Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 653 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter by nojomofo · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's even more exasperating about this situation is that Kerry wouldn't have had the power to change the abortion laws and Bush hasn't done a damn thing about them either.

    I agree that voting based on a single issue is generally silly. But I don't think that you're thinking about this statement in the right way. You're thinking in a very short-term manner. Long-term, Bush has done quite a bit about abortion laws, by putting conservative people on the Supreme Court. That's where the battle ground is on that issue, and it's not a battle to be won overnight. The Republicans definitely understand that.

  2. One way to solve the problem... by Biff+Stu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Elect scientists and engineers! There's a contested race in CA's 11th congressional district where the challenger has a Ph.D. in mathematics and an engineering background in wind turbine technology.

  3. Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    I don't think the idea that one party is more scientific in their approach is *at *all tenable.
    How many times does Bush talk about "God" influencing his decisions?
  4. Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not just abortion, preventing condom distribution, too. This policy is killing people.

  5. Re:Scientific Method is grounded in theism by windowpain · · Score: 2, Informative

    Congratulations. You've managed to get reality exactly wrong. The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same is the result of years of observing, theorizing, studying and testing. The interlocking evidence that has been observed repeatedly across different disciplines and over centuries leads sober, reasonable and intelligent people to conclude that certain phenonomena are governed by "laws" that appear to be unchanging.

    If, on the other hand, you're a theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an ominipotent god, then you believe he can suspend the laws of physics at will. There's no reason to believe he hasn't in the past and will do so in the future at any time. Indeed, the Bible asserts that god has indeed suspended the laws of the universe on numerous occasions.

    Is this not written in the Book of the Just? The sun stood still in the middle of the sky and delayed its setting for almost a whole day (making one day into almost two). There was never a day like that before or since, when God obeyed the voice of a man, for God was fighting for Israel." (Joshua 10:12-14)

    Rational people have every reason to believe the sun will rise and set on schedule tomorrow. Christians and Jews can't be so sure.

    --
    Insert witty sig here.
  6. Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter by xenoarch · · Score: 2, Informative

    in 1992, when Ross Perot was invited. He showed both mainstream candiates up. Because of this both the NDC and the GOP came to gether and formed the Commision for Presidential Debates. Which controlls who are allowed on the debates. And since they are a partnership of both parties they will not allow their candiates on any debate they don't have absolute say on. ANd of course they won't allow third party cadnidates on thier debates. So if the networks want to have a presidental debate that include either the rebuplican or democratic canidate, they have to follow the rules of the CPD. Which means no one else can come. Its sick its twisted and its one of the reasons i haven't voted in a presdential election except the one in 1992. I am with George Washington on this one.. I'm against the party system. In his farewell address he warned aginst the dangers of a party system.

  7. Re:Wolves by pizzaman100 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Unsuccessful Guerrilla Campaigns.

    And the Civil war WAS nothing more than a large insurgency. Every conventional war has had insurgents as well.