place. In 1915, Einstein’s theory of relativ-
ity undermined Newton’s understanding of
the universe. But Einstein said he would not
believe in his own theory of relativity until it
had been empirically verified.
It was an approach which made quite
an impression on the young Karl Popper.
‘Einstein was looking for crucial experi-
ments whose agreement with his predictions
would by no means establish his theory,’ he
wrote later. ‘While a disagreement, as he was
the first to stress, would show his theory to
be untenable. This, I felt, was the true scien-
tific attitude.’
Real science invites refutation and never
lays claim to having had the final say. As the
US National Science Foundation recently
pointed out, a scientific finding ‘cannot be
regarded as an empirical fact’ unless it has
been ‘independently verified’.
Peer review, as we have seen, does not
perform that function. Until governments
begin authenticating research prior to using
it as the foundation for new laws and huge
expenditures, don’t fall for the claim that
policy X is evidence-based. It’s almost cer-
tainly not.
Donna Laframboise is the author of Peer
Review: Why Scepticism is Essential, a
report published by the Global Warming
Policy Foundation.
THE BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
The Spectator brings you in-depth analysis of the US election
The Spectator’s US election coverage
To watch the drama is brought to you in association withunfold, please visit
spectator.co.uk/us-election
With the Labour party
reduced to a cult in honour
of the vain and incompetent
Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory
party is currently ruling
the roost. Perhaps the Old
Oligarch, a fifth-century
BC Athenian hostile to
democracy — we do not
know his real name — can
help out.
The Old Oligarch’s
fascinating pamphlet took
the view that dêmokratia
— Athens’ radical, citizen-
centred direct democracy
— was fine if you were poor,
ignorant and worthless,
but what sensible person
would want to live in a city
controlled by such people?
Only the ‘best people’, he
argued, ‘who are disciplined,
obedient to the laws and
have a strict regard for what
is respectable’, could be
relied upon to produce a
secure, well-governed state.
But that was his point:the Athenian poor and
worthless were not the
best people, and therefore
needed direct democracy to
serve their own worthless
interests. After all, they
rowed the boats that
controlled Athens’ maritime
empire and brought the city
its huge wealth, so it was
entirely fitting that they
should hold the main offices
of state.
The power the common
people wielded in assembly
ensured that they could
satisfy their own lawless
needs, which would certainly
not be the case if the best
people held sway: the bestwould never allow ‘lunatics
to become members of
the Assembly’s steering
committee, let alone speak
in Assembly, or even attend
it’.
True, the Old Oligarch
agreed that the worthless
were very happy for the rich
to pay through property
taxes for entertainments,
religious festivals,
temples and the general
beautification of the city. But
that simply ensured that the
rich became poorer, and the
poor richer.
It could be Corbyn
speaking. And that is the
problem: it is. The Old
Ideologue has no interest
in common people — if he
did, they would flock to him
— let alone democracy, but
simply in his own, equally
blinkered, fans who see
themselves as the ‘best
people’ and Corbyn their
high priest. — Peter JonesANCIENT AND MODERN
Corbyn and the Old Oligarch