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."
This group is asking politicians to make decisions based on logic and scientific evidence when the voters aren't even using these processes. I remember the 2004 election and I remember plotzing when I heard someone was voting for Bush. Often times, I got a canned response of something crazy like, "John Kerry is for abortion. Bush is against it. If my mother had had me aborted, I wouldn't be here and that's why I'm voting for Bush." Now, whether any of that is true or not can be debated forever, that's not the point of this post. The point is that someone or something had gotten to them the message that if Kerry was president, all fetuses would be aborted. They didn't pay attention to any other issues except that one and they made a very emotional decision based on it.
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. This makes the "my body my right" crowd just as idiotic. Abortion is always a steaming political debate right around an election and then subsides to nothing during the term because the trimester laws aren't budging.
The logical step is to not even base your vote on the abortion stance. Of course, none of the voters are logical.
What's the first aim of SEFORA? To push one candidate based on a single issue -- stem cells.
Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations. This 527 will most likely end up supporting the Democratic candidate 9 times out of 10 simply because of the "party stances" the Republican will most certainly take. The million dollar question is, "Would they support a third party candidate running on the Science platform before the bi-partisan idiots?" And the answer is 'probably not.' Which is really too bad because sometimes the third party candidate has good ideas and stances -- just lacks major funds to get the word out.
I see this group as doing an overall good thing but I'm not a big fan of their methods. What ever happened to just trying to educate the voters? At the end of the day, the people voting are not scientifically founded. If they were, I wouldn't have to put up with commercials for The War at Home on TV. The politicians are supposed to represent the people and, since most people aren't experts using science and engineering, they shouldn't make decisions based on this.
My work here is dung.
In this day and age, if I'm running for office, which am I going to do:
- Say and Do the right things for the integrity of office and country?
ORI think it's fair to say, we can see how we got where we are. Fixing it by electing good, intelligent and wise candidates means finding them and grooming them so the voter, who cares more about Paris Hilton getting a DUI, keeping gays from marrying, teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution than whether there's about to be a rise in sea levels, mass extinction and famine is a truly gargantuan undertaking. First they have to get the average clod on the street to understand how clean science will impact their lives. Considering the head start stupidity has and the powerful allies of ignorance, it's daunting.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The facts have a well known liberal bias. We can't have bias in science, therefore we should ignore the facts (and also disregard reality, since we know reality to have a liberal bias as well)
Reality has a liberal bias
"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?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
As long as "derived from ideology" includes the politically-charged pseudoscientic claims of global warming.
so let them have thier little group,
It'll make them feel important.
(Sticks fingers back in ears and yells NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH)
Yeah, I saw a yard gnome once, it didn't scare me - Space Ghost
You got religious freaks on the right and you got frothy eggheads on the left. Blend the two together in a classroom and you got a civil war going on. Makes it hard to be a moderate who believes in both God and science.
No news to see here, move along. Same old "we-aren't-taking-sides-when-we-take-sides" political B.S. as far as I can tell.
So, I didn't bother reading the NYTimes article (too lazy atm for Bugmenot, I'll get to it later), but a quick googling showed that the contact for Scientists and Engineers for America is Michael Brown of Alexandira, VA. No contact info was given on the three sites I saw the information.
All I have to say is: Brownie, I hope this time you do a heckuva job.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
We already have an entirely non-partisan and truthful 527 organization. Ever hear of moveon.org?
Where were you when the voynix came?
I'll volunteer to head the Kansas chapter. Just provide me with body armor, 24-7 security and an anonymous remailer.
The sad fact of the current political state of the United States is simply that politicians are relying on voters to vote based on emotion, not logic.
Which, when you think about it, is a brilliant way to manipulate people into getting them to vote against their own best interests. Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault. I refer to some of those issues as Sucker Bait and you can certainly see how quickly people polarize on them. The trick is figuring which issues are going to get you the numbers you need and then you can go and do whatever you want. Which they have. Perhaps it will be a good thing when low-lying parts of the US capitol are among the first to flood if sea levels do rise 40 or more feet.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians '
so they're fighting the politicization of science.... by entering politics.
ironic.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I think proportional voting systems would do a lot to help this. For awhile at least, the two parties will be sending in candidates of the second type you describe. Partisan voters will fall in line, as usual. But almost everyone's *second choice is going to be a person from a minor party, rather than the other major party candidate.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
http://www.sefora.org/pages.php?submitted=1&id=93
What's up with this? Was it run through bablefish?
fight for the Arts, too. Read a banned book.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
"... you got frothy eggheads on the left"
A little more nutmeg next time?
Where were you when the voynix came?
From Netcraft's site report:
Careful who you're listening to!
If it is so true that this country is so starkly divided between "religious freaks" and "frothy eggheads," then why is that you are a religious person who believes in science, I am a religious person who believes in science, the vast majority of my friends are religious people who believe in science (and even those who aren't religious don't have anything against those who are), and the vast majority of random people I have talked to all around the country are religious people who believe in science? Could it be *GASP* that the vocal minorities of frothy eggheads and religious freaks are actually not at all representative of mainstream Americans? Could media sensationalism (even right here on our beloved
I am tired of this "line in the sand" BS that we all appear to have fallen into. The overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable people who are nothing like the extremist nutjobs portrayed on TV, and our biggest downfall will be ignoring that fact.
While I agree with the idea of removing politics from scientific research, I feel that ideology is quite necessary. Without some sort of noble goal, what's the point other than pure curiosity? Why research cancer or aids if not to save lives? Is that not ideology?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
While I fully support objectivity and fact based analysis and decision making, I fear I am one of few who would rather make up their own mind than have their opinions handed down to them. Even if this group is somewhat successful in accomplishing their goals, the problem is that mass media (I know the internet has somewhat lessened its grip on american society) still has the ability to put whatever spin it wants when covering respective stories. Please do not try and tell me that anyone here buys into the objectivity of the "No-Spin Zone"! It all comes down to perception being reality. If all of the news channels portrayed this group as foolish/off centered/crazy/etc then without a doubt an overwhelmingly large portion of american citizens would believe that at face value. I agree that the removal of ideology and religion from our political system is important but I think it is much more difficult than some think. But hey - we gotta start somewhere right?!?!
how one of the first acts of the Republican controlled congress was to end the Office of Technology Assessment? They have no interest in knowledge, only their personal beliefs.
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.
The facts have a well known liberal bias. We can't have bias in science, therefore we should ignore the facts (and also disregard reality, since we know reality to have a liberal bias as well)
When waters rise, lands dry up and people start screaming about who is going to pay for this, the facts, liberal or conservative, will be irrelevant. I do believe the majority of cities (which tend to be more liberal) which are at risk to flooding from rising seas will assert a new reality on Washington DC (what parts of it remain above the Potomac and Atlantic.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is this group going to teach politicians that, unlike the equivalent with the theory of gravity, you can't validate climatological theories by making 1000 copies of the earth, altering emissions for some of them, waiting a thousand years, and then running a regression, and that its certainty is to that extent weaker?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The best of scientists are not political at all (maybe libertarian).
Pity. Those hairy underarms were hot!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Objectivism isn't a religion, and you don't have to be an Objectivist to subscribe to the scientific method.
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
When American scientists have to form a 527 group just to make sure the public has reasonable access to facts and reports?
We used to be the most technologically advanced country in the world. Now American fundamentalist extremists, enormously well funded fundamentalists, want to keep biology out of the classroom. Oil companies want to supress climate science. And both are the principal campaign financiers of the presidential administration and both houses of congress. And a majority position on the supreme court.
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.
This is the kind of thinking that will relagate us to "has-been" status quicker than you can say "empire where the sun never sets"
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
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.
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.
So they are fighting the politicizing of science and engineering by creating a political group? And yes, a 527 is a political organization whether they admit it or not. Oh sweet irony :)
Segfault
http://roachfiend.com/archives/2005/02/07/bugmenot /
(link given on bugmenot site. fuck knows why they link to a blog post.)
Great idea!
So, what would happen if all the rational people in the US ran for all of the available offices? Given that so many people in the US just vote randomly instead of using relevant information couldn't damn near every incumbent be pushed out in about 10 years?
Independents, heck, they could call it the Independence Party and pool resources but not policy. Anyone running independently could basic support.
Anyone know how many public offices there are in the US? Where's a good place for political data?
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
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."
You might just was well try to hold back a tsunami with a shower curtain then fight against the tide of human stupidity. There's too many of them, and it's not just that they're ignorant, it's not just that they get angry when they're revealed to be ignorant, it's that they get angry when people suggest they can't go on being ignorant. e.g. an illiterate man who gets defensive and frustrated when he's forced to read, and can't. These people consider it a fundemental right to be happy, successful, and obliviously dumb. When you suggest they can't, you're not just insulting them, you're messing with the natural order of things.
The only way to deal with these people is to have less of them. Birth control and wars. I'd really like to see more birth control (the male birth control pill, when it arrives, will be a revolution on par with the female pill), but I'm expecting more wars. So it's off to the trenches with you, little Johnny Illterate.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
best argument yet in favor of abortion.
Science is naturally polarized. It's a threat to anyone who depends upon the public perception that authority is always right. In the era of Karl Rove, science is anti-Republican.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Researchers are political too, and politics and dissemination of information is important.
9 /27/1905846.html
Politicians do have a place in the plan.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki/2006/0
I don't want to suggest that researchers are unethical (most people, even scientists and lawyers are quite ethical IMO) but it isn't reasonable to assume someone will respond neutrally and unbiased about their own field of work.
Much of our technology is due to the passion of the researchers, which clearly involves their own views and opinions.
support GNAA, maggot, vomit, shit Filed countersuit, 3mpire in decline, propaganda and
What if a teacher wants to start up a discussion about whether homosexuality is a mental disorder? What if a scientist wants federal money to evaluate racial differences dealing with violent behavior and intelligence? What if a doctor reports statistical information stating that children of interracial relationships have a higher birth defect rate? What if someone produces a study that indicates faith is related to low intelligence?
... they can probably find a study that demonizes them. And then they put out books like the Bell Curve.
A lot of people find that such discussions would terribly offensive and harmful to the social order. It's also easy to find scientific data which will prove just about anything. It could be because of small sample size or faulty data, but if you pick and choose the information you'll get what you want. If someone has a grudge against blacks/homosexuals/women/men/heterosexuals/whites
Some people have gone to jail for arguing that the Holocaust never happened. In Muslim countries, people have faced the death penalty for alleged slurs against religious doctrine.
My point is that everybody has some beliefs that they feel should go unchallenged. Whether it is their faith in God, their belief in racial equality, their rejection of the supernatural, opposition/support of abortion rights, etc. Regardless of the facts.
Where would you draw the line about debate? Are there discussions which should not take place?
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."
Since intelligent design is an ideology, then opposition to ID is also an ideology and the government should take care to avoid that as well? Don't they see the trap this falls into?
All they are essentially saying "We want to make sure the government doesn't fund ideologies.... except ours 'cuz ours is right!"
I disagree with ID, but there has got to be a better way.
...is that Science is as rife with corruption and politics as is government.
Some people would have the public believe that the Science establishment is a utopia of fact and reason, free of arbitrary influence or with decisions based on personal like or dislikes, or beliefs.
The real fact of the matter is that just like in government, if you are not in agreement with the majority, you are punished. Your career can be ruined, grants evaporate, and getting published is close to impossible. What's worse, just being mistaken in your conclusions, or methods can send perfectly respectable "Scientists" into exile for years.
I don't know that anyone should be eager to exchange one set of close minded, money grubbing, empire building fools for slightly better educated close minded, money grubbing, empire building fools.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Post a story that makes a statement about Intelligent Design.
Honestly. Science is science. There are ways to come up with scientific proof. Belief, faith or anything supernatural has no room in scientific research. Why is this necessary? Is the US becoming a theocracy, where you may only come up with scientific finds that don't contradict some book, teaching or preaching? When I first heard about creationism and that some people try to push that theocentric mumbo jumbo into classrooms, I was first of all checking the calendar to see if it's 1st of April. Then I noticed it's real.
What does that mean? Well, what it will mean in the long run is, that scientists who don't want to endure the hassle to fight past the clerical bullshit will emigrate. There are quite a few secular countries that won't limit you in your research, and they will gladly scoop up anyone who wants to come and do their research there. If anything, it will be bad for the US economy in the long run if this isn't put to a halt.
I'm not saying that religion doesn't have its place. But keep it out of matters that matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
"Group Fights Politicizing Science and Engineering"
Isn't what they are doing exactly what the title says they are fighting against? Don't get me wrong, I'm for what they are doing, but shouldn't the title read more like "Group Fights Ignorance/Misuse of Science and Engineering in Politics"?
I am curious; what methods do these scientists intend to use to achieve their agenda? Obviously a central tenet of their philosophy is that science should not be restricted by politically charged interest groups. They argue that science should be free from the effects of political posturing -- essentially popular cultural beliefs are ineffective at choosing the proper course for scientific research, largely because of religious intrusion (but not solely). They seem to be saying that religious thoughts, i.e. thoughts unsupported by empiricism and experiment, are responsible for hampering human progress and development.
Of course, they understand the irony in their attempt to fight the politicizing of science using political methods. They see that one must fight fire with fire. Except that in their case they argue their fire has a fuel stronger than the fuel of religion; a fuel of proof. Of couse, they don't really know the outcome of their research. It could be that research into stem cells leads to a discovery which leads to an invention of some form which unltimately is responsible for the destruction of humanity. Far-fetched? Of course, but nevertheless possible. I am sure they would be willing to admit that they truly have no way to predict the outcome of certain lines of scientific research. They would probably tell us that the utmost care will be taken in such research to prevent misuse of the knowledge gained.
This situation is what brings us to where we are today. Caught between a balance of the known and the unknown. Between trying to figure out what is right, what should be researched and what shouldn't. Using religious principles to guide scientific research is of course wrong. But is it not also wrong to study simply for the sake of study, without at least first having a collective agreement regarding the safety of said study? Witness the idea that a powerful enough particle accelerator could create a tiny black hole which falls into the center of the planet and slowly consumes it, eventually destroying us all. Of course this has yet to actually happen, but the point is that we went ahead and smashed those particles together anyway. And we're still here, for now, but what about the LHC? Or, if it were built, the SSC?
When humanity set off the first nuclear bomb there was talk that it might literally set the world on fire. It seems the truth is nobody was 100% certain it wouldn't.
I some senses science is blind. Experiments are done because we don't know what they're going to produce. If we knew the outcome, we'd need never experiment. So, while I support the idea that science should not be hindered by certain forms of human thought, I also hope that this group doesn't stray to the other extreme. That of electing somebody who throws caution to the wind and a blind eye to scientific progress. The more advanced we get, the more cautious we should be.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Theism is the ground of the scientific method. The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same and have stayed the same is a theistic assumption. A non-theist has no reason for assuming that the laws of physics won't change.
A theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an omnipotent God do. So continue using the scientific method. It will work tomorrow just as well as it worked yesterday.
Objectivists are borrowing from theism.
If my memory of history serves, this is why the scientific method flourished in the monotheistic West.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Are these the same scientists that wanted to melt the polar ice caps to prevent global cooling in the '60s and '70s?
Look, I want their voices to be heard, but I'm really not all about the passive aggressive self-important nerds I beat up in high school running the world. The reasons why can be seen all over Slashdot. "I'm smart, everyone else is stupid, therefore people who think like me should run the world unchecked by the people we decide are stupid." How is this different than "I follow the true God, everyone else is an evil sinner, therefore I should run the world unchecked by the people I decide are sinners."?
It's the same old right-wing control freaks legislating religion vs the left-wing control freaks legislating socialism. The rest of us in the middle are just fucked as both sides steal our rights away and blow our tax dollars doing it.
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. This makes the "my body my right" crowd just as idiotic. Abortion is always a steaming political debate right around an election and then subsides to nothing during the term because the trimester laws aren't budging.
I beg to differ. Have you seen the Supreme Court lately? Do you think the same two people would have been added had Kerry been elected? Do you think we might have had a difference of opinion had Kerry appointed two Judges (for life)? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Supreme Court will have a significant impact on the abortion issue.
I don't care which side you are on, you cannot deny that "something" has been done and we will live with it long after Bush leaves office.
What ever happened to just trying to educate the voters?
Great question. Whay ever happened to education?
Some statements here try to push liberals as being the scientific backbone of the country and conservatives as monkeys that hang on trees and believe every wild thing that comes along.
I am a moderate (try to stick to the middle)... but that just isn't true. I have some conservative aspects to me, but that doesn't mean that I don't hold science as the premier authority on what is and what is not.
In fact, I am much less religious than most that are quite liberal. Everybody has beliefs, even when they try to convince society that they don't really. That said, when I approach any situation I true to determine the truth in it and what is accurate. Many people that I know that are quite far left are just as guilty of believing without thinking. If I took evolution or ID and believed either without thoroughly disecting them, then I've just followed my belief instead of something that I know to be a fact.
People do it every day... whether to the right or to the left. Lets start a new party. The party that uses their brains to accurately determine the truth of what is and what is not.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
Much of the funding for the physical and biological sciences comes from the federal government. Once you start trying to get money from the USG, you are playing an inherently political game - the overselling of research, for example, isn't rational but rather a tool to get people less informed than you to give them money. While the conditions for research funding aren't necessarily partisan, they are poltical by nature.
In addition, the ends to which science and technology strive are legitimate topics for societal and political discussion. Scientists have taken a wide variety of stands on the development and technology, such as nuclear weaponry, and expecting others to refrain from similar stands.
The problem with the current Adminstration isn't that politics have interfered with science, because they probably have for a long time, but that the people running the government try to exclude or ignore any opinions or data that do not support their goals. It uses science like bad management uses management consultants - to give support for actions already decided on. Reality is less forgiving of studied and steadfast ignorance than any group of people could hope to be; the selective use of science or the use of flawed science or reasoning to support a policy makes the policy less likely to succeed. The variety of interference in scientific decision making only makes the goals that the Administration claims to desire harder to reach, and increases their costs.
Formed by two ex-Clinton advisers and someone who wants an abortion pill on the market - and people who dislike the current administration, to boot - six weeks before an election.
This wouldn't make it into the NYT, except for Bush Derangement Syndrome.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Good point. It is too easy to forget that there are two separate nations that both have the official name "China".
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Moderate" covers too many different groups of people to have any coherent meaning. In fact, this term is a sad and commentary of our ridiculous political system; they represent the blatant inadequacy of party politics. I have little respect for the political opinions of most moderates. In the current system, they are just sheep to be herded into competing camps by the clever shepherds.
Took a few minutes for the paid political trolls to find this, didn't it
Can you really say they're fighting politicization by forming a political interest group?
I don't know if anyone of you have ever thought about this but here goes. Ok, over time, the house of representatives has gotten larger right? So, that means that the public is losing power simply because more representatives per capita equals less power per vote per person. Over time, the senate has remained the same size while the population has grown so the people are losing power again. And finally, the president has remained one person (or so we are lead to believe), so, logically as the population grows, the more the people lose power and the more consolidated it becomes. If you are having a hard time with this just think back to the original colonies. Let's assume vermont had 2 senators for 50,000 people and 20 representatives in the house and one president. I know that isn't historically acurate, but just for the sake of argument, let me have my way with the numbers to simplify my argument. Now, today let's assume vermont has 2 senators and 5,000,000 people and 2000 representatives and still one president. What is going on here? It appears to me that as the population increases, the power of government increases. So, if the population of the US in the 1790's was around say 200,000 or so the people's vote would mean a great deal more and the votes of all the representatives of the people (ie the president, senate, and the house of representatives) would mean less. This is my thought. I believe that the people of the USA are losing power everyday and the elected officials are gaining and consolidating the lost power in a power vacuum. I mean, it has to go somewhere right? We are slowly being bread into slaves. That is the only logical conclusion. We just dont know it yet. Now flame away you slaves.
"I'm smart, everyone else is stupid, therefore people who think like me should run the world unchecked by the people we decide are stupid." How is this different than "I follow the true God, everyone else is an evil sinner, therefore I should run the world unchecked by the people I decide are sinners."?
A very astute observation. Just like I wouldn't want the creepy social conservatives over at FreeRepublic in charge of things, I would abhor the rage-filled and perpetually offended nuts at DemocraticUnderground running the country.
Postmodernism (depending on the flavour) has a distinctly relativistic and anti-scientific bent. Some postmodernist sincerely posit that there is no such thing as objective truth, that all knowldege is "situated", and that science is no more valid than any other belief structure.
For many postmodernists, science is claimed to be just another tool of oppression for the white, Eurocentric, militaristic, capitalistic patriarchy.
My brother saw a report on CNN, that showed that 92% of the US residents are religious in one way or another. The reporter woman read this number, became silent for a moment her eyes widened and then she said, -This means that 8% of Americans are atheists, that seems awfully high!
I personally think 92% religious population is awfully high, but that could be the explanation for the politicization of science and engineering.
You can't handle the truth.
As much as we would all like to believe that scientists are selflessly searching for the "truth", they have motivations similar to everybody else (greed, fame, power, money, personel vendettas, etc). They also are capable of political bias. These motivations and bias can color the "truth".
BTW, this is one of the funniest links that pokes fun at politized science
Many people look at this entire debate and see science and religion as opposing each other. But that is a very narrow minded perspective, and any person who is dedicated to either should recognize that. Scientists use mathematics and scientific principles to explain the world around us, while religion depends on stories and mythology. What makes these different?
In a society where the majority of the people come from judeo-christian cultures, one simply needs to look at the context of where the religion comes from to see a scientific explaination. Take Joel for example. He prophesied that in the last days "The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" (Joel 2:31). How many of us have sat outside during a summer evening and seen the moon a deep red color because of smog? If you were him, how else would you explain something when you don't know what smog is, nor do the people around you? I think the "moon into blood" is a pretty good decription.
It is really that simple. Religion and science simply are using different perspectives on the same event or idea. Principles from both certainly can be true. I am a engineer/scientist who has deep religious beliefs. I don't see a relationship conflict, I see a complementary relationship. One can use scientific principles to supplement their religious understanding and vice versa. It is like speaking multiple languages, it helps you understand something better if you can see it in both.
> 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.
Democrat delenda est
That says it all. If scientists want something, go for it. Create a party. Support cross-party congressman based are their expressed views. Political freedom. But the claim of non-partisanship is ridiculous.
It's ironic. Science, the bastion of "just the facts", claims something utterly bogus. I guess, noone can fool a scientist, unless the scienctist himself wants to be fooled.
Have you read my journal today?
thanks for fucking trying though
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
...definition are politicizing the issue by saying they're a part of the "reality based community", you know...the DEMOCRATS!
Because everyone knows the GOP is all about spin, lies, bs, propoganda, and marketing.
A couple years ago, my sister was enrolled in a biology class while attending a state college here in Southern California. I asked here, "Cool, so you're finally learning about evolution?" to which she replied, to my utter astonishment, "Yeah, but I don't really buy it." We were brought up more or less secularly -- though she did attend a church school for a couple years in grade school -- and though further to the right than me and wavers between identifying herself as a Democrat or Republican, she is still a class example of the California fiscal conservative/social liberal.
Obviously, I wasn't going to persuade her of the scientific evidence supporting evolution over the course of a family dinner, but I did ask her what she made of the fact that her state-run school, funded with her taxes and backed by almost every expert in the subject both in government agencies and academia at large, accepted as fact the scientific theory she wasn't buying. A conspiracy theory so grand that, as E.O. Wilson suggests, God is in on it? She resisted but I could see this had some impact. She has since adopted a more indifferent view on the matter.
I'd like to see at least one question addressing a politician's view on evolution in every debate -- starting with presidential debates. (In fact, I'd like to see whole debates between candidates over the subject of evolution and the teaching of biology.) I know neither side has an interest in pursuing this. For Republicans, it puts them on the spot with their fundamentalist base. And for Democrats, it just underlines their lack of "strong moral values" (whatever the hell that means.) But for me it speaks to the core a public official's integrity, honesty, and capacity to make reasoned decision based on evidence (or, if you will, conflicting intelligence data.)
I hope this group can make some headway with the public on such matters.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Blasphemy is not using the term "God" it is exploiting god's word or putting words in god's mouth. Its the worst because not only does it justify any sin, it allows whole groups of people to sin with false approval.
Many of Christ's fundimental CONCEPTS are violated by the modern republican party, in addition to their exploitation. If they can make torture 'non torture' twisting the bible is a cake walk. Plus side is, they are going to hell no matter how many abortions they prevent (and for many its not really an issue for them-- its just pandering.)
Real christians that actually think about their beliefs instead of taking other people's word are not a problem.
...and 18 years later he gets a vote.
Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault.
I blame God. God made people dumb AND he forbid them from eating the fruit of knowledge. It's not the devil's fault, he's just as god made him.
Theological notions aside, once you know about the depressing truths of human nature, it would be in everyone's best interest to shape their government in such a way that reason weighs more than emotions in the policy-making process.
Like, with laws.
It sure beats the back and forth.
You can't take the sky from me...
This is like when people say it's not about the money---it's about the money. What I see here is not about all scientists banding together to keep politics out of science, but about some scientists banding together to keep ideologies that conflict with their own in check. I'm sorry, y'all, but scientists are just as human and, sorry to say, just as political and as emotional and as emotionally manipulative as the rest of us. And the people who are doing this are just as politically motivated as anyone else.
I hear Dems say "Keep your morals off my body!" when referring to abortion or drugs and then demand universal healthcare or public smoking bans
Public_health != morals;
You can't take the sky from me...
The theory of evolution is as the name implies, just a theory. As with alot of stuff in science its an theory until it can be proven, and the results repeated. Everything can be disputed, and if some things doesnt make sence, the scientists have to go back and rework their theory. Even if many theories as considered facts, like evolution or big bang, it still remains a theory. I guess those are pretty hard to prove and repeat the results in our life span. Religion on the other hand presents a answer, this is how it is, no ifs or buts about it, it says so in my holy bood. You cant really dispute it (but there are different interpidtations of it). Either you believe it or you dont. I dont believe in god, but i also acknowledge that there is a posibility for a devine creator "creature" since it cant really be proven if it exists or not. I have no problem with a co-existence of god and science. It could be as simple as science is uncovering the creators creation, and in so doing just shows that the bible and other holy scriptures have it wrong. About global warming and such, as one noted that the effects might not hit for about a 100 years or so. If the effects doesnt harm us, does that mean that we could simply ignore it ? The debate isnt so much about the short term effects, but the long term. And long term effects are much harder to fix, so i guess its importent to start early to try to avoid them. I guess its more a question about "survival of the species".
Science tells us how the world works, NOT how we should live our lives or the choices we should make. Science helps us make decisions that afdfect the Values and objectives we have when we make choices.
Take the "morning after pill", and I hear you say,
"sicence tells us the morning after pill is both safe and effective in 99% of cases",
and I say "You are full of crap, Science tells us that the morning After Pill is nearly 100% leathal",
You reply, "How can that be, All those women in those studies certainly didn't die!!"
To my final point, "But All those babies did"
In truth What science tells us is both contradictory (aas outlined above depending on your frame of refernece) and devoid of meaning upon which we use our perspectives, values and experiences to fil in the rest.
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.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"Don't like my smoke in a public place? Leave"
So, if you engage in a form of physical assault against others, the onus is on them to scram? So much for smoking being a personal choice: your idea is that it is something to be forced on people (if they don't like it, leave). I hope you like my similar idea of going into this public space and throwing metal-tipped darts in random directions. If one hits you, it is your problem. Don't like it, leave.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Hey, here's an idea: the government should not support science education programs. Period. That's not their job. Their job is to govern. Look up the definition of "govern" and tell me what part says they're responsible for indoctrinating-- err, I mean, teaching our children. Then read up on Marx and what he had to say about it, particularly #10 in his top 10 means of measure.
Their actions will determine if they are just "politically motivated."
Science will always be a political force not because science itself is political-- its not-- but because humans are political. Humans have trouble handling the truths that science seeks to reveal and within the field of science, which is done by 2+ humans, there will be politics in trying to get a consensus on the best answers.
Remember, most of science is NOT black and white-- its simply the best answers at the time.
The administration attacks anything that conflicts with their agenda. This includes science, logic, experts, observers, and reality. They know people live in a relative reality and many are not concerned with finding the truth, especially when distracted. Given some statements, I'd say many of them do not value the search for a universal reality; therefore, they have a fundimental disconnect from many of us.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Since intelligent design is an ideology, then opposition to ID is also an ideology
No.
One group can't distort life-sciences as an ideology simply by rah-rah-rah-ing loudly about their ideological objections to it's findings.
Emotionally, it might seem like it, but rationally, no: Putting an ideology next to science doesn't corrupt science by association.
You can't take the sky from me...
So... White guys?
All should read Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist! http://www.lomborg.com/ These guys fall victim to politics just the same as anyone. The Journal Nature all but put out a hit piece on this guy -- why? Because what he had to say (and back up with data) was contrary to their politics
You breath far more carcniogens from factory and automobile pollution than you do from cigarette smoke. But do you tell people not to idle their car near you? What is the difference? Smoking and idling your car are both legal.
The difference is moral. Your moral obsession with a negligible contributor (compared to everything else) smacks of both ignorance and a non-rational, emotional response. Go sing it to your church choir; they're much more likely to swallow your half-truths.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"Republican politicians don't care about the economy. That's a ruse to cover their passing on more wealth to the wealthy through tax breaks"
Here's one amazing fact: The total amount of money that the government has given to the wealthy through tax breaks is a whopping huge $0.
"If giving tax breaks to the wealthiest isn't class warfare, I don't know what is."
It isn't. Perhaps the "class warfare" here is that you deceptively failed to point out that the tax breaks applied to ALL taxpayers (not just the rich).
"...because they can't justify giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes any other way..."
You are referring to something that didn't happen and no-one tried. There was no "expense" for the lower classes, since the tax rates went down across the board.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"I'm smart, everyone else is stupid, therefore people who think like me should run the world unchecked by the people we decide are stupid." How is this different than "I follow the true God, everyone else is an evil sinner, therefore I should run the world unchecked by the people I decide are sinners."?
This must be how we came to "I'm stuipd, everyone else is smarter, therefore people who are stuipd like me should run the world unchecked by the people we decide are smarter" or "I follow my Id, everyone else has a conscience, therefore I should run the world unchecked by the people I decide have a conscience" - See? It's all progress - G.W.Bush is just the next step in the ideal of a leader - now granted he was put forth by the conservatives and so has to maintain a particular bias to keep his friesds around him - but we're getting there. The next step is to find a president even dumber, with no bias towards religion or science - like a carrot - that would be progress!
Everyone vote for the third-party candidate 'carrot' next election - sure nothing good will come of it - but niether will anything bad - and isn't that a step in the right direction?
>appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should be
>based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs.
I guess that means any scientist with a theory or research in an area with political imact will be excluded from grant money and advisory committees.
If a president could find 100 scientists that oppose or denounce your scientific research, then you could be excluded from federal money and committee membership.
Global warming would be an example of this given the political solution of shutting down coal fired power plants and taking a large number (e.g, 1/2) of the cars off the road.
Public smoking bans have more to do with keeping cancer-causing poisons out of your body than putting morals in.
No, more correctly:
Public smoking bans have more to do with keeping cancer-causing poisons out of *other peoples' bodies* than putting morals in.
And how is that not a scientifically founded position? And WTF is this about fiscal responsibility and the Democrats compared to Republicans... Stop making me fucking laugh guy(the OP, not the parent).
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The difference is indeed moral. In terms of morals, you are the one who likes to force your choice on others. I don't like to smoke (and am in fact allergic to it). You do. You in fact love it so much that you think it is a great idea to force others to smoke as well, even though this is in fact a form of physical assault. In your morality, it is OK to assault others. But not in mine. Scuse me, here come some little metal darts. Those scratches on your arm are harmless, not a form of assault at all, are they? Why not take up chewing tobacco? Never met a chewer who liked to force others to chew.
Where were you when the voynix came?
So it's only bad to put carcinogens that are addictive into your body.
...want to smoke.
So, people willingly inhale concentrated barbeque smoke now? Funny, I,ve never seen people hooking up a pipe to a barbeque and huffing from it.
And people at camp fires make it a point to upt themselves downwind of the smoke in order to breathe in as much of it as possible? Weird, all the campfires I,ve been to, it was the exact opposite.
Face it, campfires and barbeques are NOT comparable to cigarettes.
The fact that you hang on to your invalid comparison after it was demonstrated to be null proves you are dishonest about this, mr. troll.
Don't like my smoke in a public place? Leave.
Don't like my mace in your face? Leave.
What could possibly make you think that you have the right to, literally, smoke people out of public places? Your petty desires trump other people's right? That's a nifty definition of narcissism.
There are plenty of private places you can go to if you
you can't face the fucking reality of being in public. Crybaby.
Who's the crybaby? The one who can't face the reality of smoking bans? Yeah, sounds about right.
You can't take the sky from me...
"Don't like my mace in your face? Leave."
Shhhh. He thinks he has every right to force you to fill your lungs with deadly toxins, but you can't DARE to make any apt analogy with other situations of a person's careless/rude actions causing direct physical harm to innocent and unwilling (and unasked) strangers standing nearby.
You'd think that if they guy wasn't a total jerk, he'd at least as permission of everyone nearby before he did this. I guess the concept of "manners" is too much for him.
Where were you when the voynix came?
If only it were true that they really were concerned about increasing scientific integrity in public life. No doubt, as soon as the subject of AIDS comes up, politics will trump science. As soon as the subject of cannabis comes up, politics will trump science. The mention of creationism leads me to think that this will be a Johnny-one-note organization.
Show me the public place that you go to every day, where you are blown smoke in the face of every day, for 40 years... And I'll say that's the only place where you'd have an inkling of an argument. But it would still be invalid, because if such a place existed (I'm sure there are a few), then the fact of the matter is that the majority of people in that place WANT IT TO BE A SMOKING PLACE. The only public place where you could receive any significant harm would in fact be one where you share the minority belief of not wanting to smoke AND try to force it on all the people around [smokers] you.
Lung cancer is survivable -- even more than 50% of *active smokers* who get it survive. We are not killing you. No single smoker is killing you, and the aggregate of all smokers is not killing you. If you are so scared of a one in a million chance of getting cancer; if you want fresh air SO BAD you are willing to legislate away what has been perfectly acceptible human behavior for millina; you're far better off moving to the country, then trying to force your choice of not smoking onto others who really don't give a fuck.
It's my body and I'll do what I want. You can do what you want with your body too: Leave. And no, using mace is not a valid analogy at all. It's laughably bad. If I was actually physically harming you in a way where the harm could be measured that instant, then mace would be an acceptible response.
You get more cancer from what you eat and what you breathe; lung cancer has been a cuase of death for a long time, and people who don't smoke in the slighest get lung cancer ALL THE TIME. Every day.
You want to talk about waitresses working in a smokey bar for 40 years? That's a different story. Me sitting on a park bench and smoking a cig, with you nearby on another bench, and being annoyed by it, is in no way, shape, or form, at all the same degree as that. YOU WONT GET CANCER FROM ME.
And what you moralists don't realize is degrees. You have no concept of the word "negligible". Everything is a 0 or 1 with you, like a robot.
Did you know the government has an accepted level of arsenic in the water? But what about your right to not drink arsenic? Well guess what -- poisons in low amounts don't kill you every time, or even most of the time. There are acceptible levels.
If your threshold for acceptance is lower than the prevailing humans around you, then burden is squarely on YOU to go leave and go somewhere that meets your criterion. I shouldn't have to hide, or smoke in 30 degree weather, simply because you think that I, personally, Clint L, will give You, personally, cancer, by smoking this 1 cigarette that annoys you. That's a fucking load of bullshit. If you're so concerned, 10 paces in the oppositte direction should literally save your life. But no, *I'm* supposed to go somewhere else because *you're* paranoid and don't understand degrees of difference.
Meanwhile, your neighbors with SUVs will do far more to actually give you cancer, and the corporations that feed & clothe you will do far more to pollute the air than all smokers combined. You will continue to pay for these corporations to pollute the environment, but you will get a warm fuzzy feeling that somehow you've "made a difference" by harassing people that aren't the true source of the problem. (Hint: Marijuana prohibition is bad.)
Now into "joke mode":
one more thing -- A single large volcanic eruption can pollute the atmosphere more than mankind has in its entire history. So you better make sure volcanos can only erupt in private places. We wouldn't want them "forcing their choices" on you.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It's not a role of the dice. One person's single cigarette is negligible. Nobody in history or any study has ever gotten cancer from secondhand smoke from a single cigarette. If you're that scared of carcinogens, stop eating fast food, stop contributing to corporations that pollute, move away from all active volcanoes, don't go out in the sun (sun gives you skin cancer far faster than walking through smoke will give you lung cancer), and leave the public to those of us "adventurous" enough to deal with reality.
But seriously, I did not put any effort into this response. My other response, I put a bit of effort in. Read that one. Don't read this one. (Too late? Muahha.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
about the "average clod" certainly won't make matters any easier. Being that aggressive just puts them on the defensive, and they'll happily write you off as an "elitist prick" and ignore everything you have to say anyway. Fox News provides enough of that polarizing talk as it is, we don't need to make it worse.
People don't vote for it. The Democrat and Republican shares of the vote add up to approximately 99%. It's funny how people bitch about losing freedom, but when it's their turn to choose between freedom or authoritarianism, they go running to nanny's arms.
We deserve what we're getting. We chose it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Nature is a journal that publishes articles from researchers around the world, not a group of elites with a hidden, unstated agenda. Someone submitting a rebuttal is not a "hit piece" or "politics".
The DMCA is the government saying it is immoral to
BZZZZZZT! Wrong!
Get your head on straight: The DMCA is about money, greed, control.
You can't take the sky from me...
Then you haven't been paying attention. To be fair it's a bit obscure and isn't a direct goal.
The reason there are so few diesel cars in North America is that it is difficult and expensive to make them meet the emissions requirements.
VW will suspend (likely temporarily) sales of their diesel cars because of these requirements.
1. Scientists were recommending hormone therapy for women, handing out death sentences via Breast Cancer for how long?
2. Scientists in the 70s were yelling about "Global Cooling" and telling us that we need to paint tar on the artic snow to absorb the sunlight.
3. Science itself has become a religion, and it has become very political. Now leftists want to stifle beliefs that don't agree with their own (they are for free speech as long as they agree with it).
4. The real problem isn't creationism, science, or politicians. The real problem has to do with having too powerful of a centralized federal government. Why do you care if Utah is Mormon? It is called Freedom of Assembly, the 10th Amendment, and preserving local culture. Liberals want to preserve everyone else's culture, as long as it is not WASP American (i.e. protestant Christian) culture.
Both parties really, really need to get away from that extreme wing thing, and back to realizing that it is the Corporatists in American politics that hold the real power.
there, fixed it for you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In that case, with the reasons you stated (small sample size, faulty data, etc), it would NOT be scientific data. Scientific data must be able to be replicated to a degree of statistical certainty. If you are working with small sample size then it may not be statistically significant, and unless your study is done again over either a larger sample population or a larger number of different small samples, then the results will not be scientific.
Same with faulty data. If your data is faulty and cannot be replicated, then your conclusions are not scientific.
Now, I'm not saying it would be impossible to create studies that may lead to scientific conclusions such as those you posted, but 1.) good luck getting the funding for such controversial things, 2.) good luck actually conducting a scientific study of such things that leads to those conclusions*, and 3.) good luck keeping bias out of your study.
*Remember: science is not explanations looking for strong supporting data. It is data looking for strong explanations.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Lung cancer is survivable -- even more than 50% of *active smokers* who get it survive. We are not killing you.
Getting shot in the head is survivable too, jerk.
It's my body and I'll do what I want.
If your smoke reaches me, it's not your choice, it's mine.
You wanna poison yourself? Smoke in your house.
You can't take the sky from me...
I laugh at your diminished lung capacity (not really; I just said that to annoy you). It sounds to me like you have a personal problem and a predictable emotional response based on your personal experiences. Hint: Lung cancer existed before smoking tobacco, not everyone is you, your mileage may vary, and your lack of objectivism says to me that you would make a very poor judge.
If smokers actually caused it, then you should have followed my original advice and WALKED AWAY. If you lack the common sense to realize "I have pussy lungs and should avoid things normal people can handle", well -- your inferior genetic code will hopefully remove you from the gene pool, which would be fitting justice as far as I am concerned.
Ironically.... I don't actually buy cigarettes. I smoke them if they are offered. And I would vote to criminalize cigarettes, if given the opportunity. But only because I want to group tobacco smokers in the same group as marijuana smokers, in an attempt to strengthen smokers' rights grassroots politics. :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
So , if you want to skip all the health threat stuff, and make a nyah nyah argument, by all means do so (you did). But it really doesn't mean squat. You could just as easily be someone from the confederate states (assume: internet in 1860) arguing that slavery is good, because "there are more pro-slavers than you. So take a hike, nigger."
Yes. Very logically sound.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Flame. Bait.
Let me burn my karma (non-existent as it is) in order to make a blatant sales pitch. Buy one of our sexy, science-supporting magnets http://www.supportourscientists.com/ for your car (or anywhere) and help get the message out that there are, in fact, people in the United States who do support science and those who dedicate their lives to it. And, because people always ask, right now the money goes just to keep the whole endeavor alive (envelopes, packaging, postage, etc.). We're not getting rich or anything.
"Trust in haste. Repent at leisure"
Okay, perhaps science _is_ science, that's a tautology (and not a very good one at that).
I would argue that nearly all the debates about science in politics aren't really about science at all, but policy. Not too many people debate science in its true form (i.e., hypothesis, experiment, theory), but today most of the debate is about the hypothesis. In these case, there isn't an experiment yet, and there is a debate on which of several hypotheses are valid and _if_ we should do something before it's tested (long before there is a theory). Remember there needs to be a way to _disprove_ a hypothesis, but most policy wonks aren't interested in that aspect of science.
Some quick examples.
Global warming: I don't think we have another earth to test this hypothisis on.
Stem cells: People are only speculating if this will pan out, but the have a hypothesis want to try and test it (and get money to help them try).
Evolution/Creationism: I haven't heard of a valid "experiment" to test this either way.
I think people are really caught up in trying to frame this as a science "us vs them", but in reality, this is a policy debate about which hypotheses are worth persuing expermiments on, that really has nothing to do about science (other than scientists want money to do their experiment to go to a theory stage).
For example, the fact that the earth is getting warmer is a observation/measurement. What should we do about it. Well lots of people have some hypothesis about it (like humans are causing it), but it's still a _policy_ decision to decide how to proceed. The so-called science advanced to address this is all still in the hypothesis stage (since there are no large scale expermiments, but historical data and models). What the stage we are at now is the "experimental" validation phase of science, not the theory stage (which comes _after_ the experimental stage).
Perhaps the reality is that can't afford not to do some experments (like reduce carbon output), but that's not a _scientific_ issue, that's a policy decision to experiment with one of several hypotheses. It's important to examine this outside of science, because in reality, _science_ really doesn't have much to offer in the policy area except the reputation and experience of scientists to guide a reasonable course of action. Of course that's all we can expect of politicians to use their reputation and experience to guide a reasonable course of action. In this respect the scientists are just performing the job of politicians with PhDs. You may choose to respect this more or less, we live in a democracy, not a timocracy or a plutocracy.
I've found that scientist are often too quick to apply their "religion" outside of the scope of their proven applicability. Sometime those scientific tools work outside their domain, but sometimes they do not. One is always reminded of the "cargo-cult" described so well in a book by Richard Feynman. Just because you go through the similar motions doesn't mean it's science.
> Elect scientists and engineers!
Or lets not. I wouldn't hire an MD to design a building. I wouldn't hire a physist to give me a physical. I wouldn't hire a politician (even one I liked) to operate a particle accelerator. And I suspect nobody here finds any of these statements controversial. So why would we want to elect a scientist? If said scientist has been politically active and has positions on most of the issues of the day that I approve of then yes, I'll take a chance on letting him switch career tracks. Otherwise, nope.
The days of citizen legislators and the old Republic they served are long dead. Now we live in a semi socialist nanny state where the Feral Government runs every aspect of our daily lives. It isn't a job for amateurs anymore.
I wish it could be again, but wishing won't make it so. Doing that will require a long sustained effort to raise a new generation of Citizens willing to accept responsibility for their own affairs.
Democrat delenda est
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."
... not to mention its bastard siblings, anthropogenic global warming and environmentalism.
But funny how all the anti-smokers who chime in all have emotional reasons for their responses. Personal allergy. Personal diminished lung capacity. And now: Feeling that it represents a personality flaw, therefore should be banned so you can feel good about helping people. (Meanwhile, lung cancer deaths still happen due to pollution and, GASP, natural reasons like radon.)
The point is -- an individual smoker is only "polluting" the air in his immediate surrounding. If you don't want to go to a smokey bar, then don't. No one is forcing you to come. If you want a smoke-free bar, open one up yourself (or live in Washington--hah). If I'm in the middle of a park, you have plenty of room to go elsewhere. You are not surrounded by smokers on all sides, unable to escape, with tubes taped to your mouth, forcing you to smoke it. And you're not going to get cancer from a few incidental exposures. If you think you will, you need a serious reality check.
Of course, if you legislate my freedom away completely, I'm stuck in my home. Unless it's an apartment that bans smoking on tenants. Then, I can't practice my LEGAL act of smoking tobacco ANYWHERE. (Prohibition already failed, by the way.) But of course, it's much more impotant that smokers can't smoke ANYWHERE, than a 1% chacne that you might stand near somebody smoking for a few minutes.
You guys are so full of yourselves. Probably support the war on drugs too.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Dummycrats hate science.
They hate nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and even the defenses against them.
Idiots.
Flame. Bait.
No doubt. I especially like the "you're a jerk!" part. What an asshole.
> Lets see, you were attacked by Osama bin laden an ex CIA-associated Saudi by a group of mostly saudis with
> a paper trail of money linking more saudis who had a deep ideological hate for saddam hussan and who
> actively tried to kill each other... Logically it must then be Iraq that is reposnible? seem logical to me....
Classic case of missing the forest for the trees. I'll try one last time before moving to another article.
To win the GWOT we must drain the fever swamps in the Middle East that UBL feeds on for new idiots to strap a bomb onto. That means we need to transform the dysfunctional countries in the region into modern Republican forms of government with modern instituitions and economies. They won't be little clones of the US, Canada or Europe because they are Islamic peoples who will need to discover their own balance in much the same way our fledgling nations balanced their religious, philisophical and political beliefs.
Now once one accepts that this is the only longterm solution the obvious question is HOW? Well one way would be to invade and smash Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc. and rebuild them all as was done at the end of WWII. Downside is that after Clinton 'spent the peace dividend' we lacked the militaty force to even consider something so grand. A less expensive and probably better way would be to build a model and allow the people in the others to emulate a successful example of their own free will.
Ok, we only invade one country... Next question is obviously WHICH one? As fate would have it there was one country centrally situated that we happened to still be in a formal state of War with, was generally a nightmare waiting to happen again and was about to slip out of the UN sanctions that were part of the Cease Fire agreement that stopped Gulf War I. Basically Saddam needed killin in a bad way regardless. I think the choice was pretty easy. What part of that line of reasoning do you have a problem with?
Democrat delenda est
Cool! They'll be like the N.I.C.E. in C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength!
Oh, wait ...
This would be a good thing if they fought against all ideologies. But this, of course, won't be the case. Ideologues never acknowledge their unfounded beliefs are ideology. For them, only what "the others" (those who don't share their worldview) believe is ideology.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
>Intelligent design is an anti-scientific ideology.
No, actually it isn't. It's an area of exploration - the possibility that evidence of intelligent design in complex systems may be identifiable by analysis. Life is one (very) complex system.
For example, the concept behind SETI is quite similar - the idea that by analyzing electromagnetic radiation we can determine if a particular stream is from an intelligent source.
But, have fun. The authorities of pop culture say that ID is one of the approved mocking targets for now.
By jove, you are right! It IS just a Theory!
Which means -- it explains the observations . -- it can be independently verified. -- it will be discarded when it no longer fits the observations. -- it has predictive ability.
And that's just a theory.
Now lets examine "the theory of Evolution" vs. "Faith based".
1 - Evolution can predict what happens next. Can Faith?
2 - Evolution fits the observations. So does Faith. Actually, any faith based system can fit. We use the simplest Theory that explains the observations.
3 - Can Evolution is discarded? In a second, as soon as it no longer fits. Faith based? No way. Besides, Faith based will always fit the observations. After all, it's what the gods intended.
Sure, have faith. As soon as faith works in a scientific context, including predictions, scientists will simply call it a theory.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
My mistake -- while Nature did publish an article which criticizes Lomborg. Its was the editors of Scientific American that did the hit piece -- more here: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID =965718
Just because 90% of the people want gravity to vanish won't make it go away. Science is a matter of facts. It is or it is not. There is no vote to be held, no consensus to find. Sure, people might have divergent ideas or theories, but it's not the idea that gets the most support that becomes truth. It's the other way around, truth eventually gets the most support in the scientific community. Scientists usually don't close their eyes to proof that is so overwhelming that they eventually have to admit their theory was wrong. It is usually the lesser evil compared to clinging to a model that simply doesn't hold a drop of water. You're the laughing stock of the scientific community for ages to come if you do.
Granted, for a while you can stall progress with dogma. But not forever.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
True enough. With all due respect to George Deutsch (bless his soul - really) and Phil Plait (bless his soul - really), they are just two people with very strong, vocal opinions. They don't represent the entire spectrum of beliefs and convictions - in fact, they polarize them.
I would never say to discount extremism - instead, it must be taken into account and moderated. After all, an extremist's opinion should still be heard, as long as we remember that it is simply one position.
Policy issues are another matter. Fights about issues should take place on the policy battlefield. For example, if someone notices that Asian-identified students average higher IQs than Caucasians, suppressing the research is wrong but it's right to fight against separate water fountains for the inferiors.
>And then they put out books like the Bell Curve.
Hernstein and Murray explicitly disregarded facts, for example claiming (without citing evidence) that there's no racial bias in the administration of IQ tests. The authors had to acknowledge that not all studies of racial IQ differences got the same result. They had to acknowledge that differences ranged from zero to two standard deviations, with tests in the South showing the big differences and tests in the North showing little or none. All the rest of us had to do was notice what the data were trying (unsuccessfully) to tell a pair of authors who weren't listening.
It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,
So, does that mean that this group will SUPPORT politicians who are reasonably skeptical about Global Warming?
Or politicians that oppose giant programs of social engineering and redistribution of wealth, as the entire basis of welfare is an ideology that believes the government knows best who should be helped and by how much?
Oh wait, no, it's probably only CERTAIN ideologies that they oppose; that would make this 527 rather ironic, no?
-Styopa
This will probably not be read by anyone, but I thought I'll respond in general.
I was trying to ask where people stand between absolute freedom of speech and strict political correctness. Most people fall between the two extremes. I fall heavily on the side of freedom of speech personally, but I understand a lot of people don't. There were cartoons that inflamed the Muslim world, the dissolution of the largest Belgian political party for being too anti-immigrant for the Belgian supreme court, the attempt to end evolution education in certain schools and the many hate speech laws throughout the world. A Slashdotter is probably more strongly in support of free speech than the average person, which explains the nature of the other comments.
It is less about what is science, rather what you call science. Science may produce a lot of the world's wonders and fascinate the public, but scientists themselves have very little media influence. A corporation, government or political group will find someone with an advanced degree willing to say what they want and put them on television. Most of the audience will believe what the expert is saying, while many scientists in that field may be throwing rotten vegetables at the screen. I bet there are a lot of climatologists who get really pissed off when they see Fox News on a nearby television. You are correct about the need for correct scientific standards, I'm just saying that there are well paid people who don't follow these standards and get away with it outside of academia.
Writing as one who has serious asthma (put me in the hospital and be intubated serious) that is triggered by smoke, it is an access issue, not unlike a wheel chair ramp. Since it is not uncommon for people conduct work relating social activities in bars, I am restricted from that access. People's nicotine addiction could kill me. If you want to chew go ahead, but when does your addiction give you the right to force me to decide between access to public accommodation and my life?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Suicide should be legal. What lame reasoning.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"If it weren't for all the jerks who refused to pay attention to private no-smoking rules, you wouldn't have laws against it now".
I call bullshit. Besides, moral prohibitionists wont stop until every drug of any kind is completely criminal and outlawed.
Anyway -- you are over-sensitive to smells. I actually have an excellent sense of smell (i.e. coming up to a campsite in the woods, in the dark, and smelling and identifying the 1 cup of red wine that someone was drinking, 10 feet away, within seconds -- I dunno, can't really characterize one's smellability). Not much passes by my nose without me noticing. But I like the smell of anything burning. Especially a campfire.
Your so-called "nuisance" is simply that you don't like smelling things you don't like. Why is smell so sacred? If you didn't like the shirt I was wearing, would you have a right to demand that you don't see it, simply because you don't like the way it looks? If you didn't like the music I was playing (assume: public space, legal boomboxes), would you have a right to demand that I don't play it, simply because you don't like the kind of music? This sounds like an argument against aesthetics you don't agree with. I happen to believe I should be able to paint my house pink, with green polka dots, if I am so inclined (and bought a house with no homeowners association). Seems to me that you think that you have a right not to sense anything with your 5 senses that you don't find aesthetically pleasing. You have that right -- in your own home. Not in public. I can make sights, sounds, and smells that you do not like. I can fart in your general direction and there is nothing you can do about it.
But maybe farting should be criminalized, as well, because "my right to fart ends at your right to not smell it".
So you think it's disgusting habit. I think voting republican is a disgusting habit. Unfortunately, thinking something is disgusting is not a reason to legislate it away. (A lot of people found interracial marriage and gay marraige to be disgusting, and they passed laws against that as well. Doesn't make it right.)
Oh, and by the way -- the reason smokers are clustered around the entrances is because they are no longer allowed to smoke inside. You people brought it on yourselves. It's cold out there.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All jobs carry risks and hidden costs. Ask the coal miners; ask the programmers who have carple tunnel syndrome; ask the police who are out on the streets getting shot at. If you are not wiling to take the risks associated with a job, you can choose to work elsewhere, or not to work at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
Well, except all you people who want to make me shiver my ass off and get wet in the rain just to smoke a 5-minute cigarette. (Fictitous situation, for me, fortunately: I don't actually smoke that much. 1-5 cigarettes a week.)
Incidentally, people who work in power plants must accept that they receive doses of carcinogenic radiation. People who work in construction must accept that they will breathe in gross amounts of drywall dust. etc, etc. Don't like it? Get a desk job.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Scientific American sort of holds their opinion on their sleeve, to be honest. That said, I enjoyed reading an article a couple months back that more or less showed that every "alternative" form of fuel out there today relies almost directly on fossil fuels for the bulk of their energy, thus eliminating the benefit, and possibly even making things worse because it's just another energy conversion in the chain.
It's been a long time.
And no, it's not illegal. Not in most of the world. If it's my place of business, I'll fucking dictate whether people can smoke tobacco, marijuana, or crack! If you don't like it, run you own business. That is how capitalism is supposed to work.
You see, smoking is currently legal. I'll do whatever legal activity I want on any property I own. (Exposing people to radiation is not a legal activity, by the way. Just ask Jose Padilla.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Soon, only homeowners will be able to smoke. People who rent wont have those "rights". It will be a classic case of "the rich can do what they want, everyone else can't". It will be totally freakin' awesome because I'll be able to smoke, since I own a house, but all the poor people who work on my house construction projects wont be able to smoke, because every public area will be legislated away. Nice free country we have! You can cut your penis off, but you can't smoke because someone might whine about their 0.00000001% increase of a chances of getting cancer.
You need to get a clue and direct your energy at the factories polluting out atmosphere, and the republicans trying to keep it easy for them to do so!
Similarly, my employer would tell me to work elsewhere if I didn't sign my non-compete agreement, despite the fact that it is considered "restraint of trade" and illegal in a right-to-work state like Virginia. I don't care for this practice, but I am free to work elsewhere.
If I run a bar -- I'll make sure to blow smoke in the face of anyone applying. If they cough, I wont hire them on the basis that there's a 1% chance they might be somebody like you.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Since almost all of the epidemiological evidence about the health effects of secondhand smoke relates to long-term exposure in the home, the fact that this is the one place exempted from current and proposed smoking bans suggests a residual concern for property rights. Yet business owners have property rights, too. If the government respected their right to establish rules about smoking on their own property, potential employees and customers could take such policies into account when deciding where to work or which businesses to patronize. Whether secondhand smoke is a health hazard or merely a nuisance, such a voluntary system is the most appropriate way to deal with the conflicting demands of smokers and nonsmokers, since it allows for diversity and competition, rather than simply imposing the will of the majority on everyone
The evidence concerning the health effects of secondhand smoke is not nearly as conclusive as the evidence concerning the health effects of smoking. The research suggests that people who live with smokers for decades may face a slightly higher risk of lung cancer. According to one estimate, a nonsmoking woman who lives with a smoker faces an additional lung cancer risk of 6.5 in 10,000, which would raise her lifetime risk from about 0.34 percent to about 0.41 percent.
Hint: Me not signaling when I change lanes in front of you is a far greater threat that increases your chance of death, I would estimate, far more than the 0.07 percent increase from DECADES of smoke exposure. Especially if I driver like an asshole in front of you every day. (In reality, there seems to be a DIFFERENT asshole in front of ME every day. I manage to swerve away in time, usually.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion