> This is pushing the idea that the facts don't matter Yes, but you seem to have confused the author's positive statement as a normative statement. The author

> This is pushing the idea that the facts don't matter Yes, but you seem to have confused the author's positive statement as a normative statement. The author of that quote is not saying that's how the world should ideally be. He's saying that's how the real world really fucking works. In other words, "The distinguished representative from Texas doesn't give a shit about science; he's made up his mind on climate change because there's a shitload of money at stake. If he can discredit good study X to weaken his opponent's point, or marshall shitty study Y to strengthen his own point, he'll do so. Because winning the political battle is more important than being 'correct'. So you're not going to convince him to change his mind by throwing science in his face." The author is NOT defending the not-so-hypothetical distinguished representative from Texas. He's just observing the fact that this is how certain people process scientific claims. Not as scientists, but as motivated reasoners and political operatives with a priori agendas. See also the discussion of the precautionary principle above for a less cut-and-dry example -- what's happening, in that case, is basically that two groups with different values are making different default assumptions about the level of confidence necessary to justify a decision. I.e., they have different values, and those values color the way in which they interpret the confidence intervals in studies on e.g. GMOs. You're confusing a description of the status quo for a defense of the status quo. This is a ridiculous straw-man. > What matters is "values" and emotions Again, the claim is not "values/emotions are objectively more important than science". The claim is "voters/lawmakers are more likely to be swayed by values/emotions than by science". Those are two very different claims. > It's an elaborate setup to push a view from certain segments of the humanities and social sciences to dismiss the epistemology of science and an "objective reality" entirely That's quite the conspiracy theory, given that the overall tenor of the piece is decidedly pulling in the other direction.