Are attacks on science about science, reason, or something else?

At least since the George Bush era there's been much discussion about attacks on science: denials of the fact of climate change, attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and manipulation of evidence about a whole range of other health and environmental issues. Here in Canada it was a major issue throughout the Stephen Harper era, with accounts of the "muzzling" of science and of scientists by the federal government.

Just this week an article at Yale Environment 360 described how these attacks are now becoming more common in Europe as well � and are tied to the rise of the hard-right in Europe.

This is a serious issue: we don't need to look any further than to the current American election to see evidence that we're in a post-fact world, with a congenital liar now so close to the White House.

At the same time, it's important to avoid misdirection.  These "attacks on science" are not actually about the science itself, but about the policies they demonstrate may be necessary.  These may be environmental regulations, cutbacks in coal burning, restrictions on fishing, or anything else that affects particular economic or political interests.  Scientific evidence can also make a compelling case for expanding the role of government, and many find this ideologically objectionable.

In fact, these "attacks" demonstrate, perversely, the continuing authority of scientific reason.  For example, opponents of climate action have tended to criticize the science not because they have genuine issues with the science itself, but because by doing so they can pretend to be applying the same standards of evidence or reasoning on which science itself bases its authority.  This can seem so much more persuasive � because more "objective" � than speaking openly in defence of one's economic interests or political preferences.

And so the best way to respond to such critiques of science is not by answering them directly, but by addressing the economic, political or ideological factors that motivate them.