As regular readers know, I seldom review books in these columns, preferring to leave that important job to professional reviewers. But every once in a while a book comes along that illuminates a major political problem so effectively that I cannot resist calling it to the attention of thoughtful readers. That is the case with Tom Bethell's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," recently published by Regnery.
As Bethell points out in an introduction, science is forever being used, like everything else, to reinforce political viewpoints. Normally, an advocate using something to support his point of view is promptly countered, more or less effectively, by an opponent citing something else that contradicts it. The rest of us can listen, with the help of the media, and decide for ourselves which viewpoint is better supported and therefore deserves to be believed.
But, Bethell notes, "Scientists seem to enjoy a measure of immunity." If a statement is made by a scientist in his professional capacity, non-scientists are afraid to contradict him. Even the media, whom we can usually count on to report opposing points of view, seldom look for information contradicting what a seemingly impartial scientist has declared to be the case.
Unfortunately however, scientists are human like the rest of us, with their full complement of opinions and biases on all sorts of subjects not squarely in their field of expertise. And not surprisingly, a lot of them are happy to rely on their reputations as unbiased experts to promote political causes of one sort or another. In many cases, they don't even recognize what they are doing; they simply confuse what they know with what they want.
So Bethell has written an entire book to expose some of the liberal myths that are forever being foisted on us with the important help of scientists, who are forever laying down the law without ever being effectively challenged by the media.
The current spectacular example, of course, is "global warming," and Bethell addresses it in Chapter 1. All serious proposed remedies for this supposed peril involve cutting down on economic activity. In the case of the United States, Bethell states, the Kyoto protocol (which this country refused to sign) would have required U.S. emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases" to be cut so much that "economic depression would have been the one sure result." That wouldn't bother the world's liberals and socialists much, of course, since they enjoy inconveniencing Uncle Sam. And many scientists (though by no means all) went along.
William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and author of How to Win Arguments .
Be the first to read William Rusher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.