Slashdot Mirror
Politicizing Science
grape jelly writes "A new website has been created by Rep. Harry A. Waxman, of California, by the name of Politics and Science that accuses the current administration of intentionally manipulating scientific data in order to further its ideology. The site was created as a result of a congressional report (pdf) request by Rep. Waxman, available on his site. A NYTimes article is also available about the report with a response from the administration."
Seems to me that the government has been manipulating and misrepresenting "scientific" data for a long time. Let's see, "marijuana makes you violent" came in the 40's as I recall, and there are plenty of other examples. This is nothing new with this administration.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
There is a big difference (in legal terms) between lying in a speech and lying under oath. Lying in a speech called a campaign promise. Lying under oath is called perjury. Little "details" like that are what make the Rule of Law work. If you start ignoring them, the whole system falls apart.
looks like a run of the mill democrat stooge
Waxman, a stooge for the democrats, is a rarity these days.
Contributors to the Republican seem to be able to afford to buy a lot more stooges.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
All information will be politicized, not just what comes from scientific investigation.
The only defense for scientists is to continue to pursue the truth, postulate hypotheses, and to ask questions and get answers about the validity of those hypotheses.
Honestly, what this world needs is less politics in science and more science in politics.
Politics is so heavily weighted in emotion and personality that I hold out little hope of rational and critical thought making any more than a stage appearance in government.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Today, it's actually a necessity. You can find a study to say whatever you want; depending on the model, experimental methods, statistical methods, and a dozen other variables. People who act on research must filter through what is discovered, and decide what they think is true.
There are studies that prove global warming is currently killing thousands, and others that prove that it never exsisted, is a natural process, or is being/has been reversed. DTT is a killer, and the guy that did the study did it wrong/no he didn't. There is/is not a "gay gene".
Adminstration has to filter through these reports and determine which ones are correct, because they can't all be correct. Is it surprising that they would pick the ones that best fit their agenda? Even when you take good advisors into account, these advisors must be selected by the administration. Who's best? How does the administration pick their advisors? The same way they would pick which study to believe: Based on what they already think is true, or whatever best fits into their perception of how the world works. No matter how open minded and unbiased they (the admin) tries to be, they won't be, can't be unbiased. They will still lean towards what they had previously believed. And they won't be easily swayed, because any data that comes out contradicting what they believe can be countered by some other piece of (just as accurate) data that was gathered under slightly different conditions.
I guess the only real way around it would be to have advisory panels staffed by the scientists with the opposing views. Even then, though...many, if not most, scientists are severely lacking in interpersonal skills (I say this as a scientist severely lacking in interpersonal skills), so those panels would get little done, especially when several of the people in the room have been butting heads for decades.
My sig seems even more appropriate than usual today...
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
I did check out the website. He seems to be among a group of people these days who want to disbelieve any scientific result that is generally accepted. Practically all immune researchers believe HIV causes AIDS? They must be wrong! The establishment didn't accept Velikovsky? He must have been right! This attitude appears to come from an UNcritical distrust of authority. Just being dismissed by the authorities doesn't make an idea worthy of serious consideration. They may well have laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I didn't see any 'facts' mentioning that the coal-burning electric plants in the US put out more nuclear radiation in a single day than the incident at 3 Mile Island did.
Oh, right, because dems are anti-nuke and this site only serves to pick political fights.
If someone wants to put up a site citing real science on the litany of hypocritical positions politicians take, great, but let's call this thing what it is: politics.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
*applause*. I'm reminded of a .sig where someone observed the following:
There aren't too many people on the left or right) that would argue that. A leftie might phrase it differently - speaking of "heartless Republicans" and "those striving for social justice" - but would likely agree with the point.
The odd part is that if you replace "left" with "right", and "economic" with "social", you still end up with a statement that both sides would take as a compliment.