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

The meaning of Irony- With Friends Like These

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"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."

Ok, so let me get this straight: In an effort to remove political and religious beliefs from federal scientific advisory commissions, this group of scientists has banded together to form a 527 (political activism group) to promote the religious ideology of objectivism.

When scientists start attempting to use governmental censorship just like any Islamic or Southern Baptist, well, with friends like these who needs enemies?

Re:The meaning of Irony- With Friends Like These

[Marxist Hacker 42]

...ummm...religious ideology of objectivism?

You maybe read those words somewhere and decided that stringing them together made you sound intellectual?

Not at all. Humans contain an infinite ability to place irrational belief in just about anything- including rationalism.

The whole problem with ideology is that it elevates certain beliefs over the evidence.

Exactly, yes.

Science is the un-ideology, the un-religion. It is the hole left behind when you take away superstition and willful ignorance.

No, unfortuneately it isn't. It's just the superstition and willful arrogance of assuming that what you see is real, and what you don't see isn't. Of course, it's more complicated than that these days- tradition screws up any religion and the ideology of objectivism is no different, with traditions of peer reviewed journals and blind acceptance of what is printed in them, combined with the absolute rejection of that which isn't. But the core is the arrogance that says you, personally, can be objective- when no human being has ever achieved a perfect lack of bias yet.

Next oxymoron please, this one's done...

Too bad you failed to prove that it's an oxymoron. Instead, it's just moronic.

We're not listening to them anyway....

[parseexception]

so let them have thier little group,
It'll make them feel important.

(Sticks fingers back in ears and yells NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH)

Evolution is based on ideology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution has no explanation for the arising of life out of nonliving matter. That has never been observed. Evolution arises from the dogmatic assertion that there can be no intelligent designer. It's unreasoned and illogical. Therefore, the teaching of evolution should be prohibited.

ideologies

[allfunandgames]

I for one think that theories should be just that, theories. Now, that being said, one could conclude that evolution is a theory. One could also conclude that creationism is a theory. So, for this article to presume to attack creationism as an ideology and not a theory is logically an error. In addition, for this article to presume that the theory of evolution is not an ideology is also an error in logic. Think about it before you flame me people. And please no troll marks as my logic doesnt deserve it.

Hmmmmm

[SengirV]

Not that I RTFA, but I'm guessing the "Group Fighting Politicizing Science and Engineering" is all for pushing as much gloabal warming legislation thru as possible.

Re:Rove

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Wolves, I can deal with. It's the jackals in the GOP that worry me.

Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter

[feepness]

Public smoking bans have more to do with keeping cancer-causing poisons out of your body than putting morals in.

So you also support banning beach campfires and park barbecues?

Like I said, it's just morals. My morals say I have to put up with other people's carcinogens from time to time. I don't expect the government to keep me 100% safe. Not from the turrurists, not from smokers, not even from ManBearPig.

oh, okay.

[ClioCJS]

So it's only bad to put carcinogens that are addictive into your body. Non-addictive ones are okay. It's nice how conveniently flexible your moral code is.

Nice, but ultimately pathetic. You have no guarantee to clean air. Don't like my smoke in a public place? Leave. There are plenty of private places you can go to if you can't face the fucking reality of being in public. Crybaby. Next thing you're going to require that restaurants stop serving Trans Fats.. Oh wait.