The Threat To Reason by Daniel Hind

I ordered this after hearing Dan Hind on the radio. I was intrigued enough to want to see what he was actually arguing. Starting the book, and making it to the end of the introduction I was left wondering when, exactly, the other shoe was going to drop. I was left nonplussed (in a good way) when it didn't. Let me explain.

Hind's goal is to lay out what the idea of 'Enlightenment' actually is and then use that definition to examine just how closely current culture cleaves to that definition when it's being deployed to attack people or ideas that don't fit with the mainstream. It's a very interesting project and one I found myself warming to a great deal as the book progressed. Hind is most cross and dismayed by people who use the Enlightenment to shore up their own ideals, to make their ideals middle of the road and to rubbish other people's ideas and world views. More than that, he reckons that so many of us simply have it all wrong. We're getting cross about stuff that really is nothing to do with what we claim.

Take the 'sceptical' position on homoeopathy and other alternative medicines. Hind, brilliantly, doesn't argue that we should take them seriously. What he does do is say - look, if you're really serious about open enlightenment when mankind seeks to advance its store of knowledge and improve its standard of living then you should be less worried about alternative medicines and much more concerned about big pharma and the scientific process. He argues (and as a scientist with a bit of self awareness - unlike people such as Dawkins for instance - I think he's absolutely right) that science is massively political and just as ideological as any other human endeavour. He argues that closed research done for profit is anti-enlightenment because, in the end, it means the greater part of humanity doesn't benefit from advances in medicine, that indeed the very flavour of research ignores the greatest scourges of mankind. As an aside - why have we not got new anti-biotics to take on MRSA? A key reason is that researching these new anti-biotics hasn't been profitable, so science and those who pay for it to be done have ignored this area - sure it's now going to be flavour of the month again but how many people have had to die because the profit motive drove science to look at Viagra rather than life saving medicines? Hind argues then that the process is anti-enlightenment and the outcomes are decidedly not in our interest. He also substantiates this with examples of where Scientists have wilfully hidden the truth of poor medicines (including fatal side effects) from regulators and the public for the sake of making more money. So much for cold hard objectivity eh? Comparing the damage done by cigarette companies to humanity vs. that done by practitioners of alternative medicines he comes down on the side of reason - neither are acceptable but you know what? Mainstream science and its applications have wilfully killed millions more people than alternative medicines incompetent bungling ever has and what makes it worse is that it employs the idea of 'enlightenment rationality' to deflect attention away from its own systematic abuses.

The above is just one example and he notes a number more - such as the focus on the fear of religion by those supposed to be rationalists. A good argument but I won't repeat it here.

What Hind makes clear is that those committed to enlightenment ideals of public knowledge and examination, or transparent and self aware exploration will inevitably find themselves at odds with the powers that be - be they politicians, big business or media. Why? Because they will not stand for nonsense such as setting up straw men to attack to protect one's own position. Is Daniel Dennett interested in the Enlightenment? Obviously not. What about Dawkins? What about Fundamentalist Religions? What about Big Science and big media? I'd say no to all of the above. Indeed I'd put each of them in the same freaking bucket - out to protect their own interests and suppress all who disagree with their editorial stance. Hind's case is robust on this front.

However it all starts to unravel when he looks at how to make it better. His solutions are, at least to my mind, starry eyed. Humans organise themselves. Without it we have no civilisation. Organisation isn't perfect because we're dynamic, messy, living creatures who change through time. To suggest everyone should be able to fulfil all roles is to suggest that the greatest achievement of mankind - the organisation of society so we can make life easier for everyone - should be set aside in favour of achieving only what individuals can achieve seems naive and retrograde. Personally I'd suggest we refuse to allow profit to be our only source of rationality (economists seem to feel it appropriate to opine on everything these days on nothing more than the ability to tell a good story). I'd suggest that all science is done in the open, that all studies should be registered and results published (regardless of the outcome). I'd suggest that we maintain the idea that wonder should be central to society and our experience of life. Not 'experiences' but the sense that we are small and the universe is big and isn't that amazing. I'd suggest that we applaud real talent that comes about from dedication and hard work - not celebrity, nor consumption and certainly not 'reality tv'. But then I'm probably hopelessly elitist and naive as well.