Thirdly, the claim makes little sense in the context of human history. Prior to the last few
centuries the inhabitable regions of our planet provided ample territory and resources--such as
food and cultivable land--to accommodate every human inhabitant. Yet our distant ancestors
engaged in war and crime anyway. What else explains this, except that it is part of our inherent
nature to engage in aggressive behavior toward other humans? Moreover, if we consider the
various experiments with Marx’s Communism, it becomes clear that the pure Marxist State in
which all territory and resources are shared according to the needs of each individual does not
work in practice. Every attempt, whether on the macro- or micro-level, has failed at the hands
of a few demagogues or despots, who aggress and oppress like playground bullies.
In sum, the author of this statement misunderstands the roots of such phenomena as war
and crime. The statement runs contrary to my personal observations of human behavior, to the
scientific notions of genetic predisposition and evolution of species, and to the overwhelming
lack of evidence that providing ample resources to people solves these problems.
Issue 77
"Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who
is an expert in that field."
The speaker’s assertion that work in any field can be judged only by experts in that field
amounts to an unfair generalization, in my view. I would concur with the speaker when it
comes to judging the work of social scientists, although I would strongly disagree when it
comes to work in the pure physical sciences, as explained in the following discussion.
85
With respect to the social sciences, the social world presents a seamless web of not only
anthropogenic but also physical forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in
the context of a variety of disciplines. Thus experts from various fields must collectively
determine the merit of work in the social sciences. For example, consider the field of cultural
anthropology. The merits of researcher’s findings and conclusions about an ancient civilization
must be scrutinized by biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers.
Specifically, by analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists
and forensic scientists can pass judgment on the anthropologist’s conjectures about the life
expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death of the population. Geologists
are needed to identify the source and age of the materials used for tools, weapons, and
structures--thereby determining whether the anthropologist extrapolated correctly about the
civilization’s economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and so
forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments of
writings. And astronomers are sometimes needed to determine with the anthropologist’s
explanations for the layout of an ancient city or the design, structure and position of
monuments, tombs, and temples is convincing-because ancients often looked to the stars for
guidance in building cities and structures.In contrast, the work of researchers in the purely physical sciences can be judged only by
their peers. The reason for this is that scientific theories and observations are either
meritorious or not, depending solely on whether they can be proved or disproved by way of the
scientific method. For example, consider the complex equations which physicists rely upon to
draw conclusions about the nature of matter, time, and space, or the origins and future of the
universe. Only other physicists in these specialties can understand, let alone judge, this type of
theoretical work. Similarly, empirical observations in astrophysics and molecular physics
require extremely sophisticated equipment and processes, which only experts in these fields
have access to and who know how to use reliably.
Those who disagree that only inside experts can judge scientific work might point out that
the expertise of economists and pubic-policy makers is required to determine whether the
work is worthwhile from a more mundane economic or political viewpoint. Detractors might
also point out that ultimately it is our philosophers who are best equipped to judge the ultimate
import of ostensibly profound scientific discoveries. Yet these detractors miss the point of what
I take to be the speaker’s more narrow claim: that the integrity and quality of
work---disregarding its socioeconomic utility----can be judged only by experts in the work’s
field.
In sum, in the social sciences no area of inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because fields such
as anthropology, sociology, and history are so closely intertwined and even dependent on the
physical sciences, experts from various fields must collectively determine the integrity and
quality of work in these fields. However, in the purely physical sciences the quality and integrity
of work can be adequately judged only by inside experts, who are the only ones equipped with
sufficient technical knowledge to pass judgment.
Issue 78
"Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand
either the one or the other."
86
Should politics and morality be treated as though they are mutually exclusive? I strongly
agree with the speaker that any person claiming so fails to understand either the one or the
other. An overly narrow definition of morality might require complete forthrightness and
candidness in dealings with others. However, the morality of public politics embraces far
broader concerns involving the welfare of society, and recognizes compromise as a necessary,
and legitimate, means of addressing those concerns.
It is wrong-headed to equate moral behavior in politics with the simple notions of honesty
and putting the other fellow’s needs ahead of one’s own----or other ways which we typically
measure the morality of an individual’s private behavior. Public politics is a game played
among professional politicians--and to succeed in the game one must use the tools that are
part-and-parcel of it. Complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivet~, neither of
which will earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which opponents will use
to every advantage against the honest politician. Moreover, the rhetoric of a successful
politician eschews rigorous factually inquiry and indisputable fact while appealing to emotions,
ideals, and subjective interpretation and characterizations. For example, the politician who
claims his opponent is "anti-business," "bad for the economy," or "out of touch with what voters
want" is not necessarily behaving immorally. We must understand that this sort of rhetoric is
part-and-parcel of public politics, and thus kept in perspective does not harm the society--as
long as it does not escalate to outright lying.Those who disagree with the statement also fail to understand that in order to gain the
opportunity for moral leadership politicians must engage in certain compromises along the way.
Politics is a business born not only of idealism but also of pragmatism insofar as in order to be
effective a politician must gain and hold onto political power. In my observation, some degree
of pandering to the electorate and to those who might lend financial support for reelection
efforts is necessary to maintain that position. Modern politics is replete with candidates who
refused to pander, thereby mining their own chance to exercise effective leadership.
Finally, those who claim that effective politicians need not concern themselves with morality
fail to appreciate that successful political leadership, ifit is to endure, ultimately requires a
certain measure of public morality--that is, serving the society with its best interests as the
leader’s overriding concern. Consider the many leaders, such as Stalin and Hitler, whom most
people would agree were egregious violators of public morality. Ultmately such leaders forfeit
their leadership as a result of the immoral means by which they obtain or wield their power. Or
consider less egregious examples such as President Nixon, whose contempt for the very legal
system that afforded him his leadership led to his forfeiture of that leadership. It seems to me
that in the short term amoral or immoral public behavior might serve a political leader’s interest
in preserving power; yet in the long term such behavior invariably results in that leader’s
downfall.
In sum, I fundamentally agree with the statement. It recognizes that the "game" of politics
calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness that we might associate with dubious private
morality. And it recognizes that such behavior is a necessary means to the final objective of
moral political leadership. Besides, at the end of the political game any politician failing to
exercise moral leadership ultimately forfeits the game.
87
Issue 79
"Great advances in knowledge necessarily involve the rejection of authority."
The speaker claims that great advances in knowledge necessarily involve rejection of
authority. To the extent that political authority impedes such advances, I agree with this claim.
Otherwise, in my view most advances in knowledge actually embrace certain forms of authority,
rather than rejecting authority out of hand.
One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge
involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth. In earlier centuries the
official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the
Earth’s age is determined to be about 6,000 years. IfWestern thinkers had continued to yield to
the ostensible authority of the Church, the fields of structural and historical geology would
never have advanced beyond the blind acceptance of this contention as fact.
A more modern example of how yielding to political authority can impede the advancement
of knowledge involves the Soviet Refusenik movement of the 1920s. During this time period
the Soviet government attempted not only to control the direction and the goals of its scientists’
research but also to distort the outcome of that research. During the 1920s the Soviet
government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and
libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were engaged in
research that the state viewed as a potential threat to its power and authority. Not surprisingly,
during this time period no significant advances in scientific knowledge occurred under the
auspices of the Soviet government.