Weaning California off its insane environmentalism -- to the point that some out there still opposed Bush's forest managment plan even after the loss of hundreds of homes this fall to wildfires -- will probably take deprogramming the majority of people out there who think much of this is based on real science. If Crichton wants to become to environmentalism what James Randi is to paranormal beliefs and other pseudo-scientific claims, that's fine with me (and given Hollywood's desire to both film every Crichton book and swallow any crackpot environmental theory that comes down the pike, this could set up an interestinf future clash of cultures, if Crichton puts his objections into novel form).

I'm surprised you're attacking this, OJ. You yourself have said that the whole environmental issue is too filled with ideology and junk science for a conservative environmentalism to take root easily. I would very much like much of this "religion," which is in large part just another secularist -ism as destructive as all the others, to disappear altogether from the environmental sciences.

Now, if Crichton is actually calling for the complete abandonment of morality in view of the environment, which he may be, then he is merely making the opposite mistake that environmentalists make, and allowing science to take the place of ideology, rather than ideology take the place of science.

Ideology--and religion specifically--is the hand that wields the tool of science. It must determine how far it will go, what it will study and how discoveries will be implemented. But if it itself attempts to be science, then things go wrong, as they have in regards to the study of the environment. To extend the tool metaphor a bit, pounding nails with your fist is nearly as silly as a hammer trying to wield itself.

I agree with the jist of Timithy's post. Crichton's speech can be seen as demistifying the "environment" as a subject whose understanding and management needs anything more than the crude tools afforded by objective science. In having barraled through these boundaries, enviro-nuts have become nothing more than cultists. One could have said all of that, though, without having to take a cheap shot at religion and implicitly, though he does not explicitly say so, faith. Faith and religion can be also seen as a tools in one's tool kit which you bring out when no other tool can do as good a job -- when pondering issues about life after death, good and evil, etc, not the thermodynamic properties of atmospheric gases.

Mr. Crichton's argument is quite other:

"Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical."

He believes that science/reason is above politics and religion, indeed that it is not itself a faith or a politics. This is not just wrong but dangerous.

It may very well be that Mr Crichton is the type that believes that on every issue science/reason is all you need and that the combo always trounces politics and religion. However, assume he is limiting his comments to the understanding and management of the environment (no need to bring creationism or evolution here either). This would primarily alienate the looney Left, who has turned a pedestrian science into a cult. I can't see too many run-of-the-mill Judeo-Christian-Muslim believers feeling their faith structure has been challenged because someone is out to test whether Global Warming is caused by sun spots, bovine flatulence, or auto emissions.

MG:

Consider for example oil-drilling in ANWR. It may be true--in the scientific sense--that we could extract all the resources there without having a sigfnificant and lasting impact on the environment. But does that really trump all other arguments? Is there not an aesthetic case to be made for leaving such an area untouched--whether you ultimately agree with that argument or not?

Consider fetal tissue. It may be the scientific truth that we could achieve great medical strides by harvesting fetal tissue and using it in the lab. But does that trump all other considerations? Is there not a religious/moral/aesthetic case to be made for valuing existing human so highly that such research be limited or even barred?

Consider the experiments doine in Nazi concentration camps, on things like hypothermia. If there's a scientific case to be made that this kind of experimentation can yield important results, is it necessary to approve of it? Mind, the only objections are religious/moral/political, etc.

He may not have meant to be quite so extreme, but what Mr. Crichton argues for here is a dictatorship of science, a regime where scientists need not answer to political and moral concerns.

Examples 2 and 3 are in the abundant category that requires Science to be humble and admit it does not have all the answers. Example 1 is closer to what I was thinking of: environmental policy making based on comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Right now the reality is not that policy is being hijacked by number crunchers; it is being hijacked by those who have established the ANWR to be a "temple".

However, you point does show that the best a rationalist should hope for in "rational" policy making is a combo of sciences and economics. Science alone can not yield objective answers to the type of scenery vs oil trade--off you suggest. Economics can become the nexus between some facts and how the market place of free humans value them. (This process is more likely to yield answers that are both factually optimal and morally correct than science alone.)

As a Christian, I do not think that I "know everything." I know that I know very little. I think Mr. Crichton doesn't understand religion very well.

The faith in reasonable politicians and bureacrats catering to reasonable voters who he assumes will accept rational solutions to real problems in naive. The faith of the rationalist, in light of history and human nature, is charming yet pathetic.

I had always considered myself an environmentalist until the term was captured by the cultists, politicos, special interests and the substantial academy/industry of psuedo scientists who are as saints to the cultists. I agree with Crichton that it must be rescued from that crowd to be taken seriously.

"He may not have meant to be quite so extreme, but what Mr. Crichton argues for here is a dictatorship of science, a regime where scientists need not answer to political and moral concerns. "

I didn't get that at all. You are naturally pissed at Crichton's not too suttle swipe at religion, but he is not trying to set up a dicatorship of science. He's just arguing that the information that we use to make environmental decisions be scientific, not based on unscientific beliefs with no basis in fact. Science doesn't make value judgements, it establishes facts. Facts are used to support decisions that are motivated by political and moral concerns.

Crichton is not doing the sensible environmental cause a favor by alienating religious people in this way.

There's no scientific reason to keep the Grand Canyon, instead of filling it in. It's pure aesthetics. Reason is not necessarily compatible with humanity.

OJ, your handheld calculator won't tell you what to buy - so do you chuck it? Science is a tool, not a set of commands.

Robert:

Exactly! Crichton is suggesting that the answer rendered by the calculator is an inviolable command.

I still don't think he is saying that. He wants environmentalism to be grounded in verifiable facts and not myths. He wants the calculator to reflect real math and not numerology. I don't think he wants science to make value judgements, like cheap oil is/isn't better than caribou, or mankind can/can't do without the snail darter.

That's not what he says.

Robert:

"Science doesn't make value judgements, it establishes facts."

Do you believe in the good tooth fairy too?

Peter, you will note I said "science", not "scientists".

I took the time to read the entire speech (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html). It is very well written, and worth reading in its entirety.

OJ has distorted his argument, and exaggerated his references to religion.

Mr Chrichton says Environmentalism must be based on science. Not consist solely of, but based on. Where there are material claims, then we need to assess them scientifically. Drilling in the ANWR entails more than just material considerations, but for those material allegations, we need to address them as analytically as possible.

Therefore, Crichton, as Robert noted is most certainly not insisting science make the decision; rather, he insists that all material claims be subject to scientific scrutiny before they are integrated with value judgments required for making decisions.

As for his references to religion, they are few, and uncontroversial: Religious belief of any kind is inconsistent with factual analysis. Religious belief is an organic part of humanity. For modern atheists, religious environmentalism is one substitute for Christianity. Religions tend to kill people.

Which one of those did he get wrong?

Jeff:

The insistence that decisions be based on material clams is the problem.

OJ
Based on doesn't mean determined by.

For example, if the decision to drill in ANWR is to be determined by the impact it will have on the caribou population, the estimate as to how many caribou will be affected must be determined scientifically. However, if the scientific estimate is 1 out of 100 caribou will die, the judgement as to whether that is too many or is an acceptable tradeoff needs to be made by the values assigned to the caribou and the oil by the decision makers. Science won't say it is worth it or it isn't.

Both sides of the issue will make their decision based on the science, applying their own values.

Agreed, science is in fact quite secondary to the political, environmental, religious concerns and will be used by all sides to justify their preferences. That's why it's a silly speech.

OJ:
The reason it is not a silly speech is because he asserts, quite accurately, that material claims substantiating preconceived positions are regarded as being beyond analysis.

To the extent that is true, the presumed material basis (which is always there) for decisions is a chimera.

That is his point: "facts" are always part of the debate; therefore, it is best to do as much as possible to remove the scare quotes.

Jeff:

" material claims substantiating preconceived positions are regarded as being beyond analysis"

Like Darwinism!