Reality-based conservatism
Jun. 30th, 2011 04:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
David Frum concludes that same sex marriage doesn't damage heterosexual marriage.
Is there anything else in American politics which is dependent on as weak an argument as opposition to same sex marriage? The war on drugs is based on a wild over-estimation of government power, but it doesn't quite have that weird "I'll make up a definition and insist that it's realer than what can be observed" quality.
Link thanks to
nwhyte.
Is there anything else in American politics which is dependent on as weak an argument as opposition to same sex marriage? The war on drugs is based on a wild over-estimation of government power, but it doesn't quite have that weird "I'll make up a definition and insist that it's realer than what can be observed" quality.
Link thanks to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
no subject
Date: 2011-07-01 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-01 07:55 am (UTC)Hmm, as for solid data, have you looked at the information about worldwide losses to glaciers? Here's one useful site (of many) for this info. If the fact that glaciers have been retreating worldwide since around 1980s and this retreat is increasing doesn't seem reasonable to you, then we're operating from sufficiently different perspectives that I'm not at all certain that we have any basis for useful communication.
However, if this seems reasonable (not the cause, merely the fact that glaciers are retreating and that this is increasing), then I recommend the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. I have only read excerpts (both directly from the report and in various articles), but everything I've seen looks rigorous and solid and is the most comprehensive survey of the data and analysis of the data that I've seen.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-01 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-01 08:09 pm (UTC)I also found this summary of the history of climate change science to be helpful for context.
There are many cases of scientists supporting politically motivated ideas, but few with the level of agreement among in-area researchers, or the diversity of evidence, that attend climate change. Eugenic claims, for example, were opposed by a large number of credible researchers--notably behavioral psychologists, who were well aware of the degree to which environment shapes capability.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-01 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-02 04:59 am (UTC)Watson (of the infamous Little Albert experiment) spent a lot of time arguing with eugenicists as well--some of his writings may relate to that. They may also demonstrate the degree to which he was a complete asshole, but support for eugenics was not one of his flaws. His quote about "Give me a dozen well-formed infants..." is from a debate on the topic.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm afraid all my literature on the topic is currently packed and in another state, and will be till August.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-03 04:45 pm (UTC)The actual paper, if you want to read it (it has open access), concludes that Morton did have racist biases, but that his published data were not affected by them: "Science does not rely on investigators being unbiased “automatons.” Instead, it relies on methods that limit the ability of the investigator's admittedly inevitable biases to skew the results. Morton's methods were sound, and our analysis shows that they prevented Morton's biases from significantly impacting his results. The Morton case, rather than illustrating the ubiquity of bias, instead shows the ability of science to escape the bounds and blinders of cultural contexts."
no subject
Date: 2011-07-03 04:56 pm (UTC)