The Terminally Dull Man

Although I can't resist the insulting title above, I actually like Michael Crichton. He's a godawful prose stylist and, as Ron Bailey noted here a while back, a technophobe-of-all-trades. But he's got million-dollar ideas by the score, and in this speech (thanks to Arts & Letters Daily for the link), he ties global warming, secondhand smoke, the smearing of Bjorn Lomborg, and many other topics dear to Reason's black heart into the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence boondoggle. Sample:

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

Plenty more where that came from.

Comments

[Dilly]

Good speech, but blog-moldy. Tim Blair had it three weeks ago, and it was a lot of other places too, I think. I'd try the Google to find out, but, ah, screw that.

[Van Veen]

What is this? Pop philosophy of science? Vacuous. Popper's criterion fails to meet its own standard and can thus have absolutely no bearing whatever on the scientific enterprise. The question of "demarcation" isn't a simple one, and Crighton isn't doing "science" a favor by attempting to popularize one of the most abstruse questions of philosophy. Misunderstanding already abounds.. and half of those who read the article probably forgot 80% of it the moment they closed the window!

Jesus, I detest the internet.

[Dilly]

Yeah, I hate people too, Van Veen. 80% of them forget things that they just read like nobody's business, those window-closing jackasses. And "science" sure is abtruse enough, whatever the hell that means.

If you are somehow being sarcastic, then the joke's on me.

[Dilly]

Whoops, you wrote abstruse. I really need to increase the font size. The rest stands.

[Dan]

I have an asthmatic and sinus reaction to cat hair. 'Cat people' pollute the air I breathe all the time when they have cat dander on their clothes. Up to this point, I had supposed that I should just deal with it.

If I spend more than a couple of minutes in a house that a cat lives in, I can look forward to several days of asthma and allergy problems. So I'm familiar with your problem.

I have never once suffered a serious reaction from cat dander on people's clothes, because I don't breathe through people's clothes or rub them all over my face. Neither have you.

Simply put, you're a goddamned liar.

[Dan]

By the way, my boyfriend is allergic to lilac. Could I start a petition to ban all lilac scent from the public sphere?

Can I spit in your face, in the event that I should happen to meet you?

Please explain why not, since you apparently feel that any restriction on a person's "private" actions represents a slippery slope to GestapoLand.

[Jennifer A.]

Dan--

Do you honestly not see the difference between my spritzing perfume on myself and then going to a public place where you happen to be, versus my spitting in your face? If so, it seems you have some difficulty drawing distinctions.

[mak_nas]

A compassionate government cannot sit around and watch people destroy their lives

lol -- all well said, jennifer.

once we were poor and oppressed; having little to lose, we rebelled and made ourselves free; freedom made us wealthy; then the wealthy got protective; now protection is destroying our freedom -- is, in fact, the converse of freedom; eventually the loss of freedom will make us poor again.

in the end, people in a fat, wealthy land don't want freedom; they want safety and stability. real freedom is too dangerous by far for a people who feel they have something to lose -- and that is why we live in an encroaching police state with wars of paranoia on every front, foreign and domestic.

[Dan]

Do you honestly not see the difference between my spritzing perfume on myself and then going to a public place where you happen to be, versus my spitting in your face?

I didn't say anything about you spraying perfume on yourself. I was objecting to yet another silly "oh, such-and-such affects some people, so if we ban public smoking we have to ban that too" argument.

My point is simple: either you agree that I have the right to spit in your face, or you concede that there are some things that I can indisputable engage in in private (such as spitting), but whose use can be regulated in a public context. If you concede that point, then all we're arguing about is where to draw the line.

Cigarette smoke has negative health effects on one hundred percent of humans; ranging from the extremely mild (bloodshot eyes and hoarseness) to, at the other (admittedly much rarer) extreme, death. The case for banning public smoking is much stronger than the case for banning spitting in people's faces; both are unpleasant to the victims, but the former is a greater health risk.

[mak_nas]

even if i would concede, dan, that secondhand smoke has some health consequences, we would agree that they are statistically very small -- correct?

so are the health effects of most things. cars. power lines. television. pcs. movies. video games. shall we ban them all? only some? on what grounds shall we decide?

the primary argument against banning such things is that, once you ban something, you've begun down the slippery slope -- there are thousands, millions of everyday objects and activities that can be argued just as effectively to have some deleterious common health effect -- and you lend credence to all of them by banning this one thing. does this approach make sense? i think it's patently ridiculous, especially if you have any intention of living in an open society.

of course, some people have no such intention. they want to live in the legalsafetystate, where all risks are assumed by the state and not the individual. no thanks.

[Will Spencer]

I liked it. It may go a long way to convincing me to forgive Mr. Crighton for his works of fiction.

[Don]

"My point is simple: either you agree that I have the right to spit in your face, or you concede that there are some things that I can indisputable engage in in private (such as spitting), but whose use can be regulated in a public context."

I think that it's fine for you to spit in public, if that is what you want to do, but you have no right to go about spitting at people, and if you get your ass kicked doing so I think it should be video taped & distributed on the internet.

As far as smoking is concearned, I think that smoking vs nonsmoking should be determined by the owners of the establishment (and, consequently, by the purchasing power of the consumers). That's much more democratic, and morally correct, than government dictates, even in a Republic (or some fictional Democracy).

[Jason Ligon]

Van Veen:

If we lived in a world where people didn't write laws that force us to behave in certain ways on the basis of Scientific Evidence, I could see your point. Yes, falsifiability is a complex topic, but I would argue that

1) Much of Creighton's argument doesn't rely on Popper's ideas about demarcation, and

2) Since people DO write laws supposedly based on scientific predictions, some form of popularization of scientific skepticism would seem to be an essential element of a democratic society.

Whether Popper refutes himself or not, at the end of the day, there is a big difference between the level of confidence we have in energy mass equivalence and the level of confidence we have in climate models. Do you really think that we shouldn't discuss this sort of thing in popular forums?

[Jason Ligon]

Dan,

I have an asthmatic and sinus reaction to cat hair. 'Cat people' pollute the air I breathe all the time when they have cat dander on their clothes. Up to this point, I had supposed that I should just deal with it.

You think I might have legal recourse?

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Personally, all I need to know about second-hand smoke is that it gives me bronchitis and triggers my asthma (big time).

Asthma = The Slacker's Friend

[mak_nas]

all this -- second-hand smoke laws to the War on Drugs to the War on Obesity to the impossibility of humane euthanasia -- is predicated on the ideas that a) it is a universal good to live as long as you can, and b) the government knows how to make you live as long as possible. we use government guns to force people to live longer lives, essentially, even at the expense of enjoyment and freedom.

forget b) for a moment and concentrate on a). what if i don't want to live to be 105? what if i think it better to be dead by 60, so as not to lay in bed for the last thirty years hooked up to a machine? what if i prioritorize a fulfilling life of debauchery far ahead of joylessly hoarding my remaining days like a miser (only to be hit by a bus, of course)?

isn't that my choice? and shouldn't i have the freedom to do so? apparently not, anymore.

[beanie]

Dan,

Your urine does, in fact, end up somewhere, furthermore, I sincerely doubt smoke has been intentionally directed "in your face". Your analogy is (ready?) piss poor. (sorry)

In what situation would a smoker blow smoke in your face? The answer to that question would reveal the solution to the problem. Does party "A" infringe upon party "B" by blowing smoke in party "C's" establishment? In what situation would you be forced to withstand smoke, in public schools, libraries or the public park? A consistant commitment to private property rights would surely solve this pseudo-dilemma regarding an individuals sphere of autonomy.

[The Geat Unwashed]

I know Van Veen's gonna hate me for this, but I didn't even read it. I mean, who has time to read that much stuff in a day. I did skim through it though. It's a difficult topic, but I must agree with Crichton; whatever he thinks is what I think. This is EASY! Can't wait for the voting booth!

[Jennifer A.]

Remember: cigarette smoke destroys lives! Drugs destroy lives! A compassionate government cannot sit around and watch people destroy their lives; to prevent the destruction of lives, a compassionate government must lock such folk in prison for thirty years. A life spent making license plates and getting raped in the shower is MUCH better than a life spent smoking stuff and watching South Park reruns.

By the way, my boyfriend is allergic to lilac. Could I start a petition to ban all lilac scent from the public sphere?

Thank God I live in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Too bad The Brave become such chickenshits when faced with anything stronger than distilled water.

[Jennifer A.]

Remember: cigarette smoke destroys lives! Drugs destroy lives! A compassionate government cannot sit around and watch people destroy their lives; to prevent the destruction of lives, a compassionate government must lock such folk in prison for thirty years. A life spent making license plates and getting raped in the shower is MUCH better than a life spent smoking stuff and watching South Park reruns.

By the way, my boyfriend is allergic to lilac. Could I start a petition to ban all lilac scent from the public sphere?

Thank God I live in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Too bad The Brave become such chickenshits when faced with anything stronger than distilled water.

[Jennifer A.]

Sorry for the double-posting. But I wish someone would tell the EPA what I told my high-school students when they had to write their Persuasive Essay: "If you have to lie or distort the truth to defend your cause, consider the very real possibility that your cause is not worth defending."

[Dan]

Personally, all I need to know about second-hand smoke is that it gives me bronchitis and triggers my asthma (big time). It doesn't need to cause cancer to make me sick. So I'm inclined to feel no sympathy whatsoever for the drug addicts who feel they have a Constitutional right to pollute the air I breathe. They have the same right to smoke that I have to piss in their face.

I do, however, vaguely resent the pseudo-science behind the "it causes cancer!" movement, because the *actual* health risks of second-hand smoke, of which there are many, end up getting lumped in with the spurious cancer claims.

[AJMB]

I no it's not exactly on point, but what the hell. I have a tendency to let my eyes glaze over, after a paragraph or two, at any story that purports to be about 'my health', or what may adversely affect same. I have long held the belief that people led more enjoyable lives when they spent less time worrying about how to lead more enjoyable lives. Eat (smoke/drink/ingest) what you like, and if it starts to show a little, exercise more until it doesn't. Or don't. You decide. And leave me alone, will you? I want a doughnut.

[Tommy_Grand]

"Simply put, you're a goddamned liar."

That is idiotic. You don't know if it's a lie. Even if you think you know, you don't know. Debate the ideas, dickhead.