Here's what bothers me the most about the global-warming scandal: Scientists have politicized their field, and thereby harmed it. The purpose of science is to describe the world. It is not to evaluate the world. If you want to evaluate things, you should not go into science. Go into law, religion, moralizing, or politics. I understand that scientists are also citizens, but these are distinct roles. As scientists, individuals are supposed to be value-free. "Just the facts, ma'am." As citizens, they are entitled to express their values (whatever they may be) and try to get them embodied in law. Scientists are revered, to the extent that they are, precisely because they are "out of the fray." They are disinterested (as opposed to interested) and detached (as opposed to engaged). Their aim is not to make policy but to make sure that policy is informed.
The scientists involved in the global-warming scandal have confused their roles. They have put their political values ahead of their scientific work. They have adopted an us-against-them mentality. They want so desperately to influence public policy that they have distorted and hidden data, played fast and loose with statistical methods, and made personal attacks on those of their fellow scientists who are not "on board" politically (or who are suspected of not being "on board"). To their discredit, they have acted like gang members or thugs rather than as disinterested pursuers and purveyors of truth.
It's sad, disgraceful, and, because of what is at stake (the integrity of science), distressing. It shows that many scientists are ideologues first and scientists second. They view science as a means to the end of changing the world. They care less about getting things right than about setting things right. Perhaps worst of all, they view science as a form of battle rather than as a collaborative, respectful activity that is designed to elicit the truth. I'm sorry to say that many philosophers are in the same boat: ideologues first and philosophers second. I find it increasingly difficult to read philosophical literature. Issue after issue of the periodicals to which I subscribe contains intemperate and unprofessional attacks on the Bush administration, for example, or on conservatives. Instead of trying to clarify the moral issues involved in torture, terrorism, or war, jabs are taken. A whole generation of philosophers has come of age thinking that philosophy is war by other means. They view their discipline as fighting the good fight, which, invariably, means the advancement of progressivism.
I can't stomach it. As I age, I'm drawn more and more to the philosophy published before 1970. Philosophers then were serious, adult, balanced, charitable, and committed to discovering the truth. They were respectful of those with whom they disagreed. They viewed their discipline as nonideological. It wasn't about changing the world to conform to some political vision; it was about clarifying concepts, identifying fallacies, resolving paradoxes, and reconciling disparate realms, such as science and religion. I hope one day that philosophers come to their senses. They are not lawyers; they are not preachers; they are not moralizers; they are not politicians; they are not scientists. Their analytical and critical skills are practically useful, but not in the way many philosophers today imagine them to be. The skills are designed to shed light, not generate heat.
Sad as it is to say (because I love science), science is going to suffer mightily as a result of this scandal. Mark my words. In the long run, it may be for the best that this occurs. People's reverence for scientists, which has been extraordinarily high, will decrease. Blind trust in what scientists say will end. Scientists will have to earn back the public's respect and trust by staying clear of politics and by making their work transparent to all. In short, scientists will have to learn, or relearn, how to be scientists.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 