Different ways of thinking

The first year of the Obama administration has been one of intense debate. There were debates on bailouts, the recovery act, health care, the war on terror and on and on. The problem is that there are two ways of thinking about problems: the scientific and the non-scientific. I use science because those are the two types of degrees you can get in college: a liberal arts or a science degree. (There are other degrees you can get, but they basically boil down to these.) It is those two types of degrees that shape the way you debate about issues.

The difference in these two ways of thinking is why there are never any solutions to our problems in Congress. I was watching a debate on the Daily show between Jon Stewart and Marc Thiessen on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EIT). The problem with this debate is that Thiessen believes he’s right because he has evidence to support his argument. Stewart thinks he’s right because he has evidence to support his opposing argument. Well if there is evidence to support both arguments, then how can you tell who is right?

(In the interest of full disclosure I have a degree in Psychology, which is still considered a liberal art not a science)

In the liberal arts, such as history, literature, and the social sciences, arguments are made by finding evidence to support your argument. In a typical assignment you would present a thesis and then offer examples that support the thesis.

In the sciences, such as biology, physics and chemistry, you present a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it. If you believe that x causes y then your hypothesis gains evidence if you show that x causes y. But that’s not where science stops. Science then tries to see if “w” causes y, or “g” causes y. If those things are also true, then what does it mean that x causes y? Only science approaches questions in this way.

Let’s take the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) argument. If EIT gets us intelligence that prevents attacks, that’s a good thing and you have evidence for your thesis. However, intelligence that prevents attacks has been gained without using EIT. So now the question is, do we need to use EIT?

In most discussions there isn’t a way to answer these questions because you can’t normally run experiments to prove these sorts of hypotheses. You can’t assign people to random groups of EIT and non-EIT. Unless you’re lucky (or unlucky) enough to have the federal government unofficially run the experiment for you. All we have to do is take all the intelligence that was gathered by both methods (and I do mean all, you can't pick and choose), have an independent group rate the data on how useful it was (use scientists with no interest in public policy), then compare the two. If it turns out that there was a 60/40 or 70/30 difference between the two methods of interrogation, then you have your answer.

That, unfortunately, would only be the beginning of the problem. Let’s say that it turns out that EIT is 70% more effective than non-EIT, should we use it? I ask this question, because the same question can be asked about stem-cell research. Using embryonic stem-cells is much more useful, than using adult stem cells. The difference is probably more than 70%, however most people who would support EIT would NOT support stem-cell research that uses embryonic stem-cells. Their argument is that using embryonic stem-cells may save lives, but it is morally wrong. People who are against EIT argue that it may yield results, but it is morally wrong also.

(Of course, if it turns out that you get more useful data using non-EIT, then there isn't really any debate to be had.)

So I guess all I really did was postpone the argument. We have a way of discovering the truth, but not whether it’s right or wrong (morally). At least if we knew what was true, then debating on whether it’s right or wrong would mean something.