I came across a list of “science questions” a while ago. It’s presented as a challenge to the idea that conservatives in the US are anti-science, and meant to stump liberals and show that they too are anti-science, just in different domains of science. Certainly the point is a good one; look especially at empirical economics to find areas where liberals are the ostriches. But I didn’t think these questions were particularly difficult, and some weren’t even really science questions. Still, I thought it would be fun to answer them, since I still self-identify, often begrudgingly, as a liberal. I’m sure other self-identified liberals will object to some of my responses.
What is evolution?
Evolution is any process of gradual change, but the question clearly intends evolution through natural selection (as distinct from other hypothesized forms of biological evolution, like lamarkian evolution). In that sense, evolution is the gradual, unguided change of biological life that has led to the diversity of life on earth. It requires that traits are passed down imperfectly from generation to generation, and that those traits influence the likelihood that an organism will reproduce.
Of note, evolution is distinct from abiogenesis, the process where something we would call “life” develops from something we would call “non-life”.
Does human life begin at conception?
Yes, in the sense that a skin cell replicating in a petri dish is “human life”: a fertilized egg begins replicating at conception, and those replicating cells are genetically human.
Is a 20-week-old unborn child a human being?
This question has a lot to unpack, but again I would say yes, a 20-week-old developing is a human being, albeit one with fused eylids, non-functional lungs, transparent skin covered in fur, and with only a rudimentary nervous system. It is human (again as any cell with human DNA is human), and it is a “being”. But calling it a human being means that the right answer to the question, “do human beings have gill slits?” is, “Sometimes”.
Do you believe there are too many people on Earth?
No. Humans are a valuable resource. I acknowledge that this is not a very liberal position on my part, both because it doesn’t signal proper environmental deference (which can be taken as an indication of climate change denial), and because it acknowledges humans’ instrumental value (which can be taken to imply a lack of intrinsic value). I think liberals are often ostrich-y about this question.
Is nuclear power the safest energy in the world?
Probably not, but it depends what we’re counting as an energy (sandwiches are pretty safe, but few TVs run on sandwiches), and also if it’s safety by time or by unit of work. Solar is relatively safe, but nuclear is a much more effective power source. But I think the point here, one which I agree with, is that we would be much better off if we had more nuclear power. (Is this really illiberal? Is pro-nuclear a conservative position?)
Do you believe GMOs are safe?
Yes. In fact, banning GMOs is a much more dangerous proposition.
Do your chromosomes have anything to do with determining sex? What role do they play in a person’s gender, if any?
They do determine sex, they don’t determine gender (although they are strongly correlated with it). Gender and sex are different concepts. Whatever the historical origin of the words, the distinction is a useful one. Sex is the biological trait, gender is the social trait. Historically, sex determined social roles, so gender mapped well, and and to a lesser extent still maps, to sex. At this point we can say pretty clearly that chromosomes map just shy of 1-to-1 to sex, and they map somewhat less well to gender.
Do you believe carbon dioxide is detrimental to human existence?
Yes. In concentrations as low as 1% it starts to adversely affect humans, and becomes lethal upwards of about 7%. Is releasing it into the atmosphere detrimental to human existence? Yes, it’s a part of what’s driving climate change, which is slowly making certain historically habitable areas uninhabitable (like New Orleans).
Do you believe a slight variation in the climate over a century is unique to contemporary times?
The way the temperature record has changed in the past century is unique. There’s no question that the world has warmed significantly in the past century. There’s little doubt that it will continue warming for the next half century. There is a broad consensus that most of this warming is anthropogenic.
What was the average surface temperature of the earth last year?
I don’t know. But I don’t think such a data point, standing alone, tells us very much.
Is certain birth control correlated with brain cancer?
I had not heard of this until this article, but now that I’ve am inclined to say yes.
What is a stem cell, and what are the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells?
A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that can develop into any kind of body tissue depending on its environment. An embryonic stem cell is a stem cell because it is young. An adult stem cell is an adult cell (or cell line) that has been coaxed into regressing into its pluripotent, pre-differentiated state.
Do you ever question settled science?
Weeeeelll, there’s not really any such thing as settled science. The way science works, ideally, is by making hypotheses and attempting to disprove them. “Settled science” could be that set of hypotheses that have been particularly resilient to disproof. Or it could be the set of beliefs held by most scientists, or by domain experts. Or it could be the set of beliefs that society at large considers “settled”.
So do I question them? Yes, but in different ways. I know that most people are wrong about certain claims that have been thoroughly debunked; I know that scientists are human and frequently irrational; and I know that some scientific hypotheses will be proven wrong. I am usually a contrarian about public opinion, I harbor pet beliefs in domains about which I don’t know of good studies, and sometimes I doubt what seems to be the scientific status quo. But science is quite often the best we have, and I more often give up my intuitions in the face of scientific evidence than I give up science that doesn’t mesh with my intuitions.