The dangers in the abuse of technically valid context free science:

A Shocker: Partisan Thought Is Unconscious

In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men who described themselves as committed Republicans or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of President Bush and the other half backers of Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I. machine and consider several statements in quick succession.

The first was a quote attributed to one of the two candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that Social Security should be overhauled. Moments later, the participants read a remark that showed the candidate reversing his position. The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual.

The Republicans in the study judged Mr. Kerry as harshly as the Democrats judged Mr. Bush. But each group let its own candidate off the hook.

After the participants read the contradictory comment, the researchers measured increased activity in several areas of the brain. They included a region involved in regulating negative emotions and another called the cingulate, which activates when the brain makes judgments about forgiveness, among other things. Also, a spike appeared in several areas known to be active when people feel relieved or rewarded. The "cold reasoning" regions of the cortex were relatively quiet.

Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional.

It is possible to override these biases, Dr. Westen said, "but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.' "

In the hard -mathematical- sciences neutrality is seen as akin to objectivity, but in the sociolinguistic world synonymous with politics -we live here!- neutrality is both impractical and immoral. The current political reality is this: How many times can it be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that George Bush and Ken Lay lied? Apply the same standard to John Kerry.

It is possible to override these biases, Dr. Westen said, "but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.' "

Dr. Westen is wrong. It is not possible to override these biases, that's why courtrooms aren't run like laboratories.
Even with advances in technology and methodology the scientific standard of 'truth' will never replace the linguistic standard of reasonable doubt. George Bush is corrupt. 1+1=2. That we will never be able to use the same standard to judge the factual basis of both propositions is no excuse for passivity. At the same time though I'm annoyed by scientists who try to pretend they're machines, the lingering popularity of positivism, as pseudo-autism, among Americans who would refer to themselves as intellectual, disgusts me. As I've said before, DeLong styles himself a cosmopolitan, but he's as much a rationalist vulgarian as his enemy Chomsky.
---

This is silly.
And D.B. posted in a second time because it got "lost in the shuffle?"
C'mon kids