Bush's Lysenkoism and the Distortion of Intelligence
Or:
Science and the Postmodern Presidency
[This post by CalPundit prompted me to post this, a shorter version of a longer piece I've been fiddling around with.]
'Lysenkoism' is a vague term for a complex and fuzzy phenomenon. Roughly and for my purposes here, to engage in Lysekoism is to distort science in order to bring it into line with political orthodoxy.
(A) It is well-known (though not well enough known) that the Bush administration is Lysenkoist, though it isn't often put in those terms. This administration has suppressed or distorted scientific conclusions about - among many other topics - global warming, the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, drilling in the ANWR, and air quality in Manhattan after 9/11 in order to force science to conform (or appear to conform) to the administration's antecedently-accepted political beliefs. Henry Waxman's Politics and Science website is an invaluable resource for information on the political distortion of science in the Bush administration.
(B) It is also reasonably clear that the Bush administration distorted evidence about Iraq's WMDs and its links to al Qaeda in the run up to the Iraq war. This case is made persuasively in several places, most recently in a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications."
What is usually overlooked, however, is that A and B are merely two instances of the same general phenomenon. Intelligence gathering and analysis is a kind of science. It is in particular a kind of social science, aiming, like so many other kinds of social science, to discern the beliefs, intentions and actions of certain groups of people. Of course intelligence agencies often study groups that prefer to conceal their beliefs and intentions from us and that want to hurt us; but, although this adds a certain practical element of urgency to the equation, it doesn't change anything fundamental: intelligence gathering and analysis, when done correctly, is in large part a kind of science, even if a more practical and less theoretical kind of science, more like the science of nutrition than astrophysics. And, of course, Lysenkoism itself is simply a particular instance of an even more general phenomenon we could call logical preposterism--starting with your conclusion and evaluating evidence as good or bad depending on whether it supports this antecedently-accepted conclusion. Reasoning this way is preposterous in the literal sense of putting what is supposed to come last (the conclusion) first; in fact, it isn't really reasoning at all, but, rather, rationalization.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
This is an interesting theory and one I must ponder - of course I once again suspect that you are seeing the actions of the administration in an overly sinister light.
And as has come up here more than once, I am perplexed by people referring to Calpundit as if he were an unimpeachable authority in his own right. I have never seen anything tha leads me to believe he knows what the fuck he's talking about. Not that you cite him as an authority here - just wanted to get that out.
2 - debbie
"It is well-known (though not well enough known) that the Bush administration is Lysenkoist, though it isn't often put in those terms. This administration has suppressed or distorted scientific conclusions about - among many other topics - global warming, the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, drilling in the ANWR, and air quality in Manhattan after 9/11 in order to force science to conform (or appear to conform) to the administration's antecedently-accepted political beliefs."
First of all the 'scientific evidence' on global warming is conflicting at best. There is no 'absolute proof' and the scientific community at large disagree on the findings and conclusions.
As to the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, that is the ONLY way to insure that you will not come down with STD's or become pregnant...unless you know of a rash of virgin births that I am missing. Why can't the 'values' part be taught by the parents? When I went thru sex education in school condoms were not dispersed, sex was not a joke 'that is done by everybody' it was taught that it is only by responsible adults that are willing to accept consequences. Guess what....I didn't get pregnant, nor did get any STD's...you know why? I didn't have sex while I was a child, I waited until I was a responsible adult.
Here is my rant for the day...
"drilling in the ANWR"
I can't stand it when enviromentalist make demands that car companies come up with a cleaner way to power cars, one that does not use oil. Then when car companies do come up with 'hybrid' vehicles they they complain that they are too expensive to buy, they don't want to spend the extra $1000-$2000. Technology gets cheaper with more use. If the car companies don't sell them they won't make them. So the cost of all of these unsold vehicles, unused equipment, wasted man hours gets passed on to the consumer and the price of everything goes up to pay for it. So if you aren't willing to sacrifice for your ideals then shut your pie hole.
Then we have to start the cycle all over again. Personally I'm waiting for one big enough for a family of 5, then I will be the first one in line.
OK, rant over, I apologize Winston I really wasn't directing this at you just in general.
"It is also reasonably clear that the Bush administration distorted evidence about Iraq's WMDs and its links to al Qaeda in the run up to the Iraq war."
This is another one, maybe you are 'Lysenkoist' also? You distort evidence about Bush - this mindless chant that Bush 'invented or distorted' evidence in order to invade Iraq 'for political gain'. It's kind of funny that the people chanting this conviently forget that Clinton thought the evidence said the same thing - yet it wasn't 'invented or distorted' when HE was in office. It just totally distroys your credibility on this.
You can put any spin you want on anything and justify it to yourself. Self justification is the simplest thing in the world. I didn't believe that Clinton was lying about the intellegence on Iraq and I don't believe that Bush lied about the intellegence on Iraq. Just because something turns out to be wrong does not automaticly mean that there is a sinsister reason for it.
"In seeking to manipulate and distort the findings of our intelligence agencies about Iraq, the Bush Administration was merely doing what it has done since it took office - dogmatically distorting and suppressing evidence in the service of advancing conclusions arrived at for political reasons, and putting political pressure on experts to go along with the deception."
What political pressure was put on Clark when he went before congress and said the 'same things'? What political pressure was put on Clinton when he said the same things? The only political pressure I can imagine was 9-11. That put political pressure on Bush to really take this stuff seriously, to look at it in a different light, to 'play it safe'. I would be upset if a president did it ANY differently.
But that's just my thoughts.
3 - WInston Smith
Eric,
Needless to say, it is possible that I'm wrong about the Administration. But I do think it's significant that there seems to be a great deal of consensus in the scientific community that the Administration distorts scientific evidence and conclusions for political reasons. Once we recognize that the CIA is involved in a kind of social science, this makes the administration's distortions re: WMDs unsurprising, perhaps even predictable.
As you note, I didn't intend to cite CalPundit as an authority.
I'm heartened that you find this point ponderable, and would in fact like to hear any thoughts you have on the subject, especially if you think of something I've got wrong here.
As usual, Deb's silly ravings warrant no response.
WS
4 - JR
Can't resist.
First of all the 'scientific evidence' on global warming is conflicting at best. There is no 'absolute proof' and the scientific community at large disagree on the findings and conclusions.
And therefore we shouldn't try to do anything about it? Gee, where was that reasoning when it came to Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction"?
There is far more evidence linking human activity to global warming than there was evidence that Saddam could attack the United States. And don't kid yourself about the seriousness of the threat; the possible negative effects of global warming would make a "mushroom cloud" look like a papercut.
5 - Eric Olsen
I believe we are all inclined to see as "facts" that which most bolsters our political/ideological predispositions. I don't see the global warming/drilling issues as administration perspectives per se, but the inclination of pro-business, pro-development, pro-growth conservatives to defend their agenda in the face of mounting, but sometimes ambiguous evidence.
I also have no problem with emphasizing abstinence as the most absolute from of birth control and disease prevention, but it is obviously not the only factor, and learning the value and uses of other forms of birth control are an indispensable part of the program. "Just say no" works fine, except for those who don't.
But, I sincerely don't believe Bush didn't think Iraq had WMD - I am not convinced now they didn't - so I see this whole line of reasoning, which has clear implications for some of these other matters, as something of a red herring and an extrapolation that fits what one (in this case you) wants to see.
I do not dispute that the administration read the information at hand in the light that most suported their desire to invade Iraq, but I don't see that as a lie and I see it as Lysenkoism only to the extent that ALL favorable readings of the "facts" in light of one's own perspective is so.
In othe words, I see SOME Lysenkoism, as thusly described, in your charges of Lysenkoism.
6 - Winston Smith
Eric writes:
"I believe we are all inclined to see as "facts" that which most bolsters our political/ideological predispositions."
If this is true, then rational discourse is impossible, and we are wasting our time. If all evidence is interpreted to support conclusions we already have, then no new evidence can change those conclusions since it will invariably simply be re-interpreted in order to fit with antecedently-held conclusions.
But, of course, there is no reason to believe this is so. People change their minds on the basis of reasonably objective assessments of the evidence all the time. If this were not true, progress would be a miracle. It is unlikely that progress is a miracle, hence this is probably untrue.
On a semi-personal note: you don't *really* know that much about my intellectual history, Eric. I assure you, I agonized over the war, layed up at night worrying about the evidence re: WMDs, and spent at least half of the 3-4 months before the war being in favor of it. AND I continue to believe that the war would have been justified had it been undertaken primarily for humanitarian reasons. So to argue that all that's going on here is that I'm automatically seeing things through some kind of unreflective anti-Bush lens simply doesn't seem to fit well with the facts, IMHO.
Furthermore, charges of bias are easy--one can always make them, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with us simply COULDN'T do so honestly...only bias could account for such a preposterous conclusion. So, since it is always possible to accuse one's opponent of bias, and since such accusations almost invariably derail the discussion, SOP is to stick the evidence and avoid such hypotheses of bias except as a last resort. I endorse this strategy.
This is a little weird in this case since the topic at issue is ABOUT bias--the bias of the Bush admin. But forget about me. The most unbiased source we know of concluded that the evidence re: WMDs was equivocal, and told the Admin. so--I'm talking about the CIA of course.
The best studies of the admin's decision-making so far have concluded that it was biased (Judis and Ackerman, the CEWP), so even if I am the most biased person in the world, that's irrelevant here. But *forget about me*--go look at the facts. Look at Waxman's Science and Politics site; read the report from the CEWP.
It is interesting to note that the charge of administration Lysenkoism is not the ordinary sort of "they're a bunch of scoundrels" rhetoric, but a charge that has arisen spontaneously from several sources that are ordinarily reasonably unpolitical.
Another point:
Sure, one has a tendency to see equivocal evidence as one wants to see it, but that's no excuse. In a position of great responsibility one has epistemic responsibilities, too--perhaps first and foremost is to NOT interpret the evidence as you want to. The desire to interpret evidence in favorable ways is NOT irresistable (if it were, progress would be impossible). What's wrong with the administration is that it not only fails to resist the urge to interpret evidence in this way, but it actually puts pressure on those who ARE objective to change their methods and conclusions. They went so far as to go to the CIA and bully them, and produce their own new intelligence agencies to spit out the "conclusions" they wanted. THIS IS NOT ORDINARY BIAS, IT IS A SYSTEMATIC PROGRAM OF DECEPTION.
WS