Quote of the Day

Virginia Postrel says that "science is not enough":

Scientists have gotten way too fond of invoking their authority to claim that "science" dictates their preferred policy solutions and claiming that any disagreement constitutes an attack on science. But, even assuming that scientists agree on the facts, science can only tell us something about the state of the world. It cannot tell us what policy is the best to adopt. Scientists' preferences are not "science." You cannot go from an "is" (science) to an "ought" (policy). Social science, particularly economics, can tell you something about the likely tradeoffs (hence some of my frustrations at Aspen). But it can't tell you which tradeoffs to make.

She's right, of course, and nearly no one would disagree with the sentiment if presented in this way. But a lot of people, particularly in the area of climate change, think that scientific consensus is especially meaningful when it comes to normative policy-making. Unfortunately, a lot of scientists make this mistake. So yeah, Krugman can rant and rail about income inequality, and the need to tax the hell out of the rich to make up for it; yeah, Stern can go ballistic on climate change, and exactly how much the rich countries of the world *should* be willing to pay for fixing climate change; but these things don't exist in a vacuum. Realizing the prescriptions of these social scientists involves real costs for real people. It is at this point that normative arguments become most important. Scientists often forget this (or purposefully neglect it). So their arguments become more convincing to the (less educated) layperson, but don't stand up so well scrutiny.