Disagreeing with John McKay

Via Bora, I’ve come across a post by John McKay that appears to make the case that conservatism is inherently anti-science. Now, before I go on, I want to state up front that I agree that conservatism is largely anti-science in the contemporary political context. The recent spats over evolution, stem-cell research, global warming, etc., have shown that modern conservatives are considerably more anti-science than their liberal counterparts. Nonetheless, I disagree with Mr. McKay on several points, the first one being in his second paragraph:

This twist of logic was achieved by painting liberalism as an anti-science ideology and themselves, by virtue of being anti-liberal, as the defenders of science. The core of their claim about the nature of liberalism was based on the facts that New Age spiritualism is often anti-science; that New Agers, when they are political at all, tend to be liberal; and that liberals, by way of their belief in tolerance and diversity, do not condemn New Age spiritualism on an ideological basis (though many individual liberals reject and criticize it on a rational basis).

This is, to put it mildly, excessively generous to liberalism. Nowhere in his post does Mr. McKay mention the postmodern academy, which while being overwhelmingly “liberal” (assumed here to be a general term for “leftist” or “left-wing”) is decidedly anti-science. This is very odd, considering that much, if not the overwhelming majority, of the rhetoric we now associate with conservative anti-scientism has clear antecedents in social constructivist thought. The notion that politics and societal power relationships determine what is considered “truth” in science, which forms the justification for attacks on scientific consensus among global warming denialists and anti-evolutionists, is a central theme of POMO thought. The portrayal of the scientific professorate as burgeoise and opposed to proletarian interests is also a guiding theme in social constructivism, yet is also mirrored in right-wing rants against “effete, Volvo driving liberal elitists”. Many conservatives have even been eager to adopt the relativism inherent in postmodernism, arguing often that science in and of itself is no better at discerning truth accurately than mysticism, religion or other forms of magical thinking.

I’ll also note that McKay ignores the more egregious anti-science sins of the New Left movement, though which ran a primitivist streak that saw technological advancement as a threat to “mother-earth”, generally as part of the anti-nuclear backlash of the 70’s and 80’s but also replayed in subsequent objections to genetic engineering. While this can be considered part of the general “New Age” ideosphere, the ideas also had a considerable following among more secular types. Given these, one could argue that scientists were far more justified in considering the left anti-science and conservatives as natural allies at that time, even if that claim is absurd now.

I also disagree with this:

Science, as an intellectual project is profoundly un-conservative. Science does not value tradition. Science requires authority to continually reprove itself. Science must follow the truth wherever it goes, regardless of the political and economic implications…

This is pretty selective. Science is also very unfriendly to grandiosity and iconoclasm, usually having a very conservative propensity for piecemeal progress. There are good reasons for this, chief among which is the fact that there are far more worthless and outright loony ideas out there than good ones. As John notes later, science is apolitical and as such doesn’t inherently favor liberalism or conservatism. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say that science as an endeavor is “profoundly un-conservative”. Like most things it has conservative and liberal elements.