Sean Carroll at Cosmic Variance has a great post with some of his thoughts about Yearly Kos. In it, he describes the convention’s heartening attention to matters scientific:
The good news is: science! Thanks largely to DarkSyde’s efforts, there was a substantial presence of science bloggers at YearlyKos. A “Science Bloggers Caucus” on Thursday night, which I expected to collect a dozen or so misplaced souls who weren’t interested in the gatherings sponsored by some of the big political blogs, instead packed a room to overflowing with over fifty energetic participants from a wide cross-section of demographics. The bad news is: politics! Even when the science bloggers got together, there wasn’t much (any) talk about the substance of science; it was all about how to combat skepticism of evolution and climate change and stem cell research and so on. Not that this was anything other than inevitable; it was a political-blogging conference, after all. The tragedy is that our society finds itself in a place where scientists need to waste time combatting Intelligent Design when they could be sharing exciting news about the latest developments in evolutionary theory. We do have to keep up this fight, but it’s important to simultaneously mix in a healthy dose of science for its own sake (which all the great science bloggers actually do), to remind people why it’s so fascinating and worthwhile in the first place.
Of course, here the difference in delivery methods may be really important. At a convention, you have a really well-defined chunk of time to get something done — and the “something” here was defined by the overarching goal (political organization and mobilization) of the convention. In the blogosphere, we’re not factory workers or elementary school students with 20 minutes to scarf down lunch so much as cows grazing: we can munch on what interests us, digest it for a while, then chew on it some more, and wander off to nibble on something else whenever we feel like it. Science for its own sake, and discourses on what those who blog about science find inescapably cool about science, is always out there for the clever blogospheric ruminant to browse. But, it won’t feel as urgent as the stories about good science being cut off at the knees, or bad science masquerading as good, etc. Even reading the science stories that have more to do with policy and politics has a different feel from reading the pure science stories. Some days, one has to take a break from the former to avoid burn-out.
In his post, Sean also captures perfectly the difference between full-on political wrangling and the kind of engagement some of us prefer:
Deep down, though, I learned once again that an environment of political activism is not for me. I’ve volunteered and been active politically in very minor ways in the past, and I am always reminded that I should go back to academia where I belong. Of necessity, political action feeds on fervent commitment to the cause and a deep-seated conviction that one’s opponents are worthless scoundrels. Even when I do believe those things, I can’t quite give myself over to such stances uncritically. I’d rather contemplate the ins and outs of different aspects of an argument, even if I do end up resolutely on one side; politics (as opposed to governance) has little time for such nuances. At the same time, when I do take a position, I have little interest in softening its edges for political consumption, or reducing complexities to soundbites in order to convey a message. The complexities are the fun part! Don’t get me wrong; somebody has to do it, and I have incredible admiration for those who fight for the right side with passion and perseverance in the political arena. I just don’t want it to be me.
Call it an ivory tower if you want, but one of the things I really value about academia — and dream about exporting to the “real world” — is our practice of taking arguments seriously. Who is making the argument is much less important than the assumptions it is based on and their logical connection. Who started out on the “right” side of the argument is much less important than ending up with a clearer understanding of what’s really going on — of which inferences the facts support, and of the uncertainties that remain. Unlike political discourse, intellectual engagement doesn’t need to be gladiatorial combat (although some academics like it that way). You don’t have to start with the assumption that the people who disagree with you are stupid and/or evil — in fact, here in the ivory tower, we start with the assumption that there could be something right about the view that opposes our own and we do our level best to figure out what the merits of that argument might be.
Engaging with ideas, rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks (or even just assuming your opponents are evil dimwits), also seems to reduce the rage-induced churning of the stomach, leaving the stomach more receptive to coffee. Which is a good thing.
Anyway, read Sean’s entire post; it’s a good one.
