discussed religion, tribalism, and epistemic closure. But many scientific conclusions don't directly challenge religious doctrine. So why has science denialism become strongly associated with the far right and the Republican party (same thing), even when we aren't talking about evolution or cosmology?As a most salient example, the Florida Department of Health, led by Ron DeSantis Stooge Joseph Ladapo, is telling people not to get the Covid-19 vaccine, pushing utterly false claims including that it threatens “the integrity of the human genome,”that "the shots pose a risk of infections, autoimmune disease, and other condition," that "the shots could cause elevated levels of spike protein and foreign genetic material in the blood," and that "Americans face “unknown risk” from too many booster shots." This is all 100%, Grade A, made up and totally false bullshit.
The cited article in KFF Health News notes that "Several critics of Ladapo’s bulletin said it read like a tryout for a job in a Trump administration advised by longtime anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has said Trump wants him to help vet senior health officials." Well okay, but why are the dumpster and the MAGA movement getting on the RFK bandwagon? Or more accurately, why have they been there before Wormbrain joined forces with them?
Edsall's differential diagnosis, which I share, is that conservative science denialism, beyond evolution and other conflicts with religion, cites Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, in From Anti-Government to Anti-Science, who wrote that conservative rejection of science "took strong hold during the Reagan administration, largely in response to scientific evidence of environmental crises that invited governmental response. Thus, science — particularly environmental and public health science — became the target of conservative anti-regulatory attitudes."
In other words, if anthropogenic climate change is real, then we need to do something about it, which means government intervention to reduce and ultimately eliminate fossil fuel consumption and develop sustainable energy. That conflicts with the ideology of the Free Market™, the actual purpose of which is to protect the profits of plutocrats. Billionaires formed an alliance with religious fanatics to reject scientific conclusions that conflicted with each of their interests, even those they didn't have in common, and that meant undermining all of scientific authority. That's it in a nutshell. Edsall goes on at much greater length and brings in many other discussants, but I think I've captured the main idea.
The problem with this is that it's likely to kill you. So maybe you should do something about it.
1 comment:
Ironic, innit, that science is the most "conservative" alternative way to explain things out there. When some scientist suggests an explanation for why things are the way they are. Other scientists immediately look for the most absurd consequence that would follow if that idea were true, and do their damnest to show that it doesn't actually happen. Only if it does happen do they say, "Yes, that explanation might actually work. We can't say it's pretty good until we find another way to try to break it and fail again."
Nobody else is so skeptical of their ideas. I'd go so far as to say that the words "conservative" and "Conservative" might be antonyms.
Post a Comment