Why Do Republicans Always Say ‘I’m Not a Scientist’?

[n2doc]

By Jonathan Chait

Asked by reporters yesterday if he accepts the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, John Boehner demurred on the curious but increasingly familiar grounds that he is not a scientist. “Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,” the House Speaker said. Boehner immediately turned the question to the killing of jobs that would result from any proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which he asserts with unwavering certainty. (On this question, Boehner is not held back by the fact that he is also not an economist.)

This particular demurral seems to be in vogue for the Grand Old Party. Florida governor Rick Scott (“I’m not a scientist”) and Senator Marco Rubio (“I’m not a scientist. I’m not qualified to make that decision.”) have both held up their lack of scientific training as a reason to withhold judgment on anthropogenic global warming.

It’s a strange form of reasoning. Very few of us are scientists, which is exactly why we tend to defer to scientific judgment. It might make sense to question expert consensus in a field where you are an expert, but if you know very little about it, you probably want to just go along with what the experts think. Scientists do, in fact, have a nearly unanimous view of anthropogenic global warming. Scientists likewise believe that chugging Liquid Drano is bad for your health, which is why, precisely because of my lack of scientific training, I hold off on the Drano Cocktails.

“I am not a scientist” makes sense as a way to resolve a tension within Republican politics. It may be a political liability for Republicans to openly associate themselves with the kook conspiracy theories popular among conservative ideologues. One solution might be for Republicans to concede that anthropogenic global warming is indeed real, but that any solution is simply too costly. That might allow Republicans to minimize their kook exposure while still hewing to the bottom line party doctrine that individuals and firms ought to be able to dump carbon into the atmosphere for free.

more

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/why-republicans-always-say-im-not-a-scientist.html

[bowens43]

1. they believe that ignorance is a virtue......

[rock]

2. Yes, it even attracts republican voters

I thought about giving some examples (such as W, McCain, Boehner) but then I thought, "Pick a republican politician, any republican politician!"

[MisterP]

3. nor historians, psychologists, sociologists, theologians, etc.

the closest they have to "philosophers" are Rothbard and Rand, who respectively say it's more moral to let a child die than to tax anyone for their survival and explicitly say that we do the opposite of everything the whole New Testament says because Adam Smith

there's a staggering lack of RW academic writers on any subject (other than those trying to buttress their prejudices): take Latin American history, for example: there's only one anarcho-capitalist and one pro-Contra guy (some Moonie flack); David Barton-type books are written to influence how public opinion gets translated into politics, not to convince any expert

[unblock]

4. not adam smith! he would roll over in his grave!

most of the positive results of capitalism flow from vigorous competition, something that republicans and their backers work hard to squelch.

smith also insisted that those involved in trade pay all the costs associated with that trade. no making innocent nearby residents suffer the consequences of pollution, e.g. republicans are big on making it easy for vendors to pollute and also to prevent anyone from suing for a meaningful amount.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. It's their way of saying "Hey, I wouldn't lie to you ..."

which is an attempt to soften up the target before unloading a barrage of lies.

[Jeff Murdoch]

6. They are seeking absolution,

for the incredibly stupid shit that they are about to say.