I had breakfast this morning with Chris Mooney, author of "The Republican War on Science". He is an interesting fellow, to say the least. I have read his book, and he makes an excellent case that in the past few years, the government has made devastatingly damaged science. I wanted to talk to him in more general terms about what scientists can do to stop this, and we had an excellent conversation about it in a DC coffeehouse he habituates (which is right near my hotel for the AAS meeting– which I will be blogging about later today or tomorrow — and another blogebrity, Wonkette, was there at the coffeehouse as well!).
While we were talking, he said something which made me pause. About those who would destroy science, he said, “They have no respect for the information.” This is an incredibly succinct statement of what’s going on. To a scientist, information is a means to understanding a problem; an observation may yield insight into where a particular model might be right or wrong. But to a political operative, bent on power or forcing their point of view on the public with no regard to truth, information is only a means to achieving the desired result. If the information happens to agree with what you’re trying to say, wonderful. Hyperbolize it. If it doesn’t, ignore it, marginalize it, or worse, twist it to make it seem like it supports what you’re saying.
In this case, science and politics are at exact opposites: science wants information to uncover underlying truths, while political operatives use information as a tool — or, more accurately, a weapon — to further political gain despite the truth. Politicians may actively distort the truth if it disagrees with their pre-determined goals, whereas with scientists, truth is the goal.
And yes, I know that some scientists are not all heroes and truth-seekers, just as not all politicians are slimy and corrupt. I will praise those politicans who are honest and true, and lambaste those scientists who put their own gain above the science. But that is not the point at all: staying on target, we have to remember that the people who are causing all this woe are the politicians who are driving this anti-science campaign.
I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat, what’s happening in the U.S. is a wholesale dismantling of one of our most precious resources: the scientific ability to sort truth from fiction. This ability is what my website (and blog) are all about, so I intend to be more active in this field in the future.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
You’ve hit the nail on the head. In a lot of ways, it mirrors the more general trend away from a notion of objective “truth” toward interpretivism or relativism (not in the GR sense!)
In almost every area: business, marketing, journalism, politics, education, literature; the prevailing worldview is anathema to science. Perception counts much more than reality. And of course, the easiest way to manipulate someone’s perception is by manipulating their data.
For a scientist, “good data” means it has little experimental error and will produce worthwhile analysis.
For a politician, “good data” means data that helps achieve an agenda.
These are totally incompatible worldviews.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Hi,
I enjoy your stuff, can you comment on the Phobos 2 story, how transmission ended when it took a frame of a strange anomaly parked next to Phobos.
Is it all BS and there’s a simple explanation? I have a jpeg of the frame.
All the best. Mike.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
KIP, Chief. Knowledge is Power.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
As a true conservative, I hate the idea of the government making decisions in science. However, I think there is a growing movement from the more liberal side of the country that is just as dangerous. I would put forth the idea that New Age nonsense comes from liberal people.
Ignorance of science knows know political boundaries.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Thank you for saying what needed to be said. This one got a link on my blog.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
And as a true liberal, I hate the idea of power grabbers in government making decisions in science funding based on their political idiology, with no respect for rational thought. Silly New Age nonsense, mostly resulting in dull music suitable for massage therapists, is old hat, and not political. The BA is right about this; there are both Republicans and Democrats concerned with this issue.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Mr. or Ms. Wonkette, I believe calling a person dickhead is one of the easiest ways to get banned outta persons blog, forum or whatever. I sincerely hope it will happen this time as well.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Bullseye
January 8th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Should that be “Wankette?”
January 8th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
I was. of course, referring to the person claiming to be “Wonkette,” not Phil. First two words of the sentence ought to have been “More like,” not “more lying.” Although that’s what the C.C.S. was doing. A fine example of the kind of thing those of us who are pro-science are up against. Phil obviously hit this guy where he lives, and all he could do was lash out in Sean Hannity mode.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Wonkette, either make a rational, civil comment or go away. I’m a fairly regular reader and participant in this blog and the comments that I have read from you are unnecessary to say the least. I’m sure many others who participate in this blog agree. Nothing wrong with a dissenting point of view, in fact it’s a very healthy thing to have but let’s keep it civil.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Woah. That was flamey and insult-rich, dearie! (And wait, badastronomer.org links to an anti-science website? How adorable.
)
Proves that some people cannot have a rational conversation without going personal, eh?
Anyway, most politicians don’t think for the good of the people. They think “Hey, if I say I believe this, will it help me get reelected? Will it make the people love me? Will it help ME?” See, most politicians are mutants. (Not all of them, of course. There ARE good politicians.) Mutants that, when they were in their mother’s womb, or maybe later on in their life, were hit by a creepy mutational cosmic ray like you see in sci-fi movies. They are not people thinking like us normal humans. Also note, there are various levels of mutation. It can be a low level mutation like used car seller or lawyer, or it can be grave like politician or pseudoscientist.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I work as a tour guide at a zoo in Oklahoma, and I constantly get questions from kids who should know better, along the lines of “do turtles breathe,” and my personal favorite, “can porcupines fly?” Heck, I get adults out there who ask me whether snakes have bones, and if kangaroos are related to rats. I find this kind of thing akin to people who have difficulty with the question of what is the closest star to Earth, and I can’t help but think that it must have something to do with the ever-lower science education standards in the state, and the country as a whole. My college zoology professor had a student who asked him “what sponges are for,” and another who was genuinely surprised to discover that seashells came from animals instead of simply being placed there by God. It’s funny to me in a way, but simultaneously depressing.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I hope you’ll forgive me for preaching to the choir…
In a great example of “priming”, I noticed this section in “Classic Feynman” just now.
“There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science… It’s a kind of scientific integrity–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it, but other causes that could possibly explain your results, things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.”
Later, he goes on to talk specifically about the interaction between science and politics:
“I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state, and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.”
[Both excerpts from a Feynman's commencement address at Caltech, 1974. Pages 492-493 and 495 in "Classic Feynman".]
It is no surprise that this admonishment would come from Professor Feynman. He lived this principle his entire life. Anyone who might doubt it should refer to his appendix to the Challenger disaster report.
I’ve found that Feynman’s advice is harder to live up to these days. It works very well when debating between two scientists, but when arguing something with a “true believer”, that kind of utter scientific integrity feels a bit like showing your opponent exactly how to attack you. (I’m referring here to pseudoscientific gibberish of the Moon hoaxers, Nemesis, New Age, and Intelligent Design varieties. All of them share the characteristic of having beliefs utterly untrammelled by facts.)
Science knows its own boundaries, and is obliged to point them out. Belief has no such obligation.
For the general advancement of human knowledge, that complete scientific integrity does not reveal chinks in the armor, it _is_ the armor. That is why, even today, it is essential that we do not engage in any kind of shading or understatement of inconvenient gaps, limitations, revisions, or uncertainties. Yes, it is true that we do not have examples of an eye at all stages of evolution. Yes, there is a large volume of space that we have not explored, and lots of wooly things might be going on there.
We must still hold to the only process for reliably advancing human knowledge that we’ve ever found. Observe, hypothesize, predict, test. If an observation condemns the work of thousands of scientists to the dustbin of history… then run the experiment again. If it comes back the same way tomorrow, and next week, and week after week, then the theory cannot be saved, no matter how many jobs it created, how many welfare families it helped, how many baby seals it saved. “Social good” does not save a theory any more than long and reverent belief would.
All else is not science. It is politics, marketing, or religion.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Can you tell today’s post struck a nerve?
January 8th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
“You routinely ban people from your own forum for no other reason than the fact you can’t debate with them”
HUH? has Phil ever banned anyone? Did he ever bother to figure out how to do it? (I’m sure he’s smart enough to do it if he wanted)
I think that post has to be a joke. I used to post alot as Karl Rove on othe sites and I had fun saying the meanest things. Maybe it was just a drive-by fun-fest.
Phil said: “But to a political operative, bent on power or forcing their point of view on the public with no regard to truth, information is only a means to achieving the desired result.” and that is exactly right. That is why our gvt is paying people to print made-up stories in their new columns and why we produce gvt propaganda that looks like news stories.
This cabal of neo-con facists have seized control of the government first by through subverting the vote in Florida and next by MAKING $#$ UP and scaring everyone into looking the other way when this admin lies, cheats steals and violates the consitution. (and gets into wars, and ruins our environment and hands out billions in pork, and tortures people they don’t like, etc.)
They would like all the EPA, Forest and FDA scientists to just GO AHEAD AND QUIT already…so they can pick political hacks to replace them
ach!
January 8th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
and badastonomer.org looked pretty good….bunch of NASA news and stuff.
and Karnalis…your personal favorite, “can porcupines fly?†don’t you tell them SURE! when they jump out of a tree or get shot out of a cannon!
They just don’t do it for that long or that well….snark…
but “another who was genuinely surprised to discover that seashells came from animals instead of simply being placed there by God” ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO GOD!!
watch out that their parents don’t lodge a complaint that you were corupting their child’s mind.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
I think Phil makes an excellent point with this post.
I’ll admit right off the bat to being somewhat liberal in my politics, just for reference. But it galls me to no end when I’m in a meeting of like-minded progressives and someone starts to go off on some pseudoscientific b.s. I think it is the responsibility of those of us who are pro-science to keep people in our particular political camp informed of the scientific process and help them understand good science from b.s. (bad science – heh heh).
In general, science-minded conservatives must be cautious of the weirdos on the “religious right” who will distort information on abortion, birth control, and evolution. They must also be wary of big corporations who are distorting environmental science to benefit their own bottom line.
At the same time, those of us who are science-minded liberals must watch out for the New Agers who will push alternative medicine, environmental hysteria, astrology, and psychic foo-foo as things worthy of wasting our time on.
I recall a situation where I was in a meeting of local Democrats & progressives about a year ago, and we were (to be honest) venting our spleens about the election results. Any Republicans on the board, this is your chance to gloat a little
Anyhow, this one very vocal & shrill woman kept trying to dominate the meeting by talking up environmental hysteria like crazy. Stuff like vaccines leading to autism, linking the local weather to global warming, etc. And here’s the kicker: Everyone else in the room was buying it! And I think it was mostly because of her political persuasion.
So, being the hard-nosed skeptic that I am, I threw cold water on the party by trying to carefully point out the errors in her arguments. She just about screamed me out of the room, but I dug in and stood my ground. And she eventually shut up, sat down, and left the room in a huff at the end of the meeting.
I think there are people like her (read — lobbyists) on both sides of the aisle — folks who will try to dominate the political discourse by screaming loudly, distorting (or making up) the facts, and butchering science for their own ends. And because they scream soooo much, they have the ear of politicians who tend to cater to the most vocal and motivated elements of society.
It just so happens that at this stage of the game the loudmouths dominating the political landscape hail from the religious right and corporations.
To be honest, I think the real problem lies deeper than the “Republican War on Science” (though I do think that, to some degree, there is truth to that moniker). I think the real problem is the influence-peddling that goes on in the halls of Congress and in the White House. DC has become a town of back room deal-making and palm-greasing, where legislation goes up to the highest bidder.
In short, corruption is the deeper problem here. And lobbyists have figured out how to tap into that vein of corruption, while in the process distorting science and advancing their agendas.
And for those who don’t believe that corruption is a big problem in DC, just look at the recent news about Rep. Tom DeLay and the evolving Abramhoff scandals. When all the dirty laundry gets aired out, it’s going to be a bloodbath.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.
Cheers — Mattus
January 8th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Anti-science seem to be getting their advice from Sir Humphrey Appleby.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
The person who posted as Wonkette is a known troll, and I deleted the post. If you find an obnoxious post like that in the future, don’t bother responding to it; just let me know. Thanks folks!
January 8th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
There are several similar posts on several of the boards, not always using the name Wonkette, either. Looks like some housecleaning’s in order.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
MattusMaximus Says:
“Any Republicans on the board, this is your chance to gloat a little”
I’m not going to gloat. This is definately a case where one must “Be careful what you wish for!” I really don’t like the fundies destroying what little good reputation the republican party once had. I don’t buy into the party line that humans don’t contribute to global warming. I certainly don’t buy into Intelligent Design. I’m really disappointed by the Manus Manum Lavat and Quid Pro Quo.
Things that make you go “Arrrgggh!”
jbs
January 9th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Yet another aspect of Full Spectrum Dominance. Which, of course, means exactly that.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:05 am
Phil,
I agree with you but it’s not just science, apart from religious beliefs, it’s
what I would call Anti-Intellectualism the belief that it’s not important to learn period and all higher education is fruitless and anyone who does have a degree or better shouldn’t be trusted.
It’s always been here in America and sadly may always be here.
Not to say that there will always be the eccentric scientist or academic.
And we can’t limit this to academia either.
Just think about the recent Intelligent design matter in Dover, PA….brought about by School Board members who just couldn’t think straight.
Or the grade school cub scout who brought a telescope to school and got suspended by the principal!
January 9th, 2006 at 4:22 am
Loved the post on “The Republican War on Science.” They, the republicans, love to make war on everything…the old, the middle-class, The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, Freedom of speach, science, ecology, good paying american jobs…etc. They seem to want to return to the Dark ages…if Bush Jr. were able to get another term or two in office, we might even start seeing public executions for religious heresy…a round earth, earth not being the center of the universe…etc. Heck, Phil, the feds will probably have it in for you now…they’ll be wire tapping your phone calls, intercepting your emails all in the name of “The war on Terror.” Love your badastronomy blog. Keep up the great work.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:37 am
I, too, am posting from France, so I may be a little out of the loop, but I grew up in Alabama for far too many years, so. . . .
I think this is one more very good reason to stop dividing people into “left” and “right”. Really, it’s about time we grew up and found better terms — those invented for French politicians over two centuries ago just aren’t descriptive. Whether someone supports government supervision of the economy has little to do with whether they believe the government should dictate morality on social issues. At the very least, we should use a two-dimensional plot, with “social policy” on one axis and “economic policy” on the other. On this kind of graph, it’s easy to see that the small-l libertarians don’t fall into the same group as the militant, jingoistic creationists now making policy.
It is to the United States’ great detriment that the nation is currently governed by a coalition government founded upon deception. The word “conservative” has been broadened into near meaninglessness, to the extent that it has become almost paradoxical. (Want to keep abortion rights at the Roe v. Wade status quo? Then you’re a conservative!) This has allowed largely disparate ideologies to assemble under one party banner, giving the truly scary people running the Party a disproportionate share of power.
Why are the people who want a small, laissez-faire government voting the same way as the people who want to bomb nations back into the Stone Age? What ideology can possibly link fiscal conservatism with the Jingo drive for all-American lebensraum?
David Brin blogs on this issue in a fairly cogent way.
Me personally, I’m what Alan Sokal calls “an unabashed Old Leftist”. I tend to think that in political power structures, Nature abhors a vacuum, and somebody will rise to the top, no matter what the circumstances. Whether these are military dictators, elected officials or megacorporations (like the corporate nation-state the US is becoming today), they vie for the same power and perhaps share the same personality traits. . . .
A take-home experiment for US residents: ask a random sample of people you know what organization or agency first comes to mind when you say “the government”. My money says that many will name either a political party or a three-letter agency — the IRS, the FBI, etc. Now, how many of these are mentioned in the Constitution?
I’ll give you a hint: “zero” is a very good approximation. The original document, along with condoning slavery and a few other things, said that the President receives reports from the heads of the executive departments — and that’s all it said concerning the federal bureaucracy. Look how big that bureaucracy has become in two centuries! The Cabinet itself didn’t even get a real role until the 25th Amendment (which lets it decide cases of Presidential incapacity). And note that the Constitution says nothing about a partisan system of government. Federalist No. 10 goes out of its way to explain how the Framers built a system to avoid “factions” gaining supreme power — looks like that didn’t work so well in practice.
Sigh. I wonder if this explains why Americans of all political stripes can revere the Constitution equally. . . .
I could rant on and on (and on), but let me wrap up by saying that in a world with a constantly accelerating expansion of technology, the attitudes people have towards the scientific method will become far more significant than their positions on an oversimplified eighteenth-century political axis.
Personally, I’m what Alan Sokal calls “an unabashed Old Leftist”.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:38 am
Oops, a sentence got duplicated there at the end. I didn’t intend to do that. Mea culpa.
January 9th, 2006 at 6:20 am
I would like some actual examples of what information is being covered up. Without it this appears is a pretty empty post.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Jeff Tibb Says: I would like some actual examples of what information is being covered up. Without it this appears is a pretty empty post.
Many examples have already been given, but here are a few of my favourites:
How about the link Iraq-Alqaeda? Cheney still feeds that misinformation, and the media have only recently started to challenge him. Without this bogus, would public opinion have allowed us to go to war?
The whole ID debate is another good one. You can be sure that none of the White House *scientific* advisors push ID (incidentally, you know even the education minister in the Netherlands has come out as a proponent for ID!)
Global warming as a phenomenon unrelated to human activity (cracks me up every time…)
January 9th, 2006 at 7:14 am
I have been enjoying BA for some time now and just now began reading these posts. Out of the 30 I have just read, only one makes any sense. That one would be Jeff Tibb’s short and to the point comment. He is correct, but I would suggest empty heads rather than empty post, would be a much better descriptive.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Interesting debate – and I see all of the usual suspects are here.
So you know where I stand, I’m an educated (MBA), African-American, male, registered Republican, Baptist minister (I’m preaching Wednesday night btw). I’m also very much a scientist type who has followed BA since Yahoo Groups and Planet X. Do the liberals remember *that* war on Science?…
I believe strongly the notion that Science explains “how” while religion explains “why”. I’m probably slightly right of center on most points, but certainly liberal on a few (and I despise that eupahmistic pseudo-label for liberal called “progressive”. As my kids say, it’s so 5 minutes ago. It’s OK to be liberal – really!
That said, I very much disagree with the notion that this is a Republican war. I know from experience (my family comes from a long line of Democrats, some quite notable) both parties are interested only in one thing – winning more power. And they will say anything they think will help them achieve that goal. The issue with I have with the book starts with its title. I think a better one would be “The Political War on Science”. From that point alone, we begin with the assumption that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. Too bad as well – the book addresses an important issue that, by it’s own title, it then falls prey to.
Regardless of our political leanings, as scientists (professional or hobbyist) we must adhere to defensible and reasonable arguments. It was once said everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts.
I just hope reason will prevail in the end. There’s room for us all.
Albert Einstein once said, “If the solution is simple, God is answering.”
Taken in the appropriate context, I think this notion hits to the core of what both science and religion should be about.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:54 am
“The Bad Astronomer Says:
January 8th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
The person who posted as Wonkette is a known troll, and I deleted the post. ”
awwww….you should have like a zoo where we can go and see troll posts.
It is important to know the enemy…..
January 9th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Thank you very much. That was much needed in today’s political world. I’m not just talking about the Republicans, because Democrats are at fault in this too. If we would stop concentrating on each party’s political goals in science and instead focus on scientific goals in politics the United States would be a much nicer place, scientifically speaking, to live.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Could this be partly due to the fact that most politicians have had legal training? It’s about winning, not about “truth” or the facts or your political philosophy.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Jean-Denis Said:
>I have been reading your blog for a few months with a lot of interest. From an outsider from France, your last post is a bit disturbing, because I don’t understand what it refers to.
Jeff Tibb Said:
>I would like some actual examples of what information is being covered up. Without it this appears is a pretty empty post.
Here is a source of information about what the BA is discussing.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/specific-examples-of-the-abuse-of-science.html
January 9th, 2006 at 10:16 am
There seems to be two sets of claims about the government intrusion into science. One has to do with altering or hiding science to push political agendas. This is to some extent being done by both sides of the aisle, and even more by commercial entities. This is corruption of science results to support an agenda, rather than find the answers. Agenda-driven “science” isn’t really science.
The other complaint is evaluating science advisory board and panel memberships for their political party affiliation or political leanings. This is where the Republican Party and Bush administration is particularly singled out vs. the Democrats. They are using their authority in government offices to filter the appointments for scientific organizations by their political loyalty. While there is always some amount of cronyism and political power-base shuffling in government, it is very telling for the government to be pushing the influence into the realm of science. In particular, kicking someone off the Army Science Board because he contributed to McCain’s election fund or screening potential NIH panel members for whether they voted for Bush seems to me to be crossing the line into unConstitutional and criminal acts.
Blake Stacey, I agree with you with regards to the use of terms like Conservative and Liberal, Right Wing and Left Wing. Those terms have come to be labels independent of any original meaning of the words themselves. Is it Conservative because they like small government rather than big government, or Conservative because they want to maintain the status quo or return to an earlier, better time? Are they Liberals because they want a big government to do everything, or Liberals because they want people to have the freedom to do anything they want, or Liberals because they like libraries? Okay, I made that last one up.
Why is it that Conservatives want the government to stay out of corporate activity and business and financial matters, but delve into and scrutinize the private lives and personal decisions of every individual? And why do Conservatives want to increase military spending? I thought they were for smaller government? At least I can understand why Liberals want to allow people to live their lives and make their own decisions, but want to institute some control over abuses of power and inequality. But I don’t necessarily agree with the degree to which some liberals would go in constraining business matters and the freedom to earn wealth.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Jean-Denis said:
But is energy ever been converted into matter in nature?
Yes.
When I was in my 4th year (long ago, my apologies if I don’t get all the details right, I haven’t done this in decades), I remember doing an experiment where we’d take a gamma-ray source, and direct the gamma rays through a tracker (bubble chamber?). The gamma ray photons would come in, and once in a while, a photon would convert to a particle/antiparticle pair and then annihilate each other back into a photon.
Someone more familiar can probably discuss it in detail, but suffice it to say that it DOES happen, though probably not on macroscopic scales.
January 9th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I think the BA has been separating fact from fiction for awhile. Chris Mooney’s book, altho I haven’t finished it yet, describes depressingly thoroughly the exact techniques used by the current administration to deflect actual real science from entering the debates about govt policy, and the substitution of slanted inadequate research to serve as a foundation to pass legislation that the administration finds favorable.
Part of the reason I have not finished read the book is because the information it contains is soooo depressing, page after page I feel my heart breaking. The only things that keep me optimistic are my hobby activities engaging with skeptic organizations, and the occasional news stories that break with bad news for the White House.
January 9th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Hey, did anyone read the topic article by Phil? Republicans. Information for making a decision. Information that would help us decide whether Republicans, more than Democrats, or vice versa, are guilty of spinning and disrespect for science. Is this a PARTY thing? Noam Chomsky’s position is that this is in the nature of a free society- The gummint will spin. If Republicans are in power, they spin. If Dems are in power, they spin. They spin anyway. Who is worse? How much of it goes on? Is there any survey which shows, say, 49% of Republicans in Congress distort the truth to the 4th degree, whatever those measures would be?
Of course, spinning is horrendously deplorable. But the topic here is Republicans doing it, presumably worse than others. I say it’s simply people in power. Maybe the current gummint is worse then others, but is that incidentally or necessarily Republican? Maybe the current gummint is just more up on information distortion. I don’t think it’s a PARTY thing, myself. Let’s just slam these liars when we catch them, and counter the lies, and forget the politics. Even if it is true that Republicans are worse liars, whatever measure is used, SO WHAT? That’s no slur on a PARTICULAR Republican. This anti-anti-intellectualism — seriously — can be another form of prejudice against party people.
I called both the Democrat and Republican National Committees a few years ago, asking “What percentage of your front line workers, volunteer how much of their time at soup kitchens for the homeless?” That question scared both of the people I talked with. Very nervous. Such statistics would provide INFORMATION on which party was more “pro-the-little-person”. More compassionate. NEITHER SIDE wanted to TOUCH that information. Neither side WANTED NUMERICAL INFORMATION.
Let’s talk about facts. Let’s go out and stand on street corners and get some information from people. Ask some question of 100 people. Put up a poster saying “A penny for your thoughts” and give people one cent for responding, and you will have people flocking to you. The newspapers will catch on. Maybe some bright reporter will think of a practical survey. Let’s put some real legwork into this, some real Calories, some directed thought, not just all these opininions and echoes of personal issues. I’m darn curious. I believe the Republicans ARE worse, by and large, but that’s just my opinion, and practically worthless. As a survey question, that WOULD be a worthless result. Because it doesn’t have any numbers on it.
Let’s discuss what kind of SIMPLE QUESTIONS in a SURVEY would settle these issues– How much distortion, what kind of politician, how far up in the gummint, do front line workers do it worse or top level executives, and so on. Surveys! Facts! INFORMATION!
Bill34543@yahoo.com
January 9th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
PK,
I thought this was a ‘Science’ blog.
What do any of the political/military intelligence statements you claim are false have to do with one party hindering science?
I didn’t think this was supposed to be the place to debate such questions.
Perhaps the entire frame of my question and my basic assumption is what is wrong here. Perhaps this is not a ‘Science blog’ at all. Perhaps it is just a political one with a view point that it pretends is neutral to these issues and wraps itself up in the mantle of ’science’.
I was a rather inactive member of Phil’s Yahoo Group on Bad Astronomy which has recently folded. I enjoyed his comments on whether we went to the Moon or not when Fox put on that outrageous show claiming that we did not. I was interested in his comments about the scientific evidence debunking the whole ‘Planet X’ silliness as well.
Only in the last week have I been on this blog. But what I have seen so far seems far more political than scientific and rather pointed in one direction.
I shall stay in for a short while and see if I am wrong about this, but my tenure in this forum is looking doubtful right now.
Jeff
PS – Thanks for your comments Tony
January 9th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
How about this? (Making a survey.) Go to school teachers in a nearby school and get them interested in having their students construct a survey with simple, information-oriented questions. An English teacher would probably be interested, or a political science teacher. Or the principal. Send letters to the editor getting readers interested in making up a survey committee. Start something in your neighborhood, Committee to Construct a Simple, Objective Survey to Determine Which Political Party Has Worse Liars, CCSOSDWPPHWL. First get together a Committee to Shorten the Name of CCSOSDWPPHWL, CSNCCSOSDWPPHWL. Send a letter to the editor. It may not get printed, but you’ll get a call from the editor or a reporter.
Put some astronomy into this. Do government space agencies distort press releases? Call them up and ask them. They will say no. Then ask them, what kinds of survey questions would determine this? They will give you some ideas about good survey questions. Do this with other government science agencies. Make your interview technique the same for everyone. Word will get around that citizens are interested in facts. The newspapers will get interested. Etc. Call 100 government offices having to do with science. See what they say. Don’t be sarcastic or use innuendo. Talk like Mr. Spock or Data. Sound slightly bored. Just keep PUSHING them. Get THEIR ideas on what would be good survey questions. Tell them what the other agencies are replying. They’ll be calling each other on the phone, “What’s this survey thing going in?”
And keep working on those teachers. They love stuff like this.
Bill34543
January 9th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
We need some phone numbers. Start at the top. White House switchboard is 202-456-1414. They have an anwer to everything. This is a public information number, not some secret number. Ask them where you can call for information on science oriented congressional and senate committees, and government agencies that are science oriented. The operator may suggest for example the Congressional Press office (ask for that number anyway. They are a tremendous fund of information and phone numbers.) Get online with these beginnings and gather a couple dozen phone numbers of political and government offices. Call and ask “(1) I have a question regarding a survey I’m constructing, and would like to know the best person in your office to talk to. (2) The survey is to determine which political party lies the worst. I need the advice of people in your office as to what are some simple, objective questions to ask. Whom could I talk to?” Give that question to the Congressional Press office person! Ask your relatives! Ask the supermarket owner! The police department…. Naaah, not the police department.
Wait. Here’s a discussion topic for this blog. What if phone numbers were posted here, and several people called the same office? Would that confuse the issue? Or would it heighten awareness?
Should someone be in charge of this? Or just grass roots, anyone interested take the initiative. I say anyone interested. No one should be in charge of something like this. There should be competition for ideas.
Facts. Measurements. Creating measurements and categories and concepts. Databases. Information. Research. Keep it simple.
OK that’s enough from me this afternoon.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Jeff Tibb,
As far as I interpreted the blog, it was about respecting “information” and “truth” in the political arena (or even wider, in life). A scientific attitude does not stop outside the lab.
Sure, I’m no fan of the current administration, that should be clear from my comment. I have never tried to hide that fact either. But the points I raised are good examples of how politicians push agendas without respect for the truth (the Dems would do it too, btw). This fits the premise of the original posting.
> Only in the last week have I been on this blog. But what I have seen so far seems far more political than scientific and rather pointed in one direction.
What are you talking about? We only had this discussion and the discussion on the ID ruling. There were 8 other postings!
January 9th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
PK,
This article and the ID one were the only ones which I had read. Perhaps my small sample has pointed me in this direction. This is why I said that I would stay here for a short while yet to see if there is more to this than a daily bash on the current administration and people of faith in general (the ID piece specifically).
However I can’t really agree with your interpretation (I agree that it is yours and that you are entitled to it. It is however not mine, nor do I think most people would see it as you did) that this was a post about > in a general sense. The book in question is not titled “The War On Science”. It is titled “The Republican War On Science”.
It is therefore primarily a political piece, therefore my posting that without any examples given it is an ‘empty piece’.
Irishman,
Thank you for adding the link. My comment of course was about Phil not giving us any info. I don’t know if the data you bring to the discussion is mentioned in the book or not. However, the organization that you quote, the “Union of Concerned Scientists” is not exactly ‘above’ playing politics itself.
Jeff
January 9th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Jeff, this is a science blog–this thread is one of its occasional (many?) diversions into politics, religion, etc. where they touch on science-related issues. If the political threads here aren’t what you’re really after, the BA posts lots of others that are more strictly science- or specifically astronomy-related.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Jeff, I suggest you go back and read Phil’s article and think about what he is saying, and the big picture of his message. The title is “War on Science†the references to republican are about a book and the conversation Dr. Phil had with author of the book. You are taking the message from some of the comments made by the blog readers and projecting an attitude on to Phil. I see Phil’s standpoint the same as it always is, pretty much apolitical and fighting disinformation and misunderstanding wherever it may land. It just happens that the right really is that guilty. Maybe the reason things seem to be getting more political on this blog is because politicians are getting more and more involved in screwing up science.
As far as examples of the “right†and fouling up science, you can read the book. Personally most examples that come to my mind are from public addresses, I don’t know if I can cite sources without quite a bit of internet research, but for starters their drastic cuts to EPA and NASA and then a year later spinning the “results†of their funding cuts into somehow advancements. One of the first actions Bush did was to re-write several environmental standards setting timelines back 10-20 years on clean-up goals, then in his second state of the union address the re-writes were touted as advancements, as if there were no policies already in place. They have been pushing for years now to distort (read flat out lie) the environmental impacts on oil exploration in Alaska and off the west coast in CA, OR, and WA.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
It should probably be pointed out (again?) that the criticisms here of the Republicans are aimed predominantly at the far-right types that are currently dominating the party. It’s the assault of the “True Believers” on scientific facts etc. that people find so disturbing.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Power to you, Phil
While it is currently en vogue to criticise America and its prevalent gung ho attitude, I still find it incredible that utter garbage like “intelligent design” is given so much attention, to the point where there are court cases to try and ban the teaching of evolution theory in schools… again !
Global warming is a recognised and acknowledged problem, with pollution at its heart, yet the two biggest offenders – America and China – refuse to accept it. This is understandable of China, who are a law unto themselves, but to hear it called “pablum” by a supposed leader of the free world is inexcusable.
America continues to fight an illegal war in Iraq, using depleted uranium weapons, thereby poisoning an entire race, it’s own soldiers and that part of the world for the next 4.5 billion years. What is that but a weapon of mass destruction ?
The entire population of New York, after the September 11th horror, were told (by “experts) that it was safe to go back to work, despite the vast amount of asbestos and toxins in the atmosphere.
America is being led into another dark age by these manipulative pariahs and, unless they are brought to a halt soon, it will be too late for all of us.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Leon,
What is a “True Believer” and why do they ‘disturb’ you? Sounds like you are including the President in that group. Perhaps you are including the majority of voters in this country as well, as they did re-elect him.
Hugh,
I read that short little article more than once.
Perhaps you see Phil as ‘apolitical’ because his politics agrees with your point of view which seems pretty open for all of us to see.
All,
This is the kind of political give and take that I really didn’t want to get involved in but have foolishly done so.
I’ll give you all the last word and but out now…
Jeff
January 9th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Hugh Jass Said:
> The title is “War on Science†the references to republican are about a book and the conversation Dr. Phil had with author of the book.
Clarification: The title of this blog entry is “War on Science”. The title of the book mentioned is “The Republican War on Science”. As you say, this article is not just about that book.
Jeff Tibb Said:
> This is why I said that I would stay here for a short while yet to see if there is more to this than a daily bash on the current administration and people of faith in general (the ID piece specifically).
I just reread the “Truer Words…” article, and I still can’t find justification for the remark about a bash on people of faith in general. Perhaps you could point out (either here or in that thread) what exactly is directed at people of faith in general.
>Thank you for adding the link. My comment of course was about Phil not giving us any info.
As I understood this article, it wasn’t so much about the efforts of the Republican Party or this administration, but rather about the observation of the difference between science and politics. The observation was gleaned from a certain conversation with a certain person, so he was placing the observation in context and citing his source, and providing background for the audience (us). Therefore, specific examples were not really necessary because they weren’t the point of discussion. Read the summary again:
“I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat, what’s happening in the U.S. is a wholesale dismantling of one of our most precious resources: the scientific ability to sort truth from fiction. This ability is what my website (and blog) are all about, so I intend to be more active in this field in the future.”
Note that he specifically is talking about the efforts to distort science, no matter who the source.
>I don’t know if the data you bring to the discussion is mentioned in the book or not. However, the organization that you quote, the “Union of Concerned Scientists†is not exactly ‘above’ playing politics itself.
I don’t know what is in the book. I linked to that site because I could find it and knew it would have a list of the type of things involved. Whether you agree with the organization is up to you to decide.
Bill 34543, I don’t think one can come up with a scientific evaluation of who lies more by polling people on their opinions.
January 9th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Jeff, looks like what I said didn’t come out like I meant it.
By “True Believers”, I meant those who believe something their religion tells them even when the overwhelming weight of evidence says otherwise: creationists, flat earthers, etc. Not Christians in general, or even conservative Christians as a whole. (I think the word “Believers” there may have encouraged misunderstandings.)
If the president believes in creationism, then yes I include him. I wouldn’t include the majority of Americans, because 1) a majority of them didn’t vote for him (a slim majority of registered voters did, assuming no major fraud in the election), 2) voting for president doesn’t necessarily mean endorsing the candidate’s view on every issue, and 3) he hasn’t specifically come out in favor of creationism.
January 9th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Leon, you hit the nail twice concerning the support of Bush by the electorate. Not everyone voted, and barely more than half that did elected him. Also, a significant number may not have been voting for him so much as voting against someone else. I sure wouldn’t call one of the closest election ever a ringing endorsement or mandate by the country. And I’m pretty sure that the range of people that voted for any of the candidate ran from full support to just enough to choose him over the alternative. Count me in the latter.
jbs
January 9th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
to Jean-Denis:
On your children’s question — Yes, energy is being converted to matter all the time. I guess the best example is absorption of light. When, say, your car absorbs sunlight, its temperature is raised, and this raises its mass. If a body of mass m is heated from T0 to T1, its mass per molecule increases by something like k(df)(T1 – T0)/c^2, where df = degrees of freedom for its constituent molecules (anybody who’s up on their stat. mech. can surely improve on this). Admittedly, this is a change so tiny as to be unmeasurable, but it can be seen from considering what takes place on the atomic scale, where the molecules pick up extra kinetic energy, thus gaining a little mass with respect to the center-of-mass of the body (by special relativity). But in principle, if you had a scale sensitive enough, you would see the increase. Also, if you had a cubical box of perfect mirrors with photons bouncing around inside, the photons would add mass to the box in the amount of E/c^2. This mass would be measurable with a good enough scale, and it would also act as a source of gravitational attraction.
A similar effect occurs when you charge a battery. Electric energy is then converted into mass. You can calculate the amount, dm, of the increase by knowing the current, I, flowing into the battery, the length of time, t, charging occurs, and the potential, V, of the battery. I think this is typically on the order of 10^-9 or less of the mass of the battery, even for a full charge.
dm = I * t * V / c^2
Another sort of process where this occurs is when a high-energy gamma ray encounters matter, resulting in pair production, usually an electron-positron pair. (Evolving Squid sort of stole my thunder on this one
On the main topic, I really don’t have a lot to add to what’s been said, about 80% of which is valid, IMHO. As one who has worn the coats of several political persuasions over the course of several decades, I find myself proud to be a nudist today, though leaning ‘conservative.’ There are a few good people in politics today (of both major parties), but mostly we seem cursed with sycophants (of both major parties). My personal view is that for some years now, most of the worst has been from the left, but the few very worst seem to be on the right, giving the political scene a curious, moribund asymmetry.
As one science-type and skeptic to a like-minded group, I would underscore what has been said a few times here already — that in matters of politics as well as science, it makes all the difference to get the facts, and I can assure you that you won’t get enough of this diet from the great bulk of mass media to keep a paramecium alive. I have recently discovered a remedy: C-SPAN (and C-SPAN radio), where you get all of what congresswoman X or senator Y or the pres. said, not the cherry-picked snippets fed to us by the rest. (Just think back to all the times you’ve seen astronomy news mangled in the press or TV, then consider what they do to any other field of coverage that you don’t have first-hand knowledge of. And here again, there are always a few exceptions.)
Well, the people trying to hijack the Republican Party are doing so on several fronts, one of them being certain key points of science. In the end they will not succeed, because at base, some of their most cherished views are anathema to the true philosophy of the party. I like to ask, ‘What would Ike have done?’ You can bet he’d have no truck with attempts to bring thinly-veiled religion into the science curriculum (and, remember, it was Ike who established NASA).
The other reason the hijackers will fail is that the facts are simply not with them. My dad had a saying (obtained from I know not where): ‘There is no greater tragedy in life than the wanton murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.’ And therein lies the essential difference between scientific thought and misguided adherence to any dogma, be it geocentric astronomy, creationism, communism, or political correctness. We in science follow the facts, wherever they lead, regardless of what we would personally like to believe.
I guess it boils down to this — religion and science don’t mix, in the sense that neither one can materially inform the other; they mix perfectly in the sense that they each cover aspects of the world that the other has nothing whatever to do with.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:13 am
I think there is a lesson we can all take for those who value science and advocate its use to foster understanding of the universe. Cognizant of how others are dragging along their bias should act as a lesson to help better eliminate bias we ourselves might bring to the table. Possibly by seeing how others (in this case the politicians) are led astray by their prejudices we ourselves might better see it the next time we are doing it. If this lesson is followed we can all make science more robust.
(Of course it is important to set the records straight to prevent the misuse of science as well)
January 10th, 2006 at 3:33 am
To Fred S and Jean-Denis,
As Fred demonstrated with his argument but didn’t quite make the point, energy is mass in the sense that energy-density will cause the curvature of space (i.e., put it on sufficiently accurate scales and you’ll find an increased weight, as with the box of photons).
In a more traditional sense, the heating up of molecules will increase the potential energy of the molecules (vibrations). Since this energy is located in the molecule, it will appear as a larger mass, but it is still energy. For a clear-cut energy-to-mass conversion, you probably have to look at the creation of heavy particles out of lighter ones.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:14 am
Irishman: I agree that polling people on their opinions won’t uncover much information about where and how lies about science happen. I suggested discussing what questions would be useful. How about asking people what questions would be useful? I am for example asking you. I gave an example of a question to discover which party was more compassionate- I asked the DNC and RNC offices what percentage of people in their parties worked in soup kitchens.
The topic is war on science. War means interactions with an enemy. Who are the enemy? (We need to read the book Phil mentioned, of course.) How do we confront them? How do we identify them? What can we do about people spinning for advantage? Aside from sharing opinions on a dedicated blog site, what can we do in our communities? I suggest calling government and political offices and raising awareness about the issue. Let science oriented government and political offices know the public is actively interested, not just posting blog opinions, about their honesty. I suggest that asking people how to deal with this, is a way to get their minds engaged. When someone says “It’s the Republicans,” reply with, “How could that be proved? What can be done to find that out? What can be done to prevent it? Is it parties or power that’s involved?” Action. Facts. Research. Research means asking questions. Basic to asking questions is, what questions do we need to dig out the facts?
Peoples minds are engaged better when they’re thinking about questions to ask, better than when they’re defending against attacks or staring at opinions. That’s my opinion. My question is, what can we do about it? What interactions with other people are going to raise awareness? I maintain that pushing our opinions on them will meet with resistance. Asking them how to deal with it might work.
What interactions with others, including the places where the lies supposedly come from (political and government offices), would help to uncover the lies, raise awareness, and change things?
January 10th, 2006 at 7:08 am
I’m shocked no one has mentioned the recent article in Mother Jones: “Think tanks and journalists funded by ExxonMobil are out to convince you global warming is a hoax.”
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html
The problem is simple: if you confuse the public enough for a long enough period of time, they become fatigued and don’t care.
Add to that “organizations” that are propped up and used only to destroy research by reputable scientists. Perfect example: Global Climate Coalition. Check their website. They claim to have been “deactivated.”
http://www.globalclimate.org/
January 10th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Anyone who claims to be “conservative” or “liberal” is already in the intellectual dumpster in my book. It’s implies adherence to a political “one size fits all” line of thinking.
Seriously, if you are posting links to National Review or Mother Jones, you need to seriously start thinking about deprogramming yourself. If you call yourself something like an “old unabashed Leftist” you need professional help, because that is a complete reality disconnect.
A pox on ALL you ideologues and political wonks. A burd-flu, ebola-like pox on every last worhtless one of you. You are no different than the ones you are criticizing, and you are going to bring nothing but ruin to the future.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Occam: you are no better than those you profess to criticize. With your depelted uranium lies and emotionally charged rhetoric and other ideological nonsense, you wallow in the same gutter sludge as this Administration. You are the opposite side of the same, tired, worn out coin. I wish the lot of you would all just walk into the sea or off a cliff, and let those of us with still functioning intellects get on with trying to build a rational future.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:59 am
[...] Over on Phil Plait’s blog I came across another entry I really like, mentioning what I think is a pretty pointed idea: people who have no respect for the information. [...]
January 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Observer, are you a troll, or just confused? What’s the deal with castigating people who identify their political leanings, using the conventionally accepted terms? No one here disputes that terms like “liberal” and “conservative” are imperfect (inadequate and outdated are two other terms that come to mind), but would you prefer people refuse to identify their beliefs or leanings?
January 10th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
I understand from where Observer is coming, I just don’t have the same amount of anger about it. Whenever I really get into a politicized argument I inevitably describe my self as “I hate everybody, so I’m in the middle, probably a little left of middle, but I grew up surrounded by Hicks and Hippies and disgusted by them both and their lack of ability to look at all of the information and make a decision for themselves rather than spewing talking points spun up by someone pushing an extremist agenda.â€
I love Fred S’s description of a political nudist. He and I could probably sit and discuss over a beer where our opinions differ without ever screaming at each other. Like I said I hate both extremes, but just feel in the big picture and the long run, where the distortion of science is concerned the left is less harmful than the right. I’m not saying more correct, I’m not saying they’re not just as guilty of spinning science for political gain, I’m saying in my opinion what they are spinning is less dangerous in the long run, I’d still like it to go away completely, but in the meantime I’ll point out issues with the current administration whatever it is, and currently there is a great need to point out just how abused science is by this administration. I wish I could remember the last time I voted FOR someone rather than against the greater of two evils.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
ToObserver:
In the future, please say what you mean and stop mincing words.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Hugh Jass said: “I wish I could remember the last time I voted FOR someone rather than against the greater of two evils.”
I wish I could remember IF I EVER voted FOR someone rather than against the lesser of two evils! (At least I voted!)
January 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Just F.Y.I.
Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, of ‘SuperSize Me’ fame has purchased the rights to The War on Science. We may get a great documentary about this in the near future.
Phil – I hope you are a part of it!
January 13th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Depleted uranium is a problem, though those who think the radioactivity is the concern are missing the real issue. Rather, it is the heavy metal toxicity that is the problem.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:32 am
I just ordered this book yesterday.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
[...] Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, weighs in on the difference between how politicians use information and how scientists use information. And there’s that pesky word “truth” coming up again. [...]
January 19th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Had the opportunity to read a summary of the book, which was written by Chris Mooney. I will try to summarize his justification for the title.
He talks about why this particular administration and it’s party are particularly at fault. Part of his answer is the fundamental basis of conservatism, which is a political philosophy that resists change and strives to retain the status quo. Science is all about change, adaptation as information grows.
“The dynamism of science — its constant onslaught on old orthodoxies, its rapid generation of new technological possibilities — presents an obvious challenge to more static worldviews. From Galileo to Darwin and beyond, this conflict has played out repeatedly over the course of history.”
But there’s more to it than just the underlying conflict of attitudes of change vs. constancy. The modern Republican Party has built its power base upon two key constituencies: Commercial Industry and the religious right. Both groups have strong reasons to abhor science outcomes in certain areas.
Commercial Industry has been attacked by many over scientific results of the effects of their behaviors. Companies are subject to governmental controls on the basis of the health and safety effects from their products and actions, so they are motivated to fight the science that is being used against them. So they fight the data, they fight the interpretations, and they try to present their own studies that show what they want the outcome to be. Their economical advantage is in confusing the science and making their own “science”.
Religious conservatives are fighting the appearance of attack upon their beliefs by science (i.e. Evolution), which gives them strong motivation. They are also tempted to defend their moral agendas, and since our modern world revolves around science and uses science to study effects, they try to shape the science to support their moralistic agendas.
There are other factors at work. Conservatives’ distrust of big government gets aimed at scientists and science agencies funded by the government or taking place at government agencies. Also, science gets labeled as “liberal” because of the connection to academia and universities. Combine that with the “educated East-coast liberals” vs. “red state” commoners attitude held by many conservatives, and you can see that science is getting all the negatives from their point of view.
All of these factors combine to place the modern Conservatives that are the strong power base of the Republican Party at odds with science as a whole, and driving them to push their own agendas at the expense of good science.
Mooney does acknowledge that some on the Left are as guilty of science manipulation as those on the Right. He specifically mentions environmental groups and their concern over genetically modified foods, mercury pollution, and even embryonic stem cell research (hyping quick cures). But his emphasis is on the Republicans because their power base currently is more widespread and deeper involved in the abuse of science, and this administration is especially guilty of swaying the facts to fit their own agendas. It is not isolated groups within the Conservative faction, the way it is in the Liberal faction. It is a widespread and deliberate action by this administration.
Mooney does advocate supporting Republicans who show support for science – such as John McCain. However, he points out that so far the moderate Republicans haven’t had much effect in mitigating the right wing of their party.
“The Bush admisistration has alienated and spurned moderate Republicans such as former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman and former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill, who wanted to take global warming seriously rather than hide behind distortions and evasions of reliable scientific consensus.”
His attention is partisan, because the attacks on science are particularly coming from one party. He is also concerned on a more general level, but feels the Republicans are right now especially guilty and deserving of particular response. His recommendations for action are aimed more generally and applied in an even-handed manner.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Until we can actually teach science in a decent manner to our students, I am afraid that the present administration and its Christian supporters will find it easy to obfuscate the truth. In my classes, I constantly remind my kids that scientific theories exist only on the foundations of credible evidence. They generally enter my class with that typical vague notion of theory = educated guess, that same fallacy that ID lovers exploit when they convince Boards of Education to teach ID alongside evolution. Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind stresses rote learning and factual recall, not critical thinking.Nice commentary, all, I’m linking to this post on my new site.
January 21st, 2006 at 11:12 am
Great post, and excellent thread!
January 24th, 2006 at 3:54 am
[...] Anyway, enough ranting for now. Read the whole article on Phil Plait’s excellent blog here. [...]
July 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
[...] haveta write too) but it’s excellent so far. If Chris’s name sounds familiar, he wrote The Republican War on Science, another [...]
July 27th, 2007 at 9:48 am
[...] know Chris a bit from having met him once a couple of years ago, as well as having some correspondence with him through his blog at Science [...]