Dear Mr Junker,
I note that you have deferred the decision on whether you
will or will not have a Chief Scientific Advisor.
Whether or not the post of Chief Scientific Advisor is
needed is something for public discussion, as is the process by which such a
post should be filled, along with the means of monitoring the appointee’s
activities. Improvements to policy making processes are also something worth
discussing, but one should not look to the natural sciences for insights here
(notice I did not say evidence), but to philosophy of science and to cognitive
psychology, particularly the work of the Nobel Prize winning, Professor Daniel
Kahneman, who would I think, be amused by the very naïve remarks that
scientists make about being objective, rational, unbiased, independent, and so
forth. Here one can observe that there is nothing more irrational than claiming
to be rational, and nothing more subjective than claiming to be objective. And
as for claims of independence, there is nothing stranger than humans and their
beliefs (as Kahneman has often observed)!
The above apart however, there is still the matter of Anne
Glover, and the fact that there is such a matter, is in itself a warning sign
that there is something fundamentally wrong, both in terms of the way the post of
Chief Scientific Advisor is constituted, and with the person currently holding
the post.
If you were to seek a means to reinforce the image of a lack
of democratic process and values in the institutions of the European Union, and
to communicate the message (to a public that is increasingly hostile to the
European Union) that its institutions are outdated and rooted in values from
times long past, then you need look no further than Anne Glover. She is a
person who can be well summarised as, a case study in the failure of democratic
processes and values. Some will also say she is yet another step along Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.
She stands as a warning of worse to come – the re-emergence
of technocracy. And, as for the “best” evidence of her technocratic inclinations,
one needs look no further than her public pronouncements and the comments that
she has associated herself with:
“People can have their own opinions, but not their own
facts.”
“Science is currently not in the room when the decisions are
made and this cannot continue like this.”
“Political decisions should be based on science.”
“In an ideal world, in which policies were based on peer
reviewed scientific data, policies would evolve but would not change from one
government to another.”
“If it is politically acceptable to decide not to base a
final policy on data and science, this should be transparent and clear.”
What she is saying is this: “When people are allowed to
choose, they choose wrongly. Only science is in possession of the truth and
this truth will be determined by scientists based on current orthodoxy.
Scientists know what is best for the common good. Politicians should do what
scientists tell them to do because scientists are in possession of the truth,
which is something only they can understand. Those that are in possession of
different truths are wrong and suffering from a deficit. Science has a right,
that no other group has, to participate in the government of the people, and
scientists do not have to be elected to these governing roles through
democratic process. When politicians do not do what they are told, they have to
tell the people that this is the case.”
Does this sound familiar? It should do, but in case it does
not, consider the above as it might have been written in times long past:
“When people are allowed to choose, they choose wrongly.
Only religion is in possession of the truth and this truth will be determined
by priests based on current orthodoxy. Priests know what is best for the common
good. Politicians should do what priests tell them to do because priests are in
possession of the truth, which is something only they can understand. Those
that are in possession of different truths are wrong and are heretics. Religion
has a right, that no other group has, to participate in the government of the
people, and priests do not have to be elected to these governing roles through
democratic process. When politicians do not do what they are told, they have to
tell the people that this is the case.”
You would not accept theocracy so why accept technocracy?
They are but the same things, but with different names, and they both lead to
the same disastrous outcomes.
Anne Glover is a technocrat. She is not just proposing a
fundamental change to the government of the people without their consent, but
has used her office to undertake a political campaign to implement these
changes, in a way that is only possible in an undemocratic institution such as
the European Commission. See now why so many people want to leave the European
Union? It is a matter of preserving democracy, which, in the end, is far more
important than the economic prosperity of a society that already has more than
its fair share of material things.
Paraphrasing another technocrat from the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, the infamous, discredited, and highly
deluded, Frederick Winslow Taylor (the father of the nonsense that is
Scientific Management) Ann Glover is advocating the following:
“Under our system of government we will tell politicians
what to do and how they are to do it and any improvement they make upon the
instructions given to them will be fatal to success.”
The above is a system of government that can only be
maintained through authoritarianism and totalitarianism, which is Hayek’s
point, and the model for this is the Soviet Union .
It is one thing to use information (not evidence) provided by science to
support policy development, quite another thing to place science in a central
role that seeks to usurp the wishes of the people in the name of some elusive
concept known as the truth, which history demonstrates is usually nothing more
than dogma, based on one groups misguided belief that they have more legitimacy
than others.
Mikhail Gorbachev, in the dying days of the Soviet Empire
said, “the party does not lay claim to being the sole bearers of the truth.” It
was a telling remark about the nature of Communism and its silent narrative
that it was the sole source of the truth. What Anne Glover is laying claim to, is that science is the
sole bearer of the truth and in doing so she is laying the foundations, through
her naivety, for the beginnings of a Soviet style European Union – a
technocracy. Have we learned nothing from the tragedy that was the 20th
century? Apparently not!
It is within your power to stop this slide towards
technocracy. History has shown us that there are none so dangerous as those who
think they know the truth. Anne Glover is such as person, so send her back to
where she belongs, to her micro world of the laboratory. Future generations will
thank you for this, for it only takes the right social, economic, and political
conditions – the ones that Western Civilisation are currently creating – for
Anne Glover’s way, and worse, to look like attractive options. Now is the time
to act to stop this happening.
And to conclude, I make a summarising comment upon the
nonsense of Anne Glover and her beliefs, by paraphrasing Thomas Paine:
“One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of having
scientists involved in policy making, of having chief scientific advisors who
believe that they have a right to govern and who are able to reveal the truth, is,
that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn such
people into ridicule by giving us an ass for a lion.”
Sincerely yours,
Paul T Kidd
No comments:
Post a Comment