First of all, I’m really sorry about mauling your name. For some reason I really thought it was Jeffrey. Also, I guess I should have been more clear that the post wasn’t completely aimed at you, but more at the position associated with the kinds of things you’ve said. Further, I’m sure your argument is more nuanced than I’ve painted it. And most of all, I apologize for any aggressive sounding tone.

That being said, I think that there are things about my argument that indeed characterize what you have said that you may not have noticed. Please bear with me here.

While your it certainly wasn’t your intention (I know enough about you to know that you’re not a raving statist), even the small praise you do offer represents a statist point of view. For one, that you’ve complained about [policies] being “politicized, muzzled, and forced to conform to the neoconservative/Christian Right agenda” in the same post praising Obama, implies that the same won’t happen with the latter (just in a different form). I covered why this is a problematic claim briefly in my post, though I could be relying on premises that you maybe don’t agree with. In that case, we can discuss it separately if you’re interested.

What you are praising – a claim that science be “restored to its rightful place” – is a praise of a claim that the government can “restore” anything it destroys. You’re praising something about science from a government that is going to be continually involved in science-related policies. That means that you are praising the use of a gun. Using violence is not just an action the state takes, it defines the state. (This is also a premise you may disagree with, also worth discussing separately).

This paragraph is an example of what made me characterize your argument like I did:

Now that the anti-intellectual, anti-science administration is out of office, work that has been neglected for far too long can be restarted to bring America to the forefront of scientific achievement, and raise its population’s scientific literacy. The benefits of this will be two-fold: (1) it will make America more innovative, competitive, and prosperous, and (2) it will beat back the titanic forces of Unreason that have pervaded and eroded America’s cultural vitality and Enlightenment heritage.

Unless you were praising Obama for getting the government out of science everywhere, and thus protecting its integrity from partisanship, then you’ve accepted:
(1) Using violence (i.e. taxation) to advance America’s scientific role in the world is acceptable (2) that you trust that science conducted in this manner will be trustworthy and reliable, and (3) that, as opposed to the Christian Right, there is a political force that is capable of advancing trustworthy and reliable science. But Obama isn’t getting the government out of science – he’s going to be conducting all manner of policies that depend on backing from the scientific establishment. Policies that involve billions of dollars. Energy, infrastructure, climate, everything like that. Billions of dollars and a centralized force deciding how to spend it, with the ultimate decision maker being a mix of the President, 100 Senators, and 435 Congressmen. That alone is indication enough that the best science won’t always win.

While we are indeed living through a welcome respite from the Bush administration’s Bible-thumping and religious populist aversion to earth and life sciences, I just got way more than that from your post. I guess, to explain my disagreement this way: if I had written a post praising the exit of the Bush administration, it would have looked different, with absolutely no positive praise for the Obama administration and with the utmost qualification as to the fact that I don’t expect things to be better in the long run. I don’t think any positive praise is merited, and I really don’t care for bringing particularly America back to the forefront of anything, if it comes at the expense of many other things (namely freedom).

Anyway, I hope that focuses my post a little better. And again, I’ve grown out of the whole “adversarial argument” thing, so I hope that you take nothing of this personally.

-Chris

Your arguments against the state’s “using a gun,” “trusting the whole establishment with anything,” and “thinking that some other political force is scientific” do not correspond to anything I claimed or implied in my post. These arrows are either flying over their target or flying at phantoms. I also never “in the same breath [said], “and we can achieve hat by using a gun.”" That remark is totally unqualified, irresponsible, and an blatant incitement to fear. Your post is a giant boot that misses the ant because of its crevices. Aim smaller.

I sincerely appreciate your feedback,
James

I wanted to ask if you would mind expanding on your review of this article, I enjoyed your post and would be honored to publish it on Lost Liberty Café.

Thanks,

Nathan