Further Reflections On Virtuous Fraud
evolution, insurance, Iraq
A previous post considered the issue of virtuous fraud in the context of modern academics, starting with the case of Jonathan Gruber and Obamacare. Thinking about it, I realized that there was an older, more interesting, and arguably more important example of the same issue, one that is still with us.
The Case For Denying Evolution
One of the best reasons to believe in God used to be the watchmaker argument: If you find a watch you deduce the existence of a watchmaker; if you observe that living creatures, including humans, are creations far more intricately designed than a watch, you deduce a creator, a designer, a being enormously more powerful and able than a human. That was a convincing argument for religion until Charles Darwin offered an alternative explanation, one supported by its transparent logic and, over time, more and more evidence. That is one reason, perhaps the chief reason, for the decline of religious belief in the century and a half after Darwin published.
You are a contemporary of Darwin convinced by his argument. You believe, plausibly enough, that whether or not religion is true — there are other arguments for it some of which you may find convincing — religious belief has good consequences, reduces the terrors of mortality and gives people an incentive to behave well, that if fewer people believe in God the world will be a worse place. You also believe, probably correctly, that more people believing in evolution will result in fewer believing in God.
The obvious conclusion is that you should do your best to suppress knowledge of evolution. On The Origin of Species has already been published so you cannot suppress the idea completely but you can pretend to be unconvinced by arguments for evolution, fudge up bogus arguments against it, discourage schools from teaching it.
Should you?
That was a century and a half ago but the question is still live; Darwin won, but not yet everywhere. You are the preacher or schoolmaster in a town populated mostly by conservative Christians. You are yourself convinced by the arguments for evolution — and have a century and a half of evidence that people who believe in evolution are as a result less likely to believe in God. You believe, perhaps correctly, that people who believe in God are, on average, better people, kinder, more honest, less likely to cheat in their marriages and happier, than people who don’t.
If you are the preacher, should you preach that evolution is false, an invention of the Devil? If you are the principal of the local school should you do your best to see that evolution is not taught, creationism is?
Should Science Censor Itself?
we were concerned that forces that want to downplay the severity of the pandemic as well as the need for social distancing would seize on the results to suggest that the situation was less urgent. We decided that the benefit of providing the model to the scientific community was worthwhile. (from the editor’s blog of Science)
The question was whether to publish an article pointing out an error in past estimates of the requirements for herd immunity, a reason to expect that it would come sooner than earlier estimates had implied. They decided to publish it but their explanation of the decision implied that it could have gone the other way, that part of their job is filtering the scientific literature in order to bias the public perception in the direction they approve of. In this case the scientific value of the article was enough to make up for the possible bad consequences. Next time it might not be.
Do you agree? Should the editors of scientific journals refuse to publish correct articles that they expect to have bad consequences, articles that correct false beliefs which, the editors believe, encourage desirable behavior?
Is It Only A Question Of Whose Ox Is Gored?
Some years ago, while waiting in the dentist’s office, I took a look at a Time magazine and was mildly irritated by its attempt to defend Obamacare. The author described a deliberate lie about people being able to keep their insurance if they wanted to as the administration being insufficiently clear — I do not have the magazine with me so cannot offer an exact quote. And he echoed the Administration talking point that represented all existing policies that did not cover everything the ACA requires, including contraception, as worthless junk that people only bought because they were desperate for insurance. That left me wondering about the author of that particular piece of partisan puffery disguised as news commentary. My guess is that, dosed with truth serum or in a sufficiently private conversation with a trusted friend, he would admit that the Administration’s claim was a deliberate lie but justify it on the grounds that it was necessary in order to get a good law passed.
It occurred to me to wonder if the author of the Time piece or others with similar views would accept the same argument applied to a previous instance and a different President. Would they have agreed that, while the facts it was based on might be mistaken, the moral reasoning was correct?
Imagine that you are President Bush and that you believe the following:
1. Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant whose people would be far better off without him.
2. If he is overthrown by the U.S., his government can be replaced by a reasonably free and democratic one which will serve as a model to convert other dictatorships in the region into free and democratic societies.
3. Points 1 and 2 will not be sufficient to persuade the American people to support an invasion of Iraq. They would, however, support such an invasion if they believed that Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction.
4. While it is possible that Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction there is little evidence of it.
Would you be justified in pretending to have good evidence of WMD’s in order to get sufficient public support to make possible a U.S. invasion of Iraq? The logic is the same as in the case of Obamacare, lying to the public in order to make possible policies you consider highly desirable.
In both cases, the argument hinges on factual beliefs. Point 2 above turned out to be strikingly false. Obamacare will, I think, turn out to have been a mistake. But the question I am asking is not whether the beliefs were correct but whether the moral argument is. If Bush believed points 1 to 4, was he justified, in terms of those beliefs, in lying to the American people? If Obama believed that the ACA would greatly improve American health care, was he?
And, perhaps most interesting, would people who answered “yes” to the second question be willing to give the same answer to the first, or vice versa?
My web page, with the full text of multiple books and articles and much else
Past posts, sorted by topic
A search bar for past posts and much of my other writing
“4. While it is possible that Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction there is little evidence of it.”
I love this post.
I agree that Darwin and evolution are indeed about the best example of your point from the prior post.
Though I quibble quite a bit with you posing the question of both what the preacher and the principal should do (given similar beliefs), seeming to imply that it should be the same. Where I would answer differently: it might well be correct for the preacher to be an “evolution denier” and act accordingly, but it would not be for the principal. In your example, the principal has some responsibility for science in a way that the preacher does not.
But what I don’t like is your Bush, Iraq and WMD example as you laid it out. Even if we accept as true your claim of “there is little evidence of it”.
Why? Because:
a) Bush’s position on this issue was identical to that of Clinton and his administration, and based on largely the same evidence and analysis.
b) the issue here is *both* about probability of truth *AND* consequences if true.
c) prior to 9/11, it was acceptable enough to allow Saddam to thumb his nose at the civilized world and repeatedly violate his agreement on inspections. After 9/11, it no longer was. (Recall that there is no doubt about the fact that Saddam was willfully violating the inspection terms.)
My strong claim is that my additional factors change enormously the appropriate course of action, and morality of course of action, in what by definition is an uncertain case.
My recollection of Iraq War 2: The Sequel was Democrats bemoaning the fact that Al Gore missed his chance at greatness by missing out on 911. I suppose it would be interesting to live in an alternative universe where the NYTimes spent trillions of electrons explaining how brilliant Gore was despite the persistent absence of WMDs.
What's notable to me in retrospect isn't that "Bush 43 was fooled" but rather how thoroughly the MSM, including the NYTimes was fooled along with both houses of Congress and, obviously, the Bush 43 administration..
I recall reading, but cannot source, that every(?) Iraqi officer whom they debriefed was absolutely convinced that, while Their unit had only conventional weapons, their Glorious Leader had secret stockpiles of Truly Fearsome Weapons in the hands of Special Units who would easily destroy those invading infidels.
Why it was convenient for the MSM and the administration, despite their continual enmity, to agree on this point is left as an exercise. I recollect they also agreed the PATRIOT Act was a wise and good law.
I also recollect a "Stockpile" that consisted of a semi trailer's worth, though whether it was a semi trailer of anthrax or a semi trailer of Sarin precursors I don't recall.