Who Paid for That? Is Not an Argument
Thursday, September 09, 2021
Have you ever been flummoxed or annoyed by someone asking Who funded that? -- or otherwise dismissing a valid claim simply because the work that established that claim was financed by someone that person disapproves of?
If so, Joakim Book wrote the column for you back in October last year.
Among many good points is one worth keeping tucked away for any future (and probably inevitable) encounter with this erroneous practice:
Book continues, providing as a counterexample his own work, which was indirectly attacked because he is affliated with a think tank that received a donation from -- gasp! -- the Koch Foundation.As soon as the Bought-and-Paid-For objection is raised, two strange things happen. First, we start investigating the funding relationships behind the research in a totally unworthy fashion -- remarkably akin to identity politics: what someone says is downplayed in favor of the skin color, gender, class, or demographics of the person saying it, or in this case their funding bodies. That is, we cease following the proud tradition of the Enlightenment and turn back time a few centuries in the application of scientific inquiry: devout believer or heretic destined for the stake?
Possible comeback: "Who's your boss? Is he paying you to tell me this?" (Image by Celyn Kang, via Unsplash, license.)
Second, we disregard the evidence of the case in question! Instead of looking at what matters for the case at hand we look at what doesn't matter: the identity of the researcher, her previous allegiances or funding backgrounds. [links omitted, bold added]
Book is careful to state that people from both the left and the right are guilty of this error. In my experience, it has been more common on the left, but it is becoming more common on the right.
Regarding leftists, they seem blind to the possibility of government funding being a corrupting influence. I would watch for the right, which seems less and less rational -- and more like the left -- by the minute these days, to start making a similar error, but in the opposite direction: They will start assuming that government funding is a reason for suspicion, if they haven't already.
Regarding the last: Consider how the right's new anti-vaxxers talk about the FDA and the CDC now. Regardless of whether either agency should exist, the fact is that there are now scientists doing legitimate work for each and who make public statements and arguments about facts, vaccines in particular, for example. Judgements about these statements have to be made in a full context, of which institutional affiliation and funding are but a part.
-- CAV
3 comments:
Why wouldn't government funding be reason for suspicion. Suspicion isn't exactly a strong word. It is possible for people who support a specific program to honestly believe in it, but if not it really doesnt matter if the program isnt a legit use of government funds.
We hear a lot about reason and science, and that is important, but on the other hand there is the science of politics. I presumed we have already discovered that the proper method of representative government, is that truth matters, yes, but also not to be determined by government or even influenced by it. All voices need to be heard regardless of truth within a government context. The government has no right to determine which truth is "the science". If truth were all that mattered when government was concerned, then lets skip the whole thing about voting and just appoint philosopher kings to decide everything
Again, I cannot underestimate the importance of science and reason in private matters, but any politician with power should be different. The first words out of his mouth should indicate that his views are his own and if he claims to speak the truth, even if he is correct, he is disqualified from office(unless he openly ran for that position and it is constitutional).
Unknown,
The post and the column are about substituting a discussion of where funding comes from for substantively addressing an argument.
For example, if a drug company funds a study of a drug it wants to put onto the market, it's wrong to dismiss its results out of hand simply because "big pharma" paid for the study.
In a free, or even a semi-free country, other scientists will peer review it (because it is relevant to their own work), or even attempt to replicate the results. To a degree, laymen can compare the results to what they already know, but they may or may not be able to reach a certain conclusion.
One can also do this with a government-funded study, to the degree that the government doesn't entirely run science, and even then a few scientists of great resolve might swim against the tide and even win, although there are no guarantees there.
In our mixed economy, it is not always clear how much of a corrupting influence government money might have and why. I think generally, the greater the proportion of government funding and control over a field (and the more that field might be used to excuse or window-dress the policies of a regime), the more likely that field is to be compromised.
Take the FDA, which I think should be abolished. Some of the scientists and physicians working there are performing work that would still go on in a free society. IIRC, the FDA helps establish best practices and the like for hospitals. Insurance companies would have people doing similar things in a free society.
But it is also a bureaucracy with improper functions and bribe-able officials. It recently very dubiously approved an Azheimer's drug many scientists don't think actually works, and before it gave full approval to the mRNA Covid vaccines, IIRC. In that context, there is every reason to question what the agency says -- although I'm not sure funding is the only red flag here. But even here, note that the objection has grounds other than JUST the source of the funding.
I don't know how much that helps, but even in a case -- like blatantly-government-run science, where the funding is legitimately a red flag, you can't just say, "The government funded it. La-la-la-la! I'm not listening!" Indeed, it is at such times it is most important to look at the science, because the bad science would itself be evidence that having the state run science is a Bad Idea.
This is a harder topic than it looks like, and this is a quick stab at it, but I hope that helps.
Gus
Regarding that controversial approval: In a free society, people could take that drug or not, based on their best assessment of the advice of experts. There would be no FDA around to provide the illusion of a shortcut and, arguably in this case, induce people to waste their money on it.
Post a Comment