OT: The politicization of science

[RandyM]

This doesn't fit neatly into the global warming thread or any others I know of, so I thought I'd post it here.

Has anyone read this? Fascinating reading...

http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/Into ... sonian.pdf

[JRod]

This doesn't fit neatly into the global warming thread or any others I know of, so I thought I'd post it here.

Has anyone read this? Fascinating reading...

http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/Into ... sonian.pdf

Intolerance and the Politicization of Science in a report release by a Congressman.

Hey pot...

[Slumberland]

Fascinating reading...

Not really. What's your intent in posting this, anyway? Seems like more of the same mix of behind-the-scenes drama and dubious victimhood you were peddling in that other thread, as opposed to any actual scientific discussion. I suppose your point could be that it's impossible to have a real scientific discussion when opposing views are being squelched, but I'm not even sure that's what's going on here. Sternberg wasn't even an employee of the Smithsonian, something that Rep. Souder's document seems to gloss over, but rather an unpaid research assistant, granted access to the Smithsonian archives for research purposes. Sternberg was able to include that Stephen C. Meyer paper on intelligent design in his last issue as managing editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and then it was the publishers who then retracted the Meyer piece, not the Smithsonian. I suppose if Sternberg's supervisor at the Smithsonian had mistreated him and denied him access to state-owned research material on account of his beliefs that would of course be despicable, but his complaints rely on a lot of disputed hearsay and possible embellishments. For example, even the Souder paper mentions a massive re-organization of museum assets. Sternberg's supervisor, Jonathan Coddington, claims that another research assistant was asked to move on account of the reorganization, and that both were offered identical work spaces which only Sternberg then refused. And finally, Sternberg's harassment claim against the Smithsonian was thrown out because he wasn't actually an employee.

Maybe Coddington's lying. Maybe Sternberg's inclusion of the Meyer article was the "foot in the door" strategy used by intelligent design proponents, similar to their push to "teach the controversy" regarding Darwinism in our public schools... i.e., a wedge to start dislodging the public belief in evolution, and inject I.D. into the scientific discussion. But apart from all this, I don't see anything particularly scientific about intelligent design. You can bring up doubts about evolution, but that doesn't make intelligent design any more "scientific". But feel free to educate us! I know that roughly 700 scientists lent their name to a petition expressing doubts about evolution. I also know that a response was issued in the form of over 700 pro-evolution scientists that were all named Steve (or some local derivation thereof). But basically I'm saying that all this Smithsonian/Weather Channel 90210 crap is an uninformative snorefest.

I'll tell you what IS interesting though... Mark Souder's proposal to replace FDR's likeness on the dime with that of Ronald Reagan. But there I go attacking character... I am a hypocrite.

[pk500]

Two words: Forum bait.

Sorry, fish aren't biting in my pond today. There was enough political chum in the water for 2007 in the global warming thread.

Take care,
PK

[RandyM]

Actually, PK, by responding you DID bite.

Slumberland. Your post was very revealing to me. First of all, did you actually READ the thing or just skim? MOST of the evidence involved e-mails that were subpoena'd as well as testimony by all involved.

I've no intention of getting into ID vs. evolution. It's not the topic of the post and quite frankly I've no interest in getting into it. To me, the subject of interest is what I named the topic, and nothing more. When scientists are revered above all other human life forms as somehow perfectly objective, never driven by ideologies, only interested in arguing science, as well as how wonderful peer-review is ( as well as how lack of peer reviewed articles proves that the scientist is a hack ), it kinda exposes the emperor as wearing no clothes.

Scientists are human beings, driven by the same biases and ideological handicaps that everyone else has, and they can be as political and petty as any other human being on the planet, and like any man-made organization, they are as susceptible to corruption as any church, government body or corporation. That they won't admit this while looking down their collective noses on everyone else just makes the irony even more sad.

THAT, and nothing else, was the reason for my post. There's not really anything to argue or debate here. People can read the findings of the investigation and decide for themselves whether science is being well served or not.

Randy

[pk500]

Actually, PK, by responding you DID bite.

Ah, so your mission was accomplished. Nibbles from three different people.

Silly us. Good for you.

What's more troubling than any "findings" of the "investigation" is that our tax money and lawmakers' time is being wasted to "investigate" this agenda-driven sh*t.

JRod nailed it with his reply: A politician releasing a report about the politicization of science? Tee-hee. That's very funny. And Mark Souder, a conservative Republican who is an evangelical Christian and champion of Bush's faith-based initiatives, issuing a report with "intolerance" in the subject that talks about supposed bias against those who disagree with evolution? Even funnier.

There are slightly bigger fish for our politicians to fry in America right now than this fascinating subject.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

When scientists are revered above all other human life forms as somehow perfectly objective, never driven by ideologies, only interested in arguing science, as well as how wonderful peer-review is ( as well as how lack of peer reviewed articles proves that the scientist is a hack ), it kinda exposes the emperor as wearing no clothes.

Scientists are human beings, driven by the same biases and ideological handicaps that everyone else has, and they can be as political and petty as any other human being on the planet, and like any man-made organization, they are as susceptible to corruption as any church, government body or corporation. That they won't admit this while looking down their collective noses on everyone else just makes the irony even more sad.

THAT, and nothing else, was the reason for my post. There's not really anything to argue or debate here. People can read the findings of the investigation and decide for themselves whether science is being well served or not.

Randy

It's not the scientists who have politicized science. It's the conservative activists who have.

What areas of science are being challenged by these skeptics? Climatology and biology, specifically global warming and evolution. (Genetics has been with stem cell research, but that's more of an ethical debate).

Why have global warming and evolution been challenged by conservatives? Because the majority of the scientific community are going against two conservative sacred cows: business and religion. There are other scientific areas that are far, far less settled than these two, yet these are the ones that seem to attract so many vocal, beleaguered, repressed skeptics, lone heroes seeking the truth against a godless liberal conspiracy. Why are they not calling for the stickering of books that promote string theory? Why are they not expressing the same uncertainty about global warming with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Because none of those areas further the conservative political agenda, which is to deregulate business and deliberalize education.

Can scientists be petty, mean, nasty pieces of work with their own agendas? Yes. No one ever suggested otherwise. I do know that Sternberg wound up having no case because he wasn't an employee and that Souder's committee published this to try and cast doubt on the evolutionary establishment.

However, a few cases of scientists possibly acting human doesn't negate that the majority of specialists and the mechanisms of each of these two areas greatly support anthropomorphic climate change and random evolution. The evidence for these these two areas far outweighs the evidence against. It doesn't mean that someone could not come along and find them wrong or inaccurate or suggest a new paradigm that turns everything on its head. Jared himself has said it is good for scientists to be skeptical. But the efforts to do so in these two areas resemble someone spitting in the wind and trying to convince you its raining.

[RandyM]

It's just pretty funny reading the replies to this. I wonder what the replies would have looked like had the shoe been on the other foot.

Randy

[pk500]

It's just pretty funny reading the replies to this. I wonder what the replies would have looked like had the shoe been on the other foot.

Randy

What difference does that make? We're following your noble instructions to the core. Read, then decide. Right?

THAT, and nothing else, was the reason for my post. There's not really anything to argue or debate here. People can read the findings of the investigation and decide for themselves whether science is being well served or not.

Your Fox News approach of "I report, you decide" is very charming. And while some of us were born at night, none of us was born last night. If your approach was any more transparent, it would be invisible.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

It's just pretty funny reading the replies to this. I wonder what the replies would have looked like had the shoe been on the other foot.

Randy

You wouldn't know, seeing as you have two right feet.

[RandyM]

Whatever...if you want to turn this into something personal, go right ahead. I'm not biting.

I just look at the whole thread as an example of how people are willing to turn a blind eye, spin, defend, and otherwise excuse behavior when it serves the purpose of 'the home team'.

To use the sports analogy, it's like the person who never thinks their own team's offensive line is guilty of holding, but screams at the ref when the other team does it and doesn't get called.

Randy

[RandyM]

Your Fox News approach of "I report, you decide" is very charming. And while some of us were born at night, none of us was born last night. If your approach was any more transparent, it would be invisible.

Whatever, PK. I didn't ask you to post anything in this thread. You could have just ignored it, as could anyone else. You chose to jump in in spite of saying 'the fish weren't biting'. I've never understood why someone posts in a forum to say "i'm not going to participate in this thread". Well then ...don't post!

As far as my 'approach' is concerned, yeah I'm trying to open a few eyes to what's going on, because typically these stories get buried. My motives for the post were not ID/Evolution related at all. I really, really don't care to go there in this thread, and it's not my purpose to prove any side of that argument.

My problem is with the fact that those who scream loudest that others are trying to run our lives, censor our opinions, ram their beliefs down our throats, etc...are themselves guilty of that very same kind of behavior. It's apparently not about who is right or wrong, it's simply a matter of who has the power and the money to do it. Sort of like Nancy Pelosi before the elections talking about government reform and waste and ethics and corruption. It took her less than 2 months to show she has no problems with these items after all. She just wants to make sure it's HER party doing it, and not the OTHER party.

I attack the scientific 'establishment' on this area for one simple reason -> they do a great job as selling themselves as open minded types who will entertain any argument as long as the science is solid. And there is ample evidence to show that all to often the science follows the agenda and not the other way around. And THAT, and nothing else, was the point of the original post. Anyone can read the report's findings, spin it however they want, attack the people who wrote the report, attack me, etc. But to me it all just goes to show that the definition of what is acceptable or not acceptable is very much dependent upon which side of the fence you happen to be standing on, and not at all on the actual conduct and behavior of those involved.

The fact that this behavior was exhibited so well in the thread just makes for an illuminating read. Anyone can read the report, read the replies here, and decide for themselves. There's no other approach, except in your imagination, perhaps.

Randy

[pk500]

Let's see: You're just trying to open a few eyes to "what's going on" while writing a diatribe against Democrats and the science community, yet you have the gall to end your post with this condescending statement?

The fact that this behavior was exhibited so well in the thread just makes for an illuminating read. Anyone can read the report, read the replies here, and decide for themselves. There's no other approach, except in your imagination, perhaps.

So we're supposed to believe your objectivity and that you have no agenda in this issue? You're simply trying to educate us with your superior intelligence and grasp of the issues, armed with an bevy of Web links as support?

So very noble.

The only reason I replied to your original post was because it's obvious that the intent of your original post was two-fold: One, to bait the more liberal members of this board into a flame war; Two, to promote your agenda under the so-called veil of objectivity and enlightenment.

Maybe I would believe your intentions were good if it wasn't for the endless flame war and agenda-pushing you did in the global warming thread. But after that, it's only natural that any post you make about the scientific community or the environment is viewed with jaded skepticism that the post is nothing more than a vehicle by which you can push your agenda and chastize those who disagree with you.

I've chewed enough of your bait, and I feel dumb for that. So reply at will.

Take care,
PK

[RandyM]

So we're supposed to believe your objectivity and that you have no agenda in this issue?

Nope. I am not objective at all. I will be the first to admit it. I recognize that a lot of people on my 'side' have done a lot of stupid things that discredit the very things they are trying to advance. Whether it's politics or religion or whatever. It reminds me of the democrat congressman (sorry I don't recall his name) that had a stroke right after the elections. First page of most right wing blogs and news reports was analysis of whether this could tip the senate back to the Republicans. I was of two minds on that. First of all, the 'republican' in me immediately noticed this could be me good for my 'side'. The human being in me then immediately noticed this and slapped the republican in me upside the head for being an insensitive callous jerk about it. So yeah, I'll admit that sometimes it's too easy to root for the home team and excuse the things that they do in the name of some 'greater good' served. If you want me to admit that I am subjective and that I have a horse in some of these races, you win. I do. I am not going to pretend to be an objective observer indifferent to the outcomes. At the same time, I at least RECOGNIZE that I have those biases and TRY to fight them when at all possible, or at least TRY to be consistent in condemning bad behavior wherever it occurs.

You're simply trying to educate us with your superior intelligence and grasp of the issues, armed with an bevy of Web links as support?

"us" again. I love the way you speak for everyone in the group. Hey everyone. Don't reply to anything I write anymore! PK will speak for all of you. He's your self-appointed representative.

The only reason I replied to your original post was because it's obvious that the intent of your original post was two-fold: One, to bait the more liberal members of this board into a flame war;

There you go again. Claiming to know what my INTENT is when you have absolutely no frigging clue. I'm not sure from what psychic you received your degree in mind-reading, but you should see if she gives refunds, as you are dead wrong trying to read my motives and intentions.....again. Naturally, I was aware that this might well result in flames, but that was NOT the intent. I was ACTUALLY hoping that some on the 'other side' might actually chime in and say something along the lines of "I may agree with their science, but I disagree with their tactics" or something along those lines. Oh well...

Two, to promote your agenda under the so-called veil of objectivity and enlightenment.

What's my "agenda", PK? I'd really like to hear you go double or nothing on reading my mind. You're doing such a great job so far. The only thing you've managed to do is convince me that you see yourself as some kind of annointed spokesperson/thug here at DSP whose job it is to personally attack and belittle everyone with whom you disagree.

Maybe I would believe your intentions were good if it wasn't for the endless flame war and agenda-pushing you did in the global warming thread.

Yeah, Lord knows I was the ONLY person who had an opinion in that thread. Sheesh.

But after that, it's only natural that any post you make about the scientific community or the environment is viewed with jaded skepticism that the post is nothing more than a vehicle by which you can push your agenda and chastize those who disagree with you.

Hey, I'm trying to follow the fine agenda of mr. Paul Kelly, who is teaching me the fine art of DSP chastisement. I'm learning from the master. I'm hoping to one day be as good at insulting people as you are, but I can see I still have a lot of work to do to arise to your thug status.

I've chewed enough of your bait, and I feel dumb for that. So reply at will.

Yeah, sorry you are incapable of controlling yourself and your seething hatred of all things me.


Randy

[XXXIV]

She blinded me with science

[Teal]

It's not the scientists who have politicized science. It's the conservative activists who have.

I'm not entering this silly debate, but oh dear god...this was just too much...damn conservatives are responsible for everything, aren't they?

[Teal]

It's not the scientists who have politicized science. It's the conservative activists who have.

I'm not entering this silly debate, but oh dear god...this was just too much...damn conservatives are responsible for everything, aren't they?

And for the record, I'm no fan of this stuff, either, Randy. Find a political forum...

[RandyM]

Isn't that what 'OT" is supposed to be in front of messages? I didn't start the original global warming thread, or the Anna Nicole thread, or any number of other non sports related threads.

If the idea is to restrict DSP to sports, I'm all for it. But if people are going to start DSP threads about whatever....then what's the issue here?

Randy

[Brando70]

It's not the scientists who have politicized science. It's the conservative activists who have.

I'm not entering this silly debate, but oh dear god...this was just too much...damn conservatives are responsible for everything, aren't they?

No, teal, because conservatives aren't responsible

I kid.

I did word that poorly. What I meant was, in the cases of global warming and especially evolution, the pressure being applied against what the scientific community is saying is mostly coming from the right. There is plenty of activisim for the scientific positions, and plenty of it from scientists. But my opinion (which is less reliable than my fairly regular you-know-what) is that most of the pushback is coming from folks of a conservative bent -- scientists, politicians, and citizens.

I am also done with this. I need to overcome my debate addiction.

[Teal]

It's not the scientists who have politicized science. It's the conservative activists who have.

I'm not entering this silly debate, but oh dear god...this was just too much...damn conservatives are responsible for everything, aren't they?

No, teal, because conservatives aren't responsible

I kid.

I did word that poorly. What I meant was, in the cases of global warming and especially evolution, the pressure being applied against what the scientific community is saying is mostly coming from the right. There is plenty of activisim for the scientific positions, and plenty of it from scientists. But my opinion (which is less reliable than my fairly regular you-know-what) is that most of the pushback is coming from folks of a conservative bent -- scientists, politicians, and citizens.

I am also done with this. I need to overcome my debate addiction.

I gotcha-not a problem. I think the message is that politics-left, right, or center-needs to stay the hell away from science and faith, inasmuch as they love to use both of them as some sort of platform from which to launch all sorts of nutty nonsense...

[RandyM]

Well, I for one would not object to DSP being a sports-only forum, and then I would refrain from posting off-sports related stuff here, and I wouldn't be tempted to respond when other people do.

But that's just me...

Randy

[dbdynsty25]

No, we just need a handhelds forum. That would solve a lot of the issues. People who wanted to talk OT, and debate, could do so on their own little "part" of DSP. But then again, some people think it would divide and split the community...which probably isn't such a bad thing.

[RandyM]

"handhelds"?

Well, whatever...I took a long siesta from DSP so I'm probably not the best person to offer an opinion on these. You guys have probably suffered worse threads than this one.

I'm just kind of a mimic. If I see something being done, I tend to jump in. If I don't see it being done, I tend not to. I saw OT posts on this kinda thing here so I figured it was okay to engage.

Randy

[ScoopBrady]

"handhelds"?

Well, whatever...I took a long siesta from DSP so I'm probably not the best person to offer an opinion on these. You guys have probably suffered worse threads than this one.

I'm just kind of a mimic. If I see something being done, I tend to jump in. If I don't see it being done, I tend not to. I saw OT posts on this kinda thing here so I figured it was okay to engage.

Randy

There used to be a handhelds forum at Sports Reviewers that nobody ever visited so they turned it into the political forum.

Your thread is perfectly fine, just know that political threads around here can get ugly. Everyone in this thread had the option to not participate.

For the record, I don't really feel we need a different forum. I never liked it when it happened at SR and I won't like it here. I rarely post in political threads but don't mind having to wade through them at all.

[RandyM]

That's hilarious. I didn't know that.

I was conjuring up all sorts of alternate meanings for the word 'handheld'

I know political threads can get ugly. and I would be lying if I said I didn't think this one could, as well.

But in spite of the allegation that this was my motivation, I guess I just naively hold out hope that people can admit that we don't know everything and that things aren't as 'settled' as is often touted, and maybe perhaps we could treat each other a little bit better.

PK and I have agreed to stop answering each others' posts, so I guess that will calm down THAT aspect of this thread.

Randy