Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Confusion for Future Historians

    Powell thinks it’s Powell who tames the President, Blair thinks it’s Blair. So history is written.

  • Positive Discrimination

    Not quotas but targets; European human rights laws; poverty and privilege. Difficult questions without clear answers.

  • When is a degree not a degree?

    Are some university degrees more equal than others?

  • University Press Publisher as Deity

    The Boston Globe interviews an editor at Harvard University Press.

  • Case Study in Scientific Disagreement

    The Danish panel says Political Scientist Lomborg, ‘strangely for a statistician’, uses the word ‘plausible’ often without attaching any probability to it. And there is more…

  • What Ivory Tower?

    Education and politics are and should be intimately connected.

  • Dishonesty or at Least Incomprehension

    Danish panel says Lomborg did not comprehend the science in his cheerful environmental book.

  • A Scientific Controversy In Progress

    The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, a branch of the Danish Research Agency, issued a report on January 7, 2003 that Bjørn Lomborg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist was ‘dishonest science’. The seventeen page report explaining their reasoning provides a fascinating case study in the workings of science: it’s a small education in itself.

    One thing it teaches (in case we didn’t know) is how difficult and complicated such questions are. There is no eureka moment, no Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot pacing the hearthrug while he explains how All was Revealed, no conclusive proof. There is only a huge and complex variety of evidence and the hard slog of interpreting it, there is only probability and ‘if…then’ and statistics. There is the need for caution, and alertness, and remembering to notice all the implications.

    Another lesson is the reminder it gives of how difficult, though necessary, it is for non-experts to form opinions on such subjects. We are forced to trust authority and rely on experts. Even scientists have to do that outside their own fields, and the rest of us have to do it across the board. The lucid explanations of the reasoning behind the report offer some training in how to think about such subjects.

    It remains very difficult, of course, for an outsider to judge such questions, and yet as citizens and as polluting, consuming, devouring beings, we have to. The report seems to make a good case that Lomborg simplifies complex issues, omits secondary literature that doesn’t support his case, relies on optimistic views of future trends, and misrepresents the arguments of environmentalists he disagrees with.

    One bizarre argument in attempted support of Lomborg from Tech Central Station is strangely reminiscent of the self-defense offered by the editors of Social Text after they published Alan Sokal’s satire of Postmodernism under the mistaken idea that he meant it literally.

    Along comes an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus – a man who does not present himself as a natural scientist and who has written a popular book, not a peer-reviewed article – to challenge their assumptions.

    Very well, he is not a natural scientist. Does that mean he gets a free pass? Why shouldn’t others who are natural scientists point out where he gets the science wrong? He may not claim to be a natural scientist but he is writing about natural science, so why should he escape peer review? Even a popular book ought to be accurate, one would think. I daresay Alan Sokal would agree.

    External Resources

    • Grist is Skeptical
      Excellent feature by Grist magazine, with links to comments by E.O. Wilson, Stephen Schneider, Norman Myers and others.
    • Guardian Story on Report
      The Guardian on the report of the Danish committee, which found that Lomborg didn’t comprehend the science, rather than intending to mislead.
    • The Guardian Reviews Lomborg
      Chris Lavers urges caution in judging Lomborg’s use of statistics: ‘overarching averages can obscure a lot of important detail.’
    • A Letter
      A reply to Bjørn Lomborg in Scientific American.
    • Another SciAm Article
      More skepticism toward skeptical environmentalist.
    • Article on the Skeptical Environmentalist
      Scientific American article in January 2002 on The Skeptical Environmentalist.
    • Danish Ministry Overturns Decision
      Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has repudiated findings by Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty that Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist was ‘objectively dishonest.’
    • Lomborg Replies to his Critics
      Bjørn Lomborg answers his doubters in Scientific American.
    • More Correspondence on Lomborg
      Several letters about Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist in Scientific American.
    • Reply to Rebuttal
      More correspondence in Scientific American.
    • Ten Items for Environmental Educators to Know
      A critique by the World Resources Institute and World Wildlife Fund of Bjørn Lomborg’s controversial book.
    • UCS on Lomborg
      The Union of Concerned Scientists looks at The Skeptical Environmentalist. Includes comments from E.O. Wilson, Peter Gleick, Jerry Mahlman and others.
    • Wilson on Biodiversity
      E.O. Wilson’s book The Future of Life explains the importance of biodiversity, and why optimism about species loss, whether from Rush Limbaugh or Bjørn Lomborg, is a mistake.
    • Wilson on Lomborg on Extinction
      E.O. Wilson demolishes Lomborg’s optimism about species extinction.
  • Wide Awake

    Speaking of Fresh Air…there was an interesting display of Pathetically Reduced Expectations on that show a few days ago. The political ‘commentator’ David Frum was on to talk about the year he spent as a speechwriter in the Bush White House. He has an unctuous, soft, childishly enthusiastic voice, and he kept getting in a flutter of excitment and admiration at things that were not worth getting in a flutter about. It was all too depressingly reminiscent of what we used to hear about the Reagan White House, when people would tell anecdotes that proved the President was actually conscious and awake as if they proved how brilliant and perspicacious he was. One example in particular struck me by its naive glee. Frum assured us that the President pays close attention to what his speechwriters actually write, and he has (oh boy!) a big marking pen with which he scribbles in the margins (gosh, really?). In one speech someone wrote ‘I saw it with my own eyes,’ and our dazzlingly clever Chief Executive wrote next to that: ‘duh’. Wow! Is that impressive or what?

    Frum also confirmed something I’ve long suspected, which is that the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ have been outlawed in the American language. It is, as I thought, official. The boss of the speechwriters has a lot of rules for what can and cannot be said, and among those rules is one that outlaws the word ‘parents’. It has to be ‘moms’ and ‘dads’. Because…what? The word ‘parent’ is too long? Too high-falutin’? Too elitist? No, I know, don’t bother to explain. It’s not cozy enough, not cloying enough, not sentimental and intrusive and folksy enough. Duh.

  • What Would Jesus Drive?

    I do like to see a good roundhouse attack like this one in The New Republic, on that contemporary American plague, the Sport Utility Vehicle. I only wish there were more of them (and that they did any good). There was an auto industry reporter on Fresh Air a few days ago, and it was a pathetic series of missed opportunities as Terri Gross let the guy rhapsodize about the wonders of the SUV without bothering to point out the obvious drawbacks. For instance he sang a little aria to the joy of being so high up off the road and able to look over the other traffic. Well yes, and SUV drivers are so high up that they are also able to look over pedestrians, look over them so completely that they often don’t see them at all. I wonder how many times I’ve been walking innocently down the sidewalk and been nearly flattened by someone hurtling out of a parking lot in a giant SUV without noticing any pesky pedestrians.

    But I hadn’t realized I was being impious in thinking this way. The New Republic article says Washington Post auto industry reporter Warren Brown ‘deliriously proclaimed that the Hummer is what Jesus would drive. Its size and its profligacy are justified, Brown said, because “if you are a missionary like some of my friends,” you could use a Hummer “to bring loads of food and medical supplies” to the poor.’ Of course! That’s what all those people high up over the walkers and talking on their cell phones are doing–shlepping food and meds to the poor! I knew that! ‘In the beginning was the Durango, and the Durango was with God, and…’

  • Where Are the Young People With Nose Studs?

    Should the National Theatre be required to attract yoof?

  • ‘Scientific dishonesty’?

    A Danish political scientist is rebuked for optimistic book on environmental issues.

  • Apples and Oranges

    This is an interesting and uncomfortable story. The American Association of University Professors is about to publish a study which shows that Affirmative Action policies at US colleges and universities have failed to close the gap between whites on the one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other.

    The article will highlight admissions policies that give special consideration to the children of alumni and donors to colleges; prepaid-tuition plans, which benefit only those parents who can afford to save money for college; and the current movement among many public colleges to tighten admissions standards and end remedial programs, reports the Chronicle of Higher Education.

    Surely that sentence skates rapidly over the difficult issues inherent in the subject. Surely there are two very separate problems that the article plans to highlight. Special consideration for alumni would indeed seem to give an advantage – an arguably unfair and arbitrary advantage – to people whose parents went to universities in the past, which will naturally be white people. But what of this movement to tighten admissions standards? Is that unfair and arbitrary in the same sense? Is it unfair and arbitrary at all? Is it inherent in the education process? Perhaps the study addresses these issues. Perhaps it is simply impartially listing the causes of the gap. But a newspaper story’s grouping all such factors in one sentence, without reference to the differences among them, could create a false impression.

  • Is ‘science for citizens’ real science?

    The jury is out on radical plans to restructure high school science curricula in the UK.

  • Study on Affirmative Action in US Higher Education

    Study blames admissions policies that favor children of alumni, and the movement to tighten admissions standards, for failure to narrow racial gap.

  • ‘Cultural Difference’ and its Discontents

    Brian Barry’s Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism was short-listed for the British Academy prize, which rewards academic excellence combined with accessibility to the general reader.

  • Who Needs Evidence When You Have Publicity?

    Oh good, another piece of Imaginative History, or The Case of the Peekaboo Evidence. Not unlike the Clonaid festivities last week, when the ‘Raelians’ announced the birth of the first cloned baby, but when invited to provide DNA evidence to support such a surprising claim, came over all bashful. There is a good deal of sly wit in Natalie Danford’s Salon piece about retired Admiral Gavin Menzies’ claim that the Chinese sailed to America seventy years before Columbus. It was a shrewd move, for example, to rent the lecture hall of the Royal Geographical Society as the place to announce his ‘discovery’. And publicity does do the trick: there has been so much attention that Menzies’ American publishers have advanced the date of publication by five months. Danford talks to three experts in the field who are unimpressed or plain skeptical of Menzies’ claim, and she wonders why a serious publisher like Morrow ‘didn’t question these unorthodox research methods or the veracity of the statements Menzies has built on them’. The executive editor Danford spoke to resorted to speculation on motives rather than answering the question.

    Wachtel theorized that skeptics are threatened by Menzies’ attack on the status quo: “People don’t like the basis of their fundamental knowledge to be challenged, and we all know that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.”

    Ah. That explains it then. Because people don’t like their knowledge challenged, therefore bizarre claims based on shaky or no evidence are true. Interesting argument.

    But of course we like this kind of thing. Think The Education of Little Tree. Think of the ‘Chief Seattle’ speech, that was actually written by a Hollywood hack. Think of Black Athena, and The Goddess, and The Gentle Tasaday. Think of Tacitus’ wildly romanticised version of the Germans, people he’d never laid eyes on and knew nothing about, but used to vent his hatred of ‘decadent’ Rome. No doubt the Chinese arrival in America in 1421 will soon be on the curriculum of many a school.

  • Did the Chinese Discover America?

    Renting the Royal Geographical Society lecture hall and inviting an audience is one way to get attention.

  • The Attention of People Who Care

    David Bromwich disagrees with Louis Menand that dispassion is the proper state for a critic.

  • Exam Still Bowdlerizes Texts

    New York Regents’ exam continues to re-write and abridge literary excerpts, despite promises not to. Quis custodiet?