John G Westの"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (2/7) テクノクラシー

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのインテリジェントデザイン部門であるCenter for Science and Cultureの副センター長であり、シニアフェローである社会学者Dr. John G. Westが、自著"Darwin Day in Americaをダイジェストした"The Abolition of Man?"を読むシリーズ2回目はテクノクラシー。

One influence of scientific materialism on American public policy has been the elevation of technocracy -- rule by scientific experts -- over democracy. Since science was supposed to be the only true source of objective information about the world, proponents of scientific materialism logically concluded that scientists -- not the general public or their elected representatives -- should be the ultimate arbiters of public policy.


At its core, this message was profoundly anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. Speaking before the Second International Congress of Eugenics in 1921, Alleyne Ireland declared that current conditions had rendered America's original form of government, established by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, "utterly unsuitable." America's Founders believed that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and they set up arrangements "designed with a view to making abuse of power difficult." But in an age when government must increasingly provide a wide range of social services, society could no longer afford to rely on government by non-experts. Ireland stated that it was "imperative...that the omnipresent activity of government should be guided by the light of scientific knowledge and conducted through the instrumentality of a scientific method."[6]

このメッセージの中心的意味合いは、きわめて反平等主義であり、反民主主義的であった。1921年の第2回優生国際会議(Second International Congress of Eugenics)の前の演説で、Alleyne Irelandは現在の状況は、憲法と独立宣言によって確立された米国の政府の原形を「まったく不適切なもの」にしたと断言した。米国の建国者たちは「統治される者たちの同意によって、政府は正当な権力を得る」ものだと考え、「権力の濫用を困難にする目的」で制度を設計した。しかし、政府が幅広い社会福祉事業を提供しなければならない時代にあっては、素人による政府に頼る余裕を持てなくなった。Alleyne Irelandは「政府の遍在する活動は、科学的知識によって導かれ、科学的方法によって実行すべきだというのが肝要である」と述べた。[6]

[6]"Eugenics in Politics," The New York Times, October 9, 1921, p. 93.
Dr. John G Westは優生国際会議の前のAlleyne Irelandの演説を引用して、"科学的唯物論"は米国の議会制民主主義に敵対するものだと主張する。

このAlleyne Irelandの主張は引用部分だけを見れば、そのように受け取れる。しかし、その前後をみると、違った内容を述べている:

"In the most impressive passage of the declaration the sole aim of government is declare to be the securing to the people of certain individual right -- to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, since rights are chiefly imperiled by the uncontrolled exercise of power, the cardinl principle of popular government, is stated to be that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In our Constitution everything was designed with a view to making abuse of power difficult, and it is not easy for our Government, in time of peace, to encroach on the rights of the individual.



"But reflect," continued Mr. Ireland, "how utterly unsuitable the whole arrangement is when the object is, not to prevent Government action against the right of citizens but to facilitate Government action in serving the needs of citizens.

"What between the pressure upon government from without to undertake everything which used formerly to be considered as lying wholly outside the proper scope of official interference, and the pressure set up within government to enlarge its functions and to engross its authority, it has come to this, that government is now the judge, the jury, the witness and the executioner, not only in respect of such of their actions as are affected with a public quality, but even in respect to their personal tastes, habits and opinions.



"It is this pervasion of the whole extent of our daily life by the agents of Government -- by those who make law, by those who administrator law, by those who punish its infraction, by this vast army of legislators, commissioners, judges, magistrates, policemen , secret service agents, inspectors and investigators -- it is this which make it imperative, if we are not to be governed to our total destruction, that the omnipresent activity of government should be guided by the light of scientific knowledge and conducted through the instrumentality of a scientific method."


[Eugenics in Politics (1921/10/09)]
古ぽい英語は一文が長いが、それは気にしない。で、Alleyne Irelandの主張は、夜警国家から福祉国家へと転換しゆく政府を前提としている。かつての市民の自由を守るために政府を制約することをのみを考えていた法制度が、市民のために行動する政府を有効に機能させるわけではないと言っている。特に問題な主張でもなんでもない。

例によって、Dr. John G WestはQuote Miningをやったようだ。これは次のパラグラフの印象操作のための準備。別に内容があるわけではないので、無視して次へ。

で、ここからが、Dr. John G Westの主張になる:
The claim that society should place its faith in scientific experts rather than ordinary citizens or elected officials was a common refrain in public policy debates influenced by scientific materialism. To be sure, few were as blunt as Ireland in directly attacking the Constitution or demanding that scientists govern ordinary citizens. Yet in controversy after controversy, the underlying message was unmistakable. Whether the issue was education or welfare or crime, members of the public were urged to place their trust in the findings of scientific experts rather than in their own core beliefs or the views of political and religious leaders. Science dictated the replacement of punishment with treatment in the criminal justice system, the enactment of forced sterilization in the welfare system, and the substitution of supposedly "value-free" information from sex researchers for traditional moral teachings about family life in public schools. In each of these areas, the claim was made at least implicitly that scientific expertise should trump other sources of knowledge, including ethics, philosophy, tradition, religion, and common sense.

普通の市民や選挙で選ばれた政治家よりも科学的専門家に社会は信を置くべきだという主張は、科学的唯物論に影響された公共政策論争で広く繰り返されてきた。確かに、Alleyne Irelandのように憲法を直接攻撃したり、科学者が普通の市民を統治することを要求するような率直な者はほとんどいない。しかし、繰り返される論争の背後にあるメッセージは間違えようがない。教育の問題であろうが、福祉の問題であろうが、犯罪の問題であろうが、市民は、自らの中心的な信条や政治的指導者や宗教的指導者の見方よりも、科学の専門家の研究結果に信を置くように言われた。科学は刑事司法制度の懲罰を更生に置き換え、福祉制度における強制断種を行い、公立学校における家庭生活についての伝統的道徳教育を性研究者による"価値観にとらわれない"と思われる情報も置き換えた。これらすべての分野で、科学的知識が、他の倫理や哲学や伝統や宗教やコモンセンスに勝たなければならないと、暗に主張された。
Of course, there is much that can be said in favor of the authority of scientific expertise in modern life. In an increasingly complex and technologically driven world, the need for scientific input on public policy would seem obvious. Since many policy questions today arise in such science-based fields as medicine, transportation, and ecology, why should politicians and voters not simply defer to the authority of scientific experts in these areas?


Although this line of reasoning exhibits a surface persuasiveness, it ignores the natural limits of scientific expertise. Scientific knowledge may be necessary for good public policy in certain areas, but it is not sufficient. Political problems are preeminently moral problems, and scientists are ill equipped to function as moralists. C. S. Lewis warned about this drawback of technocracy in the 1950s. "I dread specialists in power, because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects," Lewis wrote. "Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value."[7]

この推論は表面的には説得力を持っているが、これは科学的専門知識の自然な限界を無視している。科学的知識は特定分野では良き公共政策のために必要かもしれないが、それだけでは十分ではない。政治課題は非常に道徳的な問題であり、科学者がモラリストとして機能するには能力が不十分である。CS Lewisはテクノクラシーの欠点について1950年代に警告した。「私は権力を持つ専門家を恐れる。彼らは専門分野の外側について語るスペシャリストだからだ。科学者には科学を語らせよう。しかし、政府は人間と正義と、どの物がどれくらい価値を持つのが良いのかについては政府の仕事だ。これらについては科学的訓練は人間の意見に何の付加価値も与えない。[7]

[7]C. S. Lewis, "Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State," in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 315.
このC. S. Lewisの引用は文脈通りである。Dr. John G Westの主張も、特に何の問題もない。

Dr. John G Westは、これを具体的に語る:
For example, wildlife biologists may be able to provide policymakers with information about which species are in danger of extinction. Perhaps they can also predict some of the costs of a species' extinction to biodiversity. But they have no more authority than anyone else in determining whether a particular endangered species is more valuable than the jobs that may be lost trying to save that species from extinction. Politics is largely about ranking and reconciling competing goods; but the ranking of goods involves questions of justice and morality, and as Lewis pointed out, "a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value" on such questions.

たとえば、野生生物学者は、政策担当者に絶滅の危険にある種についての情報を提供できる場合がある。おそらく、彼らは生物多様性に対する種の絶滅のコストを予測できるだろう。しかし、彼らには、特定種と、それを絶滅から救うことによって失われる仕事のどちらが大事かを判断する権限は他の誰以上にない。政治とは主として、競合する商品にランク付けて調停することである。しかし、商品のランク付けには正義と道徳の問題が含まれている。これらの問題について「科学的訓練は人間の意見に何の付加価値も与えない」とCS Lewisが指摘するように。

政治の役割についてはDr. John G Westの記述はまったくもって正しい。そして、種の絶滅(あるいは地球温暖化やオゾン層破壊)の影響について予測することが科学者の仕事だというのも正しい。さらにランク付けに客観的基準ではなく、正義や道徳という"価値観"が入り込むという指摘も正しい。


この科学と政治の境界線は何ら問題のある主張ではないが、実際にはDr. John G Westは優生やロボトミーを持ち出して、もう一歩、政治側を強める主張をする。
Technocracy poses a further difficulty: The limits of human reason assure that experts can be wrong, sometimes egregiously. If the history of scientific materialism in politics shows anything, it is that scientific experts can be as fallible as anyone else. They are capable of being blinded by their own prejudices and going beyond the evidence in order to promote the policies they favor. Alfred Kinsey's empirical claims about the sexual behavior of the general American public were junk science, given his deeply flawed sample population; yet that did not stop him from boldly making his claims and vigorously defending them as sound science.

テクノクラシーには更なる問題がある。人間の理性に限界があるために、ときには専門家がひどく誤ることがある。政治における科学的唯物論の歴史が何かを示すとしたら、それは科学の専門家たちは、他と人々と同様に間違うことがあることだ。彼らは自らの偏見によって盲目になり、彼らが選好する政策を推進するために証拠を超えてしまう。一般的な米国人の性行動についてのAlfred Kinseyの経験的な主張はjunk Scienceであり、彼のサンプル集団はひどく誤ったものだったが、彼はそれでも大胆な主張を行い、正しい科学として自らを擁護した。

The errors of the scientific community in the early 20th century were profound. For decades, eugenics--the effort to breed better human beings by applying the principles of Darwinian biology to reproduction--was embraced as legitimate by America's leading scientists and scientific organizations such as the AAAS. Critics of eugenics, meanwhile, were roundly stigmatized as anti-science and religious zealots. Yet the critics of eugenics were the ones who turned out to be right, not the scientific elites.


Similarly, the lobotomy was uncritically embraced for years by the medical community as a miracle cure, and the scientist who pioneered the operation in human beings won a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Only after tens of thousands of individuals had been lobotomized did healthy skepticism prevail.

Dr. John G Westの記述は"だいたいあってる"。

==>Christine Rosen: "Preaching eugenics: religious leaders and the American eugenics movement"


それはさておき、Dr. John G Westの「科学者たちが間違うこともある」という指摘はまったく正しい。そして、これに続けて、Dr. John G Westは、やっと本当に言いたいことを言う:
The point is that public policy claims made by scientists ought to be scrutinized by policymakers and citizens in the same way that public policy claims made by other interested parties are scrutinized. Any suggestion that policymakers should simply rubber-stamp the advice of the current majority of scientists is profoundly subversive of the fundamental principles of representative democracy. As equal citizens before the law, scientists have every right to inform policymakers of the scientific implications of their actions, but they have no special right to demand that policymakers listen to them alone.


Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing chorus urging that public policy be dictated by the majority of scientific experts without input from anyone else. Today, this bold assertion is made not just with regard to evolution, but concerning a host of other controversial issues such as sex education, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and global warming. On these matters, any dissent from the orthodoxy of the "experts" allegedly represents a "war on science."[8]


[8]See, for example, Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science (New York: Basic Books, 2005).

Dr. John G Westはつまるところ、「根拠はないけど、科学界のコンセンサスに反して、創造論を理科の授業で科学として教えることを、政治家としての全権限と全責任において決断する」と政治家が言えない現状が問題だと言っているようだ。
タグ:DI id理論
posted by Kumicit at 2009/12/29 02:28 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]