Page Two: Not Rocket Science

Regular readers might reasonably wonder why, over the last many months, this column has ignored certain political topics that once would have been its focus. Mostly this is because the vast majority of reasonable voices once engaged in serious public discussions have abandoned the field.

With the exception of a handful of politicians, thinkers, and pundits who are worth listening to (regardless of their differing points of view), the middle has been ceded to the fringes. The lunatics, destroying any hope of a reasonable center, have taken over. Their ranks include leftists, rightists, conservatives, liberals, Luddites, globalists, conspiracy theorists, capitalists, anti-capitalists, media pundits, reactionaries, radicals, anarchists, unacknowledged fascists, extreme environmentalists, and extreme anti-environmentalists, among so many others.

Ultimately, it's not just that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, but that they've gleefully moved it to the far side of Wackyland. The discourse there, divorced from civility, is guided by restrictive taboos forbidding such things as dependence on research, mutual respect, sincere inquiry, determined study, or any questioning of one's own beliefs. Instead, the local dialect celebrates accusations, condescending dismissals, statements offered with absolute certainty, and any opinion based on partisan bias.

This descent into the lower depths is evidenced in many ways, not the least of which is the extreme and absurd response to any action by President Obama.

Let's pause here to allow in the argument that President George W. Bush's administration suffered psychotic, dishonest, hateful, and pathological attacks so vicious as to be completely unprecedented in American politics. Get real! After the eight-year-long assault on President Clinton by the right, to claim that the left attacked Bush only because they harbored a pathological hatred for him demeans even the usual pathetic level of political discourse in Wackyland.

Immediately abandoned in the discussion are the Bush administration's policies. Ignored are Bush's tax cuts for the rich, disinterest in supporting the middle class, insane invasion of Iraq, fiscally irresponsible budgets, and anti-regulatory policies that left the economy in the worst shape it's been in for half a century. Clinton was hated for being Clinton – specifically for Hillary, his immorality, and his relations with an intern.

Which is not even to argue that the prevalence of uncontrolled partisan attacks on a standing administration began during the Clinton administration; throughout history, the level of antagonism on the federal level has risen and fallen. Recent attacks on presidents are in no way unprecedented.

Now, with Obama, too many of his detractors' ongoing "concerns" are so ridiculous as to be irrelevant. Questions about his birth certificate, religion, loyalties, intellectual orientation, and feelings on race are not just ludicrous but offensive. More disturbing, however, is that for an action by Obama to become controversial, it is no longer required to raise any political, ideological, strategic, partisan, or personal issues: Any and every action is fair game. Controversy has been generated by such formerly mundane presidential activities as using a teleprompter, flying to Europe in an effort to bring the Olympics to the United States, and being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The ancillary to "Oh George, Poor George, Someone's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feeling So Sad" is the absolutely brilliant strategy of claiming that two wrongs make a right. If there is a charge against any conservative, all one has to do is cite some equally grievous trespass by a Democrat. This apparently neutralizes the original claim, and it doesn't even really have to be valid.

Anything said about Obama, no matter how extreme, is immediately pasteurized to purity by citing injustices to Bush. A racist billboard demeaning Obama can be dismissed as "nothing compared to what was said about Bush." The most venal accusations against the president are "compliments compared to what Bush had to endure." Signs featuring slurs against Obama are "soothing in contrast to the degradation of Bush."

Why would anyone attempt to participate in any kind of political discussion in this atmosphere?

In the same way most people don't get exactly how the law works, they also really don't get how science works. Science is about fact, but the very nature of the accuracy of "scientific fact" is more often than not open to principled, research-based disagreements. This is not to argue that any opinion on any scientific fact is of value. Crackpot theories, misread research results, unstated agendas, political pressures, intradisciplinary rivalries, and studies that are structured to confirm already-arrived-at results are among many of the factors that taint supposed "facts."

Any number of other factors can also skew the results of even the most strictly conducted scientific studies. Even with agreed-upon results, respected and learned scientists often disagree as to their meaning and implications. When a juried article is published in a respected scientific journal, it does not establish its conclusions as facts. Instead, it proves that it is a serious work offering a supportable thesis, backed by research studies conducted in accepted ways that can be duplicated.

The reason to bring that topic up here is because of some of the ongoing discussions in our "Postmarks" section and Internet forums on such topics as global warming and the fluoridation of water. When it comes to scientific studies, one can often find dozens – if not hundreds or more – of studies offering verifiable results that are used to support completely different and even contradictory theses on what the research means.

When writing on politics, history, anthropology, sociology, conspiracies, and the like, an advocate can find information in books and studies, on websites, and from leading authorities that reinforces his or her predetermined position, but no one regards that as serious research.

One regular contributor to our forums posted, "Unfortunately, few can find a middle ground ... or even debate the topic without (a) launching verbal insults or (b) getting so technical it is all mumbo jumbo." I couldn't agree more. I honestly don't have an opinion on global warming. This is because I figure the minimum amount of research needed to arrive at an informed opinion is enormous, and I'm just not that interested. I strongly suspect that both the greatest advocates and most passionate dissenters on global warming are off base. But I don't know.

I do know, however, that I'm sick to death of people arguing that their opinions are the unquestionable "truth" and that all those in disagreement are liars. I do know, as well, that it is only self-serving when someone posts a statement in the forums like: "Yes, fluoride is bad and the City of Austin knows it's bad, but what is worse is that the City uses hydrofluorosilicic acid to fluoridate our water and there are strong studies done to show that using that agent causes an increased rate of absorption of lead by children, especially children who are raised in poverty environments." This argues that the city knows it is doing evil and that these "strong studies," which reinforce the writer's opinion, are to be accepted as scientific truth.

Let's entertain the thought that maybe the city (or, actually, some group of representatives of the city) might not believe that fluoride is bad and that there are almost undoubtedly just as many "strong studies" that defend its use. Following that reasoning, isn't it possible that those who strongly believe in global warming and those who don't are mostly quite sincere, with each being able to offer scientific information and studies to support his or her view?

The ignored kicker here is that, as with any rigorously researched topic, far more thought and attention should be paid by a researcher to the best of the material offering a conclusion different from his or her own.

The more complicated an issue is, usually the more research has been done on it, resulting in an extensive range of differing conclusions. When people simply quote or cite research materials that confirm their already-accepted points of view, they may be reassuring themselves, but rarely is such information going to change minds.

Given the difficulties described above, it is obvious that rather than doing the serious work required, it is so much easier to deal with differing opinions by attacking those who hold them. Rather than addressing ideas, it is so much easier and more convenient to brand others with pejorative labels, calling them frauds, liars, con men, New World Order flunkies, capitalist apologists, the elites, politically motivated, hypocrites, delusional dupes, purposefully ignorant flunkies, and the like.

Now, such insults aren't science and are more juvenile than thoughtful. They aren't fair, scholarly, or logical, and they don't advance an argument. Actually, their sole purpose seems to be making the ones spewing them feel better about themselves – which must be the point, since that really is the only thing accomplished.

Next week: Back to the epic journey of "Me and Otto Binder."