Lately I have heard a lot of people supporting, often demanding, political actions based on 'the science'. Ah, if there only were such a thing as 'the science'. Consider, if you will, the men in these two photos:
Which of them was a scientist? Well, actually they both were. (In addition, they both were pipe smokers, a habit I adopted for a while during my college years, thinking it would make me look wiser. ) I'm guessing many more of you dear readers will recognize Albert Einstein than Niels Bohr, but both men's work is critical to our understanding of the universe and how it works. Both developed theories that could be rigorously tested by predictive experiments and also by something vital to the scientific method, experiments that would disprove them. The outcome is that both men's theories have been proven correct. The problem is that so far their theories haven't learned to play well together. More scientists will have to do more work before we begin to understand the stickier bits, and even then it would be premature to say that there is 'the science'. Rather, there are folks using the scientific method to try to understand the world.
Physics has pretty well established itself as a useful scientific discipline, with demonstrable advantages in our everyday lives. Such achievements made some other academicians jealous. How could they receive the recognition and respect given to the sciences? Well, they would start being sciences, too. The social studies became Social Sciences. The venerable philosophical tradition of Politics was in many schools replaced with Political Science.
I had the privilege of taking two courses in political science. The first was as I guess a sophomore at Memphis State University. The woman teaching it gave the most boring lectures I think I ever heard, but when the first test arrived, I quickly learned that her multiple choice questions telegraphed the answers, so I started only going to class when there was an exam. I got an A in the course. I learned a lot from that experience, but none of it had anything to do with politics. The second was as a junior at Roosevelt University. Ah, the exciting sixties. My professor was Stokley's personal attorney. (No one would have been so gauche as to say Stokeley Carmichael, although I had never met the man.) My professor had I think a law degree, not one in politics, but were radical unpackers, not scholars. I got a C in the course, not because of to my work, but because I was white. All the white kids got C's. All the black kids got A's. It was to teach us about white privilege. None of us unpacked the oddity that most of my black friends got A's in their classes with white teachers. (I had mostly smart friends.) I learned a lot from that experience, but none of it had anything to do with politics.
All the above is a long-winded introduction to why I am hoping to be less dogmatic in voicing my expectations for the next four years of what will pass for politics in the United States. When I finally got around to taking a physics class in college, we did little experiments with measurable data, calculated what we expected would happen, and compared the results to test our hypotheses. A small but real use of the scientific method.
In 2016 I was a sophomore all over again. I accepted as data about the incoming regime the statements of my friends who watch CNN and get the paper edition of the New York Times. They were nice people. Why would they mislead me? And they 'liked' it if I made some remark about Trump that reinforced our fore-gone conclusions about him.
Certainly that post from my 1 February 2017 Facebook page is an example. And, it was pretty correct from my viewpoint. Besides being rude and non-presidential, he had torn down Bonwit's Art Deco Facade, put a really ugly building right where Michigan Boulevard crosses the Chicago River, and had terrible taste in drapers. But, hey man, here's the thing: when I, to continue my sophomore metaphor, when I listened to the lectures, so to speak, he hadn't done so bad. If politics were a science, the data would have proved that the theories about Trump were wrong. I was wrong.
Now, in 2020, I would suggest that Joe Biden and perhaps even more so, Kamala Harris, have done everything they could to prove they are unfit to be president. I certainly understand why people might not think Trump has been ‘presidential’, but the democrats have failed t, in my opinion, to provide desirable alternatives either.
I am going to try to hold judgment based on the ‘data’ available now. (although there is a lot more record of Biden the politician than there was of Trump.) I am expecting nothing good from the new regime, but I am going to wait for results before I conclude that my theory is correct.
However, that will not keep me from having a bit of fun with the Harris-Biden circus. It seems that the party , whoever they really are, have chosen Mr. Potatohead as Big Brother. I expect that Jack Dorsey will continue to exercise his role as Minister of Truth. Perhaps Kamala Harris will be Minister of Plenty, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the Minister of Love, and Andre Maginot Minister of Peace. (If dead men can vote, they can certainly serve as Minister Heads.)
No comments:
Post a Comment