Today's book review is of Dave Levitan's Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science, published in April 2017.
I
tag this is an important book that everyone should read, while
recognizing that the people who need it most will refuse to do so. The
main title is derived from the oft-heard refrain from Republican
politicians in the year or so leading up to the recent presidential
campaign: "I am not a scientist." Invariably this meaningless throwaway
line was followed by some statement that was both false and already
refuted by the science.
Each chapter of the book introduces one
of a series of what the author calls mistakes, misrepresentations, and
errors. [I would call them tactics] They include the
"oversimplification," "cherry-pick," "butter-up and cut," "demonizer,"
"blame the blogger," and so forth. Some of these will sound familiar and
others not, but all are common tactics used by politicians to mislead
the public and give cover for fellow science-denier legislators. The
examples he uses will be recognizable by most people who watch or read
the news.
The "oversimplification," for example, is done by
boiling down a complicated science into a simple statement that appears
to be true and definitive (though is likely to be neither). The example
he gives is when several Republican politicians argued "the scientific
evidence is clear" that unborn babies at 20 weeks feel pain. In fact,
there is essentially no scientific evidence supporting this argument
(and much evidence to refute it), but by stating something as settled
fact that isn't settled fact they are able to push their anti-abortion
agenda.
On the flip-side of this is the "certain uncertainty"
tactic. Republican politicians often claim that since we don't every
single detail of man-made climate change (e.g., how many feet the seas
will rise by 2030 or the temperature by 2050) then we should not take
action. Politicians who don't want to take action on climate change
demand absolute certainty to avoid responsibility; politicians who do
want to take action to block funding for women's reproductive choices
claim as certainty conclusions that are in no way certain. In both
cases, politicians are selectively choosing a tactic that misrepresents
the science for their political gain.
There are two aspects of
the book that I believe keep it from reaching the entirety of its
potential. First, the format of each chapter is to introduce examples
from politicians mouths to illustrate the tactic being discussed. This
is a good start, but then Levitan spends considerable time documenting
the research that debunks that particular politician's statement. I
agree that explaining the reality is necessary to show the fallacies,
faults, and fallaciousness of the statements, but in my opinion these
discussions go on way too long. The author is a respected journalist and
does an excellent job digging out the background behind the statements,
but I wish he had covered the material more concisely so that he could
provide more examples and more insights into how to recognize these
tactics. No casual viewer or listener of these political statements is
going to do investigative reporting to know that the statements are
false. The public needs to be able to recognize in real time when
politicians are misleading them.
The second aspect is that
Levitan works hard to avoid calling a lie a lie. Many of the tactics he
describes as errors and misrepresentations are intentional. The
carefully constructed "literal nitpick" of James Inhofe, for example, is
done intentionally to misinform the public so that they won't call him
out on the science denial that negatively impacts his constituents (but
greatly helps his campaign donors, and future donations to his coffers).
[See this article on The Dake Page for more discussion of this James Inhofe example]
Considering
the critiques above, I think the book falls short of what it
potentially could have accomplished. That aside, I also highly recommend
that everyone read it. The tactics that Levitan discusses are used
repeatedly by politicians - mostly, but not exclusively, Republicans -
and the general public MUST be aware of how science deniers
intentionally misrepresent the science. Why the capital letters "MUST?"
Because denial of science, and the resulting abdication of
responsibility to take policy action to address it, endangers each and
every American (not to mention everyone else on Earth, and Earth
itself).
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments that address the topic of the post will be accepted. Please note that abusive comments are unacceptable at all times. Personal attacks are never appropriate and will be deleted.