In one of my classes (the only one not keeping a weblog), we have been drawing contrasts between academic interpretive practice and polemic. The first has as a goal looking for facts and then building an interpretation (subject of course to the usual human and institutional and disciplinary blindnesses), while the second begins with the desired interpretation and then researches facts to support it. Contradictory facts are ignored, suppressed, or explained away. Polemic, IMO, has no place in academic work and should have no place in public discourse: it's dishonest and twisted, and has led to many evils. (Note that all political sides engage in polemic, and we tend to see opposing views' polemic as horrendous, while finding little problem with polemics we agree with. This does not mean that all polemic is ethically equal--some is worse than others.)

Yesterday's Washington Post offers a good instance of what happens when polemic takes over in government. Scientific panels are supposed to advise government agencies on the basis of good science--but the Bush administration has begun to appoint scientists who they know will shape their advice to conform with the desired conclusions. The relevant fields in this case have to do with genetically modified foods, patients' rights, standards for human research, and environmental harm. In some cases the appointments are made to favor relations with the religious right, in others corporate interests.