Group Fights Politicizing Science and Engineering

smooth wombat writes, "Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians 'who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.' The group will be a 527 organization and will focus its efforts on races in which science plays a part." From the article: "In what it described as a Bill of Rights for scientists and engineers, the group said that researchers who receive federal funds should be free to discuss their work publicly, and that appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should be based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs. It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."

Comments

global warming "ideology"

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as "derived from ideology" includes the politically-charged pseudoscientic claims of global warming.

Science that supports MY politics, not THEIRS...

[Kohath]

This seems like an attempt to promote "politically correct" science.

Using science to promote socialism and bash the USA == SCIENCE.
Criticizing that and asking for actual scientific skepticism == POLITICS.

Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter

[Kohath]

Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations.

Just admit it. Democrats have objectives and choose a belief system to justify and achieve those objectives.

How far has Slashdot fallen...

[Kohath]

How far has Slashdot fallen when Slashdot readers fall for anything someone puts in a press realease and refuse to consider any other information or alternate point of view on a subject?

And the powers that be want to frame it as a "you're either with science or with the Lord" kind of insane debate that went out of fashion in the 18th century.

The new version is: "You're with the Lord? We hate you. You are now a second-class citizen."

Wolves

[jmorris42]

> The solution hasn't exclusively been to polarize them on the issues, but to say "if you
> vote for the other guy, wolves will attack you"

And the problem for the other side is that the Republicans CAN say that and it resonates because most rational people understand there is more than just a little truth in the charge. I'm one of those voters who would love to vote against the 'spend tax money like drunken sailors' Republican party and the 'compasionate conservative liberal lite' Republican party personified by G. W. Bush. But a vote for a Democrat IS a vote for wolves eating me so I will hold my nose and go vote a straight Republican ticket in November.

I know it, you know it and UBL knows it. This is the first 'faith based war' in that one of the major political parties has decided that if they all hold hands and sing kumbya and BELIEVE real hard that the war doesn't exist that it won't exist. But reality is that which continues to exist regardless how hard one disbelieves it, and the reality is that the War will exist until both sides decide it is over, and UBL has been winning battles against the infidel since the '80s when he went up against the Soviets so it will take more than the minor setbacks we have inflicted so far to convince him and his minions to lay down arms.

Most Republicans are living in the real world, where there is a shooting war on. Most Democrats are living in a fantasy world where they are more likely to believe Bushitler blew up the WTC than to believe UBL not only did it, but that it wasn't his first successful attack. The only Democrats on the national stage who show they at least understand are Lieberman (forced from his party for his belief) and perhaps HRC, who probably understands we have a war on but is politically savvy enough to fuzz her position enough to remain viable in her insane party. Making her morally bankrupt and unfit for office regardless of which side you look at the issue from.

Re:Wolves

[jmorris42]

> > Most Republicans are living in the real world, where there is a shooting war on.

> Which they're doing their level best to lose in the most spectacular way possible.

All too true. But they are fighting. During the opening acts of WWII and the Cold War (WWIII) we didn't exactly cover ourselves in glory either. But we knew that defeat wasn't an option and kept going and eventually won. I'm still holding out hope the Republicans will keep swinging long enough to learn how to fight this new sort of war.

Winning requires internalizing the fundamental truth of modern warfare. Battles are won and lost on the battlefield, but the war is won on the floor of the Congress and on TV. Defeat Democrats and UBL will give up since his only hope for victory lies in destroying our will to fight. Democrats lend him moral support when they lead him to believe that one election tipping their way will give him victory in Iraq. I'm NOT saying all Democrats are knowingly in league with UBL. What I am saying is that UBL doesn't care because the result, for him, is the same regardless. And I'm sad to say no small portion of Democrats don't care if they give UBL a victory, their blind hatred of Bush and their insatable lust to regain lost political power is overwhelming all other considerations.

> Ah! That explains why so many Democrats were in favor of going into Afghanistan.
> (Check the congressional vote record if you don't believe me.)

Don't have to check, I was watching. Yes most Democrats voted to destroy the Taliban. As most of them voted to invade Iraq, and for the same reason. Voting otherwise would have been suicide for most of them. But from their public statements then and now it was clear that had they believed they could have been survived they would have voted against both.

Now of course every elected Democrat was 100% for Afganistan to prove they are 'serious about fighting terrorism' and obfuscate their anti-war fervor over Iraq. But I was there, watching TV and reading their ravings in newpaper columns and online. Afganistan would be a quagmire. Afganistan had resisted conquest by every major power since history began, we would suffer the fate of the British and the Russians. Afganistan was just a little pissant country Bushitler wanted to beat up to prove his manhood. You name it and some Democrat was saying it.... then.

> Iraq isn't about weapons of mass destruction! Where did you get a silly idea like that?

Where were you? War in Iraq was justified on any one of several equally valid causus beli.

1. Iraq's failure to comply with ANY of the terms of the cease fire agreement. Yes, cease fire and not peace treaty. The US (and the coalition) were still in a formal state of War with Iraq and would have remained so until they complied with their end of the terms in the cease fire. They had a free pass during the Clinton years but a new sheriff was in town. Bush was itching to resolve Iraq from inuraguation day and should have been.

2. Iraq was both a short term and longterm threat to the region. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. No, there has been no credible evidence linking Saddam and 9/11 however 9/11 is not the sole focus of the GWOT. ANY terrorist is an enemy, not just Al-Qaida; the whole IDEA of terrorism (wanton attacks against civilian targets intended to terrify populations into surrender) as a legitimate tool of statecraft is being fought to extermination. Iraq was the home to several notorious terrorists, including ones who had launched massive attacks on US interests and citizens. Iraq was active in training and financing terrorist organizations worldwide. Iraq paid bounties to the families of homocide bombers.

Iraq had started wars in the past and showed every indication of a willingness to do so in the future as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Which from his corruption of the UN would have been soon.

3. Every intelligence agency on earth believed Iraq had an active WMD pr

Re:Wolves

[jmorris42]

> There are two primary shooting wars going on.

Nope, only one.

> One is a game of terrorist whack-a-mole that is a sad necessity.

If we contented ourselves with playing whack-a-mole (another way of phrasing it would be treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem btw) we will never prevail. We have to end state sponsorship or terrorism AND we must remove the circumstances that breed terrorists.

> The other is a war we started. We went in under false pretences, overthrew a government that while bad was
> NEVER a real threat to us personally, and now must clean up the mess left behind.

No, Iraq IS the War on Terror. Afganistan was something that had to be cleaned up, but alone would not have ended the terrorists. It would have simply driven them elsewhere.... namely into Iran, Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Iraq would have slipped the sanctions by now (they had bribed almost everyone at the UN in charge of enforcing them, to the point they were largely meaningless at the time of the Iraq War) and been back in the business of being general villans.

But more importantly, Iraq was the perfect place to attempt to install a modern Republican form of government in the heart of the Middle East (otherwise known as the fever swamps breeding terrorism) to provide an example to the suffering masses living in tyranny. Iraq is the wedge that, if successful, bring down the House of Saud, the corrupt despot on the Egyptian throne, etc.

> Of course I have also had the insane idea that there should be an IQ test on every voter registration form.
> Miss the minimum and your ballot goes in the shredder instead of the box."

I'd love that idea. Most ignorant/stupid people vote Democratic. Accuse me of flamebaiting all ya want folks, it is the nasty little open secret nobody wants to talk about. When Democrats/Progressives/etc rail about stupid people voting the wrong way it is simply misdirection. They DEPEND on the stupid, the uneducated (i.e. increasingly anyone who goes to government schools) and the politically naive. And most importantly they absolutely depend on keeping as many voters as possible in total ignorance of economics.

And while I'm bound for -1 flamebait I'll toss another live grenade. Democrats depend on voters making decisions emotionally instead of rationally. Which explains why Democrats/Progressives did noticably better after Women's Sufferage. Anyone who doesn't believe me is invited to examine the historical record. No Democratic since that event would have won office had only men been voting. Of course modern women are finally reaching educational parity with men, and having had to deal with the real world most of their lives now, so sure enough the gender gap is slowly disappearing.

So now the bug push is to make up those losses and get illegal aliens voting, on the assumption they are mostly poor, uneducated and thus ripe for the Democratic party.

Re:Nice perfectly apt analogy.

[ClioCJS]

Your allergy has nothing to do with it and is a total red herring. If I was allergic to dogs, would that be justification to pass a law banning public walking of dogs? NO. So strike that comment.

And I could just as easily characterize what you are saying the exact same way: You like to force your choice [of not smoking] on others. Strike that comment as well. Most actions can be characterized that way. For a bad example: My bumperstickers could be called "Forcing someone to have to read about my ideals against their will". It's a load of crap. Nobody is forcing you to do anything because you have the freedom to LEAVE.

No, it's not assault. And your post is utter crap.

Assault is harm. If I pass you in the park one day smoking, I am in no way giving you enough smoke to cause you cancer. Look up the word "negligible" and learn its definition. If you're allergic, it shouldn't be an issue; your allergies should get to you long before any cancer does.

Lung cancer is survivable 60% of the time, by smokers, if they quit smoking when diagnosed. Nobody is killing you. Put your tinfoil hat on; those cosmic rays might be giving you cancer too. And the moon men.