The Republican War on Science

[shetline]

The Republican War on Science (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465046754/002-3293489-0884843?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance), by Chris Mooney.

Anyone else here read this book yet? I'm about half way through it now -- started reading it on the plane yesterday while heading out to visit family in Ohio, where I am today. (When my born-again Bushie younger sister showed up at my older sister's house where I'm staying, I hid the book to preserve family holiday harmony. ;) )

I've certainly been aware of the strongly anti-scientific bent in the Republican party ("Not that Democrats are perfect when it comes to science," he said, in a likely vain attempt to slay a straw man before it's raised.) ever since the Reagan administration, but this book really crystallizes a lot of what I was aware of, while filling in a lot of detail and history that I hadn't been aware of.

For instance, I had no idea that the simple phrase "sound science", as well as its already-suspicious-to-me antithesis, "junk science," were right wing code phrases -- the idea being, when confronted with strong scientific consensus contrary to one's agenda, to wear a cloak of proper, upright, laudable skepticism, demand impossible levels of evidence (which the chimerical "sound science" would provide), magnify the significance of any and all uncertainty and lack of agreement between "scientists" (scare quotes indicating the inclusion of industry-paid shills), trash anything as "junk science" which doesn't meet the conveniently movable goal posts you set up, and then decide to create policy and derail regulation as befits your own agenda and that of your corporate benefactors until "more research" indicates you should do otherwise.

The cherry-picking of science going on these days in Congress and the Whitehouse is oddly reminiscent to me of... oh... the cherry picking of intelligence data leading up to the war in Iraq. Choose your desired course of action. Choose a matching, supportive set of "experts" and sources. Magnify the data the matches what you want to do, trivialize, ignore, ridicule, and/or censor any inconvenient conflicting data. Go ahead and do what you wanted to do in the first place.

Politicians of all stripes and parties have, of course, tried to this kind of thing for a long time, to one degree or another, but the Republican party has, especially starting with disbanding the Office of Technical Assessment when Newt Gingrich's Republicans took over the House, only getting worse with the Bush administration and total Republican control of Congress, pushed the politicization and manipulation of science to shameless extremes, all in service of the dictates of corporate interests and the Religious Right.

Given the anti-intellectual bent of the American public, and the easy job it is to play upon the scientific ignorance of the American public, pushing for more objectivity in science and better use of science in forming public policy is going to be a hard sell. It's very frustrating that one has to figure out how to put smart ideas into stupidly simple terms in order to sell them!

I think the Katrina debacle and all of the problems with pre-war intelligence give Democrats an opening for a simple "branding" of a whole set of ideas, however: competence.

Under this banner, Democrats could sell themselves as the party to restore the importance of competence in many areas... management of government agencies, handling of intelligence (Dems might have fallen for Bush's cooked data, but they can credibly argue, at least once they honestly 'fess up to having been duped, that they wouldn't themselves have done the cooking in the first place), and (more on topic) Democrats can promise greater competence in the use of and cultivation of science.

I've never bought the Republican mantra that Democrats "don't have any ideas" -- what Democrats have lacked is strong party coordination to clearly express the common elements of their various ideas, sloganeering (over-)simplification of their ideas, and the balls to speak up loudly and clearly in favor of what they believe in, rather than worrying about alienating those who've previously bought into what the Republicans have been selling.

[ColanderOfDeath]

I wish there were some way that the democrats could more effectively use science as a wedge issue. We know all about the Christian right and their love of science. But what would be nice would be if the democrats could somehow translate the importance of science education and technology as a necessary engine for economic growth- which it is- and make that an agenda issue for the corporate/capitalist overlor...er donors I mean to the Republican party. Thereby pitting the wingnuts against the wingtipped bling blingers. Dunno how you can make it so though.

[Mac on a Mac]

Situations like this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4468812.stm

don't help those of us in science capture the public trust.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I wish there were some way that the democrats could more effectively use science as a wedge issue.

I know this is idealistic (and perhaps naive) of me...but shouldn't we be hoping that politicians stop trying to create or use "wedge" issues? Should the objective to be to unite rather than divide. This "wedge" issue thing is exactly the kind of thing that this administration (and Republicans in general) do and that so many express such distaste for.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
Situations like this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4468812.stm

don't help those of us in science capture the public trust.

Some interesting snippets:

He said he had not been truthful about the source of some of the eggs and had been too focussed on results.

"I was blinded by work and my drive for achievement."

"I think that Dr Hwang is the brightest star of Korea in the 21st century and an innovative figure who could save the human race. His research is already well advanced and must continue whatever the cost," said Mrs Kim.

I wonder where else this kind of thing happens.

[dmz]

I would be more concerned on "Science's" war on research; go here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html and, in particular, read:

"Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate"
"Science Policy in the 21st Century"

and my personal favorite:
"Environmentalism as Religion"

[Mac on a Mac]

Some in science, like some in any profession will do "whatever it takes" to win. Unfortunately, Dr Hwang is in a very controversial and visible area of research. He could easily become a poster child for the "Don't trust the scientists” people. He can be made out to be everyone’s greatest fear.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I wish there were some way that the democrats could more effectively use science as a wedge issue.

The would but they would have to give up such issues as nature vs. nurture, that a single mom can in fact be the same as a married couple, that we can use and manage our natural resources instead of simply leaving them pristine, etc.

But what would be nice would be if the democrats could somehow translate the importance of science education and technology as a necessary engine for economic growth.

That would be nice but it would require them to give up using science to show that all husbands beat their wives during the SuperBowl, etc.

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
Some in science, like some in any profession will do "whatever it takes" to win. Unfortunately, Dr Hwang is in a very controversial and visible area of research. He could easily become a poster child for the "Don't trust the scientists” people. He can be made out to be everyone’s greatest fear.

I be hesitant to paint that broad a stroke. I would openly wonder if he is indicitive or simply the exception. This is a fair question to ask.

[BR]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I be hesitant to paint that broad a stroke. I would openly wonder if he is indicitive or simply the exception. This is a fair question to ask.
But we are evil anti-religious cowards if we attempt to use the same brush on the ID folk when trying to determine their motives.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
But we are evil anti-religious cowards if we attempt to use the same brush on the ID folk when trying to determine their motives.

Well I have never said or suggested such a thing.

You may have misunderstood what I was saying...let me re-phrase:

I am (personally) hesitant to paint that broad a stroke. I (personally) would openly wonder if he is indicitive or simply an exception.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I know this is idealistic (and perhaps naive) of me...but shouldn't we be hoping that politicians stop trying to create or use "wedge" issues?....This "wedge" issue thing is exactly the kind of thing that this administration (and Republicans in general) do and that so many express such distaste for.

In an ideal world perhaps the answer is yes. In the real world given the possibility of continuing the type of governance we've seen by the current crop of Republicans during their five years (roughly so even with the Jeffords flip) of control in Congress and the White House I'll take the wedge issue.

Should the objective to be to unite rather than divide.
No I don't think so. There's nothing wrong with having disagreement and letting it stand at as at times. I don't suppose that we could come to any sort of agreement on abortion. If you believe in your pro-life position you should fight for it if it is worth fighting for and I will fight against it. Now not every issue is that divisive and some battles do beg compromises.

Rather than unity making things more pleasant I should like to think civility perhaps could be a nice addition and I would much prefer thoughtful expressions of political ideological positions rather than the talking point/soundbyte/screaming/ranting type of lowest common denominator tongue wagging that is prevalent in what you see both from politicians and the media. The simplicity of it would be an insult to people's intelligence if the effectiveness did not suggest that indeed a great many of us are content or even manipulated by that garbage.

Of course no one is perfect and who can resist lobbing an occasional hand grenade when it comes to politics? ;)

The would but they would have to give up such issues as nature vs. nurture, that a single mom can in fact be the same as a married couple
Political non-starter.

that we can use and manage our natural resources instead of simply leaving them pristine, etc.
There is no mainstream political movement in this country arguing for leaving our natural resources pristine. The only question is what is the acceptable scale and type of degradation and the overall picture is that broadly the answer it is OK on 95% of our land to take it out of its natural state and put it to economic use. Haggling over amounts of degradation is a bit murkier but we're still a long way from pristine almost everywhere (outside AK perhaps).
That would be nice but it would require them to give up using science to show that all husbands beat their wives during the SuperBowl, etc.Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what this reference is to.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
In an ideal world perhaps the answer is yes. In the real world given the possibility of continuing the type of governance we've seen by the current crop of Republicans during their five years (roughly so even with the Jeffords flip) of control in Congress and the White House I'll take the wedge issue.

That's kind of unfortunate. Sink to the level that many appear to despise or rise above it. Again my idealism rearing its ugly head.

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
No I don't think so. There's nothing wrong with having disagreement and letting it stand at as at times. <snip>
Rather than unity making things more pleasant I should like to think civility perhaps could be a nice addition and I would much prefer thoughtful expressions of political ideological positions rather than the talking point/soundbyte/screaming/ranting type of lowest common denominator tongue wagging that is prevalent in what you see both from politicians and the media.

I agree. Civility would be good starting point.

[BRussell]

I haven't read this book, but just judging from the title, it seems to me that the reality is both more general and more specific than a "Republican war on science." It's more general because there seems to be a willingness to simply ignore reality and history and facts, as well as science: It's not just evolution and global warming, it's "deficits don't matter" and "they'll welcome us as liberators" and "social security is insolvent so let's make it more insolvent to save it" and "we know there are WMDs," "the medicare drug benefit won't cost much," and so on.

But it's also more specific than a "Republican war on science," because I associate this trend not with Republicans in general, but with this Bush administration. This group genuinely seems to believe, to put it as charitably as possible, that they can change the world, and so perhaps they have less interest in actually understanding it than they should. In fact, liberals have traditionally been thought of as the emotional, ultra-idealistic ones and the conservatives were the cold-hearted realists. I don't think there's anything intrinsic about political ideology and science, it's just that this administration is, well, what it is. There are certainly occasions when science has conflicted with left-wing values, but perhaps because Democrats don't have any power right now, they have no influence over these things.

(But having tried to be as fair as I can muster, I'm sure this book catalogues dozens of times when science has been trumped by politics in an unprecedented manner in the past 5 years.)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Political non-starter.

You would think so, but I'm not the one complaining that Democrats are losing elections because single women don't turn out to vote and have the lowest voter participation rate.

Just because the wedge voters didn't turn out doesn't mean the party didn't try to make them a wedge issue.

Also nurture versus nature is indeed a massive political issue. We want to assume something like homosexuality is a trait that cannot be altered and exists from birth yet believe that other traits like propensity toward violence, inclination to be addicted to drugs or alcohol, or intelligence are all factors that society controls. How are those two things scientifically consistant?

There is no mainstream political movement in this country arguing for leaving our natural resources pristine. The only question is what is the acceptable scale and type of degradation and the overall picture is that broadly the answer it is OK on 95% of our land to take it out of its natural state and put it to economic use. Haggling over amounts of degradation is a bit murkier but we're still a long way from pristine almost everywhere (outside AK perhaps).

I disagree. There are plenty of mainstream organizations arguing that our national forests and parks are destroyed when left in anything beneath a pristine state. They claim that simply trimming back overgrowth that promotes fires, bark beetles, or building roads for access are destroying such places. Their view is that humankind is the enemy and that our resources cannot be managed.

Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what this reference is to.

It is a reference to much of the pseudo-science that makes up various ethnic and gender studies and college departments. The left buys into these groups and the various "science" claims. My particular reference related to the badgering of NBC to run a PSA during the SuperBowl raising awareness of domestic violence as a crime. The groups doing the badgering of course were later debunked as to their claims that SuperBowl Sunday was one of the busiest days of the year at domestic violence shelters.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I haven't read this book, but just judging from the title, it seems to me that the reality is both more general and more specific than a "Republican war on science." It's more general because there seems to be a willingness to simply ignore reality and history and facts, as well as science: It's not just evolution and global warming, it's "deficits don't matter" and "they'll welcome us as liberators" and "social security is insolvent so let's make it more insolvent to save it" and "we know there are WMDs," "the medicare drug benefit won't cost much," and so on.

What is your reality BRussell? Do you support the multicultural view that claims there is no objective reality? Do you support the various gender and ethnic scientific studies that create laws like sexual harassment that attempt to criminalize people for creating a hostile environment as determined by the feelings of the offended?

I tried to poke a little stick at people and about financial understanding but do most people even understand about money systems and how they work? Do you even really know what money happens to be? What is a deficit since you want to get rid of it? If it is a monetary deficit, then what is money?

Can someone have mixed feelings about a situation? For example could someone liberate you from an oppressive situation and yet you could still desire not to want to adopt their beliefs, lifestyle or culture? Does not desiring such things mean you "hate" them or didn't welcome the liberation?

Does the fact that a WMD was proven to exist, cannot be documented to have been destroyed and now cannot be found prove that the person making the WMD claim was a liar or that they were simply moved even to a person we would consider to be not an ally of Iraq? How is the belief that the enemy of our enemy must be a friend scientific?

ut it's also more specific than a "Republican war on science," because I associate this trend not with Republicans in general, but with this Bush administration. This group genuinely seems to believe, to put it as charitably as possible, that they can change the world, and so perhaps they have less interest in actually understanding it than they should.

What has changed the world? Do you think communist regimes who claimed good intentions did any better at controlling and managing human behavior and efforts? Can humans even be guided by science alone? What is scientific about equalizing outcomes and resources when nothing in nature shows us such behaviors? Evolution says that certain traits promote survival and other traits do not and the negative traits do not deserve protection or preservation. How does this gel with a social justice model?

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
What is your reality BRussell? Do you support the multicultural view that claims there is no objective reality? Do you support the various gender and ethnic scientific studies that create laws like sexual harassment that attempt to criminalize people for creating a hostile environment as determined by the feelings of the offended? No I don't support those things and I said above that left-wing values have conflicted with reality. There's no doubt in my mind that the social sciences in the 1960s were misguided by the left-wing values of the era, mostly gender and cultural relativism.

I tried to poke a little stick at people and about financial understanding but do most people even understand about money systems and how they work? Do you even really know what money happens to be? What is a deficit since you want to get rid of it? If it is a monetary deficit, then what is money? Is this the multicultural, post-modern view of economics? There is a basic reality, that we're better off paying for what we spend, and this administration has intentionally ignored that basic reality. It sounds to me like you're trying to obfuscate that basic fact with this passage.

Can someone have mixed feelings about a situation? For example could someone liberate you from an oppressive situation and yet you could still desire not to want to adopt their beliefs, lifestyle or culture? Does not desiring such things mean you "hate" them or didn't welcome the liberation?

Does the fact that a WMD was proven to exist, cannot be documented to have been destroyed and now cannot be found prove that the person making the WMD claim was a liar or that they were simply moved even to a person we would consider to be not an ally of Iraq? How is the belief that the enemy of our enemy must be a friend scientific? As I said, this is not just about science, it's a broader denial of reality, or, to put it more charitably, a desire to create new realities, to make history. And as a means to do so, members of the administration testified publicly that we wouldn't need very many troops, that it would cost nothing, that we'd be out virtually immediately after the invasion, that there were specific pieces of evidence showing Iraq had WMDs, that we could fix the social security deficit through their plan, that medicare prescription drugs would cost 500 billion rather than 1 trillion, that you bring in more taxes by cutting taxes, etc. All things that were known at the time to be untrue or extremely unlikely.

What has changed the world? Do you think communist regimes who claimed good intentions did any better at controlling and managing human behavior and efforts? Can humans even be guided by science alone? What is scientific about equalizing outcomes and resources when nothing in nature shows us such behaviors? Evolution says that certain traits promote survival and other traits do not and the negative traits do not deserve protection or preservation. How does this gel with a social justice model? No, in my view, humans cannot be guided by science alone. Social darwinism is a good example. But we must have common agreement on reality before we can debate how our values should guide our actions. In short, we shouldn't lie. Radical thought, I know.

[shetline]

(Sitting at the airport in Cleveland, arguing on a web forum, PowerBook connected to the internet via Bluetooth cellphone... gotta love technology!)

Originally posted by trumptman
Also nurture versus nature is indeed a massive political issue. We want to assume something like homosexuality is a trait that cannot be altered and exists from birth yet believe that other traits like propensity toward violence, inclination to be addicted to drugs or alcohol, or intelligence are all factors that society controls. How are those two things scientifically consistant?
While I understand where the argument about homosexuality being an inborn trait comes from, and understand why many argue for gay rights on that basis, to me it's always seemed totally besides the point.

I don't give a damn whether or not someone is born that way or simply wakes up one day and says, "Hmmm. I think some gay sex would be fun today" -- the simple matter is that it's none of my business. My argument for gay rights is that civil government has no business trying to control private consentual sexual behavior among adults, and has no valid interest in favoring heterosexual unions over homosexual unions.

[shetline]

The Republican approach to science strikes me as being an awfully lot like the Fox News approach to news...

Claim there's "liberal bias" -- perhaps even validly in some cases, but hardly in all cases nor to a degree sufficient to justify the great big conservative show of indignance we see -- and decide that the "solution" to this bias, rather than a more stringent attempt at objectivity, is heavy-handed deliberate bias in the opposite direction.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Originally posted by trumptman
[B]You would think so, but I'm not the one complaining that Democrats are losing elections because single women don't turn out to vote and have the lowest voter participation rate.

Nor I. I'm not enough of a political junkie to say how the democrats are doing on a broad scale when you talk about Democrats losing elections in the 99% of cases that are local, county, or state level. It is clearly true though at the small but more "important" national level. I would suggest that anyone talking about not turning single women out, er, lets re-phrase that as not getting single women to vote donkey is of course dancing around the fact that Democrats don't have many issues that really energize voters including the single women who trend their way at the polls. Of course, another Supreme Court justice or two and that could all change very quickly.

Also nurture versus nature is indeed a massive political issue. We want to assume something like homosexuality is a trait that cannot be altered and exists from birth yet believe that other traits like propensity toward violence, inclination to be addicted to drugs or alcohol, or intelligence are all factors that society controls. How are those two things scientifically consistant?

To the extent homosexual marriage is a big issue the nature vs. nurture part of it is a diversion. The truth is that some people believe gay marriage is OK because they have a live and let live attitude and others believe that it is wrong for reasons which are either historical, religious/moral/ideological, or due to general uncomfortableness with gayness and a fear of having to confront it in their daily lives. Say hypothetically that nurture is truth on this issue; the pro-gay marriage folks will still say that even if that is a choice [not necessarily a concious choice but that or subconcious or a learned choice] that it is still their choice and no harm to others and some will agree. Say it is nature and some people will say it is a flawed nature or modern original sign or whatever. Gay marriage is about the tug of war between absolute moralities with historical underpinnings and newer social norms of "tolerance". The Bob Jones Biogenetics College could find a gene for homosexuality tomorrow and I would still bet everything I have on gay marriage bans being successful in virtually every statewide jurisdiction in the 2006 elections.

I disagree. There are plenty of mainstream organizations arguing that our national forests and parks are destroyed when left in anything beneath a pristine state.

This will get a bit off target but at the least we've already moved from Our Natural Resources to NPS/USFS. AK is a special case due to scale and historical circumstances and I would discuss it seperately. For the lower 48 the FS has 171 million acres and the NPS about 29 based on my quick NPS back of the napkin calculation. That is out of 1893 million acres total in the lower 48 so if we talk NPS/USFS battles we're skipping over the other 89% of our land in the lower 48 which would not be part of any argument about the destruction of NPS/USFS land. Note for example that we have about 450 million acres dedicated to farming. Then another 550-600 is range/pasture/cattle land. Or compare that 171 million acres of USFS land, which is inclusive of all land uses not just special areas or IRAs and compare it to the 438 million acres of forest land in state or private hands which is 2.5x the amount of federal forest land. The truth is that while there are people arguing for certain areas to be set aside or left unroaded, the majority of this country is already in private hand and the vast majority of that land as well as even the majority of public land is used in some form for the natural resources. Moreover, as ARC/RAT/Fee Demo have clearly shown, even in those area which are designated or adjunct there is still a corporate interest and an economic interest in using those indirectly for their commercial value.

Anyone familiar with Pombo's semantical arguments over untrammeled already knows that most environmental groups acknowledge that pristine is a scale which when taken literally leaves very very little little land in the lower 48, maybe none.

They claim that simply trimming back overgrowth

Overgrowth in at least 99% of cases results from either second/third growth forests which are too dense and/or invasive species. Anyone arguing either for leaving high density forests alone or for thinning is acknowledging that those forests are already no longer pristine.

Btw, high density forests do not really promote fire per se as they are not substantially more likely to have a fire. But rather they make fires much more intense and much more difficult to fight because of the intensity and because of the logistics.

Their view is that humankind is the enemy and that our resources cannot be managed.

This seems a bit cartoonish doesn't it? I believe that the position would probably be stated as more like we have a finite amount of land in this country which is not already in use for urban, farming, range, mining, forestry, tree farm etc use. We should do all that we can to protect the natural world. SOmetimes this will be at the tradeoff of resource extraction or economic benefit. However, given that the overwhelming amount of our resources and our society is already oriented that way it is in our interest to preserve that which is left. Certainly one can argue that they want more and more degradation for economic benefit and that the degradation is minimal. This is after all the GOP ANWR position, the Oil> "400" acres of degraded tundra. How one evaluates those tradeoffs leads to whatever position one has. But the notion that there is even all that much pristine land left in the 48 or that environmentalists have not already ceded away most of the land/resources before there was an environmental movement of consequence in this country is sheer poppycock.

My particular reference related to the badgering of NBC to run a PSA during the SuperBowl raising awareness of domestic violence as a crime. The groups doing the badgering of course were later debunked as to their claims that SuperBowl Sunday was one of the busiest days of the year at domestic violence shelters.

Ah I will have to search out and read that one.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
No I don't support those things and I said above that left-wing values have conflicted with reality. There's no doubt in my mind that the social sciences in the 1960s were misguided by the left-wing values of the era, mostly gender and cultural relativism.

Yet the science that backs it isn't being challenged because if you challenge it then you are a racist or sexist.

Is this the multicultural, post-modern view of economics? There is a basic reality, that we're better off paying for what we spend, and this administration has intentionally ignored that basic reality. It sounds to me like you're trying to obfuscate that basic fact with this passage.

It isn't any sort of radical view of economics. It simply an attempt to show how little most people understand about money. People talk about deficits, spending priorities, trade deficits, etc. Then they don't even really know what money happens to be. How can you pay for what you

spend if you don't know what you are spending?

As I said, this is not just about science, it's a broader denial of reality, or, to put it more charitably, a desire to create new realities, to make history.

Make history.. you mean like the very existance of this country? Most of what the United States is attempting to do has never been done before and is in fact, a new reality. Where the hell is the guidebook on this thing?

And as a means to do so, members of the administration testified publicly that we wouldn't need very many troops,

Compared to what we have used historically, these are low numbers of troops.


that it would cost nothing, that it would cost nothing,

Nothing is a bit extreme, but as a percentage of GDP, as a preventative measure, and in comparison to other wars, Iraq has been cheap.

that we'd be out virtually immediately after the invasion,

I've not read that we would be out immediately. Considering we aren't out of Somalia, Bosnia, or even Europe, I don't honestly think people were expecting no presense.

that there were specific pieces of evidence showing Iraq had WMDs,

This intelligence was true across multiple administrations, but even if I ceded it as a point, it simply shows we need something beyond science, numbers and data to determine our actions. People can make the data read the way they want. We need more than just science.

that we could fix the social security deficit through their plan

No plan can fix social security as it currently exists.

that medicare prescription drugs would cost 500 billion rather than 1 trillion

Proving yet again that government projections for new spending, when submitted by Republicans or Democrats are basically baseless lies that always balloon to ridiculous sizes afterward.

that you bring in more taxes by cutting taxes, etc.

Tax collections are indeed higher at this point. No one would ever claim that certain price points wouldn't bring in more business or that coupons, sales or simplifying choices wouldn't either. Why is the government somehow different?

All things that were known at the time to be untrue or extremely unlikely.

You judge things in the midst of happening or claim some items that are simply wrong.

No, in my view, humans cannot be guided by science alone. Social darwinism is a good example. But we must have common agreement on reality before we can debate how our values should guide our actions. In short, we shouldn't lie. Radical thought, I know.

How can we have a common agreement on reality? Even a jury when presented with the same information will not always come back 12-0. You say people shouldn't lie and I agree. However people will rationalize and justify pretty much anything. I've witnessed far more lies from groups attempting to redefine and alter our society that just about anyone else.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
(Sitting at the airport in Cleveland, arguing on a web forum, PowerBook connected to the internet via Bluetooth cellphone... gotta love technology!)


While I understand where the argument about homosexuality being an inborn trait comes from, and understand why many argue for gay rights on that basis, to me it's always seemed totally besides the point.

I don't give a damn whether or not someone is born that way or simply wakes up one day and says, "Hmmm. I think some gay sex would be fun today" -- the simple matter is that it's none of my business. My argument for gay rights is that civil government has no business trying to control private consentual sexual behavior among adults, and has no valid interest in favoring heterosexual unions over homosexual unions.

I have argued that making homosexual rights a genetic argument is a weak position as well. It is indeed beside the point. Yet the latter points, that government does indeed control private consensual behavior cannot be ignored. The rights of governed to determine what their government does and endorses cannot be ignored either.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Nor I. I'm not enough of a political junkie to say how the democrats are doing on a broad scale when you talk about Democrats losing elections in the 99% of cases that are local, county, or state level. It is clearly true though at the small but more "important" national level. I would suggest that anyone talking about not turning single women out, er, lets re-phrase that as not getting single women to vote donkey is of course dancing around the fact that Democrats don't have many issues that really energize voters including the single women who trend their way at the polls. Of course, another Supreme Court justice or two and that could all change very quickly.

Maybe they do have issues, and maybe even a full blown agenda. However the reality is that they cannot run on it because it goes against what most people desire, feel is right or even what science happens to show is right as well.

To the extent homosexual marriage is a big issue the nature vs. nurture part of it is a diversion. The truth is that some people believe gay marriage is OK because they have a live and let live attitude and others believe that it is wrong for reasons which are either historical, religious/moral/ideological, or due to general uncomfortableness with gayness and a fear of having to confront it in their daily lives.

You forget a very important reason that fits in well with this thread topic. There are also those who feel homosexuality is not a genetic advantage, that it does nothing to promote the continuation of the species and as such should not be protected. That isn't my view, but if one must claim "science" for themselves, they must also be willing to claim the good with the bad.

And....

There is indeed more, but I am tired.

:lol:

Have a good evening...

Nick

[soulcrusher]

I wonder what's worse for science:

1) The post-modernists that claim that science, like everything, is a cultural construction that does not represent an objective view of reality.

2) The religious fanatics that dislike science because it gives a secular explanation of phenomena, reality.

Science makes correct predictions. Suck it.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
You forget a very important reason that fits in well with this thread topic. There are also those who feel homosexuality is not a genetic advantage, that it does nothing to promote the continuation of the species and as such should not be protected. That isn't my view, but if one must claim "science" for themselves, they must also be willing to claim the good with the bad.
One important thing the book points out is that one must make a clear distinction between science and policy.

Science can tell you, as best as current research allows, to what extent homosexuality is or is not an inborn and/or inherited trait. Science can tell you to what extent homosexuality impacts the propagation of the species. Science doesn't tell you what policies and laws to create, however, because science doesn't tell you if it matters morally or politically whether a behavior results from an inborn trait. Science doesn't tell you how much to concern yourself with the degree to which propagation of the species is promoted.

The importance of good science -- science which attempts as best as human foibles allow to be as objective as possible -- is to provide the best data about, and the best understanding of, the world we live in so that policy decisions, whatever legal, moral, and political values you wish to apply, can have as solid a foundation as possible.

The current Republican use of the phrase "sound science", and specific legal embodiments of that concept such as the so-called "Data Quality Act", are ways of trying to hide policy decisions -- decisions to accept very high levels of risk and/or potential harm in favor of, typically, vested economic interests -- behind denigration of any science, regardless of how truly sound that science is at accurately predicting lower degrees of risk and harm, which doesn't demonstrate a (cynically chosen) policy-driven threshold of danger.

For instance, the tobacco industry has tried to get standards established for the dangers associated with second-hand smoke such that only when study data shows that exposure to second-hand smoke would at least DOUBLE (increase by 100%) a person's risk of getting cancer is that study data to be considered "valid" input for any regulation of tobacco products.

This is completely ridiculous and flagrantly manipulative. It's quite possible to show even small increases in risk -- say 5% or 10% -- which are nevertheless statistically significant and quite real. Discounting the importance of raising someone's risk of cancer by 5% is a policy decision, not a scientific conclusion. The tobacco industry, however, would rather pretend that it's the science itself which is bad if an increased cancer risk of "only" 5% is shown -- because it's better to pose as a stalwart defender of "sound science" than it is to pose as an economic interest willing to accept extra death and illness among non-smokers as the price of protecting profits.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
One important thing the book points out is that one must make a clear distinction between science and policy.


No what the book points out is that if you agree with leftist dogma, then you support science and also happen to be right. If you have the rightist view, then you are ignoring science and are a fundi freakshow.

This is (with apologies to Colander as every example I bring up is spinning into a discussion of its own) the double standard the book brings to the discussion. If someone on the right has let science inform their policy, but realizes science has limits to what it can explain and informs their decision with some other source, philosophy, religion, elightenment teachings, etc. then they have now declared "war" on science.

This is PRECISELY what Bush did with his stem cell decision. He took purely scientific concerns and balanced them against ethical concerns.

You argue that Democrats can argue that they will be more competent and also use science correctly. They still voted against Kyoto. They still declare every Bush domestic initiative that has EXPLODED the deficit to not be fully funded. They still refuse to reform social security when it clearly is going to fail. They even refuse to discuss the scientific fact that life expectancy has gone up and thus so should retirement age.

I don't point those examples out to discuss every one of them in length but to show that your premise, that Democrats do use science better and can use it to create better policy is simply nonsense. They won't deal with cultural traits, gender issues, retirement age, etc in any sort of scientific or even objective manner.

What your thread actually shows is how Democrats are the masters of hate. They take a policy difference or attempt to grab a group of voters and do so with claims of hate. Sexism, racism, ageism, and now I suppose scientism will be the next -ism they decide to add. They always practice more offensive forms of all the -isms and manage to dupe a few into believing they are the true reformers against the various hates they often promote.

Nick

[soulcrusher]

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yet the latter points, that government does indeed control private consensual behavior cannot be ignored. The rights of governed to determine what their government does and endorses cannot be ignored either.
No, it can't be ignored, but the will of the governed can be overemphasized on particular hot-button issues at the expense of broader principles, which, given cooler heads, many of the governed would also support, and realize that their hot-button responses were a contradiction of their own broader values. (Hmmm, did someone say "limited government"?)

The reason to bother having a constitutional democracy with judicial review, rather than instituting a purely majoritarian system, is because one believes in the higher principles of the governed over their often contradictory impulses on specifics -- put more bluntly, one reason to have a constitutional democracy is to protect individuals from the hypocrisy of the masses. Put more dimplomatically, a constitutional democracy puts in place a system to hold people accountable to the better angels of their own nature.

The voting public often acts like an individual who has decided to go on a diet. They "elect" to go on a diet, firmly committed to that being a sound course of action, yet keep "electing" to have that extra snack, to go for that second helping, day after day, completely undermining the original chosen course of action. One can by analogy think of constitutional government as a dieting coach you hire to make sure you can't get away with shit like that.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
No what the book points out is that if you agree with leftist dogma, then you support science and also happen to be right. If you have the rightist view, then you are ignoring science and are a fundi freakshow.
Have you even read the book? Sure doesn't sound like it.

You argue that Democrats can argue that they will be more competent and also use science correctly. They still voted against Kyoto.
While I disagree with these Democrats, their voting against Kyoto had nothing to do with manipulating the science -- they maybe didn't understand the science, or did understand it but had policy differences with the enforceability of the protocol, maybe some of them were industry shills just as much as many Republicans -- but Democrats voting against Kyoto had nothing to do with the concerted Republican effort to create a rigged system meant to justify things like anti-Kyoto votes on supposedly scientific grounds.
They even refuse to discuss the scientific fact that life expectancy has gone up and thus so should retirement age.
You're just not getting what this book is about. The difference is between ignoring that life expectancy has increased, and, by analogy to what Republicans are doing on other issues, finding yourself a bunch of special-interest funded think tanks to provide you with "scientists" who will testify for you in Congress that, no, life expectancy has actually decreased. [Edit: I left out the required PR campaign to discredit everyone who claims that life expectancy is increasing as "purveyors of junk science".]
What your thread actually shows is how Democrats are the masters of hate. They take a policy difference or attempt to grab a group of voters and do so with claims of hate.
Wow. Even when I disagree with you quite a bit, I can usually give you credit for doing better than this bit of Limbaugh-esque blowhardism.

Tell me, which agenda of hate is involved with, say, my criticism of the way the tobacco industry has tried to abuse the so-called Data Quality Act?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
No, it can't be ignored, but the will of the governed can be overemphasized on particular hot-button issues at the expense of broader principles, which, given cooler heads, many of the governed would also support, and realize that their hot-button responses were a contradiction of their own broader values. (Hmmm, did someone say "limited government"?)


Sounds like a long-winded justification for telling the masses why they are too stupid to know what is best for them.

It isn't like the cooler heads supported homosexual marriage at one time and allowed one time events or immediate threats to override what they know to be best. This isn't a japanese interment camp type affair. There wasn't a time where homosexuality was generally accepted and now some hot-button issue has made it less so. Sorry but that is simply not true.

The reason to bother having a constitutional democracy with judicial review, rather than instituting a purely majoritarian system, is because one believes in the higher principles of the governed over their often contradictory impulses on specifics -- put more bluntly, one reason to have a constitutional democracy is to protect individuals from the hypocrisy of the masses. Put more dimplomatically, a constitutional democracy puts in place a system to hold people accountable to the better angels of their own nature.

Again history doesn't hold your view. The only thing judicial review is supposed to do is insure that the nature of our law is not changed by one time or isolated events. The Constitution can be amended and the nature of the court can be changed by a majority view being in power for an extended period. You forget the Supreme Court under this same Constitution is the one that gave us Dred Scott. The nature of that court was changed by majority rule on appointments and also with amendments. You should also look into the 30's and FDR and why our Supreme Court still has nine justices and why we now have an amendment stating that presidents can serve only two terms.

As you note it is a check against impulses. The majority desiring something for 30-40 years is not an impulse.

The voting public often acts like an individual who has decided to go on a diet. They "elect" to go on a diet, firmly committed to that being a sound course of action, yet keep "electing" to have that extra snack, to go for that second helping, day after day, completely undermining the original chosen course of action. One can by analogy think of constitutional government as a dieting coach you hire to make sure you can't get away with shit like that.

What is interesting and yet totally odd about your analogy is that a one time decision is upheld while all the dozens, perhaps hundreds of additional actions/votes afterward should be ignored.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Have you even read the book? Sure doesn't sound like it.


A couple hundred pages of explanation about a bad premise won't suddenly make me think it is a good premise. You could hand me a 500 page book about why beating your wife is good practice. When I dismiss the ideal, declaring that I haven't read the book won't change my mind about the ideal it promotes. The reality is that science alone is not the sole principle by which we can govern. Pointing out that one party does this when in fact EVERYONE does this is not a convincing means of discrediting a party, a president, or anyone else.

While I disagree with these Democrats, their voting against Kyoto had nothing to do with manipulating the science -- they maybe didn't understand the science, or did understand it but had policy differences with the enforceability of the protocol, maybe some of them were industry shills just as much as many Republicans -- but Democrats voting against Kyoto had nothing to do with the concerted Republican effort to create a rigged system meant to justify things like anti-Kyoto votes on supposedly scientific grounds.

Isn't it amazing how your party looking glass creates an entirely different set of justifications depending upon the little letter next to the name of the person voting? GO TEAM! Why all the above wouldn't be true for conservatives as well is a very interesting question don't you think? Obviously they all desire to have the planet be a barren, lifeless rock and to have all of us dead. By the way that vote, 95-0 really doesn't create much grey.

Here's a hint. Get off intent. For the thousandth time, it isn't convincing reasoning to say, "Yeah we voted the same, even acted the same but we are different because our hearts are good and they are evil."

You're just not getting what this book is about. The difference is between ignoring that life expectancy has increased, and, by analogy to what Republicans are doing on other issues, finding yourself a bunch of special-interest funded think tanks to provide you with "scientists" who will testify for you in Congress that, no, life expectancy has actually decreased. [Edit: I left out the required PR campaign to discredit everyone who claims that life expectancy is increasing as "purveyors of junk science".]

Nonsense. There are indeed leftist special interests who do the same sort of things. They don't call it junk science because they, like you, prefer to deal with intent and the hate the person must hold in their heart when voting a certain way. Who can get onto the good and bad science when "Republicans want to throw old people off a cliff and watch them die in the streets?" How can we get to the sound and unsound science regarding say hurricanes and levees when "George Bush hates black people."

Wow. Even when I disagree with you quite a bit, I can usually give you credit for doing better than this bit of Limbaugh-esque blowhardism.

It isn't blowhardism. It is simply reality. The left seldom deals with ideals and instead deals with intent. When they can get over the "gotcha" politicing where the "gotcha" shows true intent of various -isms. Then we can actually discuss ideals.

I assure you I would love to have two healthy parties debating ideals. When we can discuss say civil unions, marriage and family court reform without having someone call me a homophobe who hates women, then it will be a real advance.

Tell me, which agenda of hate is involved with, say, my criticism of the way the tobacco industry has tried to abuse the so-called Data Quality Act?

The hateful intent is shown in the framing of the question. You make it sound as if actually discussing trade-offs in policy is itself, a hateful proposition. The reality is that no matter what issue you deal with, there will be trade-offs and costs.

Now I am practically an anti-smoking Nazi and would prefer the stuff just banned. However even I can realize that the result for any analysis will never be zero deaths or zero risk. Am I more likely to disagree with a tobacco industry death to prevention analysis than I am a "sound science" death to prevention analysis? Probably. Do I somehow believe that this sort of thing only occurs in the tobacco industry? Absolutely not.

That my friend is the difference. You think that the tobacco industry would cook the books and that say, the domestic violence industry and divorce court industry would not because "their hearts are in the right place." I'll gladly apply skepticism to both sides while you excuse your own team from it.

As I've said in the past, there is plenty of political ground to be gained by any group that wants to attempt this. I have never claimed that Republicans are perfect or even that there are areas where they are outright wrong in their policies. I've strongly advocated for Democratic party reforms to make the party competitive again and I've also advocated for removing any provision that limits the ability of third parties to form or get ballot access.

I've watched the Republican party splinter at times between fiscal and cultural conservatives. I've watched vigorous fights between moderate and strongly conservative Republicans. We can even watch the party turn on it's own president, destroy his nominee and then come together again behind the next candidate.

I don't see this type of debate or argument going on within the left. I don't see new ideals being generated. I don't see disagreements occur and then parties still be politically viable afterward. I wouldn't mind seeing it though and in fact encourage it.

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
This is PRECISELY what Bush did with his stem cell decision. He took purely scientific concerns and balanced them against ethical concerns.
Actually, this is a perfect example of Bush distorting information to the breaking point in order to justify a decision.

Bush claimed their were "60 lines" of stem cells available to researchers when he gave his rationale for his policy decision. This was outright mistaken, if not an outright lie. There may have been 60 derivations, but there's an enormous differences between a derivation and a line -- one starts with a derivation, then one hopes to create a line, but the odds of getting a good line from a derivation are low. The reality was that there were no more than 20 lines, and most of those were so contaminated that researchers considered them useless.

Now, if Bush's ethics tell him that we shouldn't make new lines of stem cells no matter what, why not say, "We don't have many viable lines, but what we have will have to do."? I'll tell you why -- he'd rather dress up his decision behind false data so he doesn't end up looking as harshly against stem cell research as he would without the false data for cover.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
A couple hundred pages of explanation about a bad premise won't suddenly make me think it is a good premise.
You obviously don't even understand the premise of the book. It appears you've simplified it in your mind to "Republican BAD!" and have decided to take offense at your own oversimplification.
You could hand me a 500 page book about why beating your wife is good practice. When I dismiss the ideal, declaring that I haven't read the book won't change my mind about the ideal it promotes.
Of course, if the book is really about home plumbing, and you're ranting about how nothing is going to make you change your mind about wife beating and the book is too awful to read for even bringing it up, you'll have to understand why everyone else looks at you funny at tells you you're missing the point.
The reality is that science alone is not the sole principle by which we can govern.
And the book says just this. I've said just this. But please, don't let me interfere with the straw man you're having such a good time knocking down.

[Carson O'Genic]

For the most part I think both Republicans and Democrats are 'friends' of science. Both parties recognize the value of scientific research across many fields of research and have been genreous with taxpayer dollars to fund such research.

My only real complaint with the Republicans is that they impose to many limits based on conservative social values. Embryonic stem cell research is one big one. The recent uptick in twisting research to fit ideology is also a turn for the worst, e.g. global warming. The whole abstinance über alles program for dealing with pregnancy and STD prevention is also counter to what has been shown to work.

Both the elephants and the donkeys get a D- in my book for energy policy. They only react - fleetingly - to immediate issues when they should have been planning a long-term fix since the first energy crises in the Carter administration. I say a 50 cents/gallon gas tax all dedicated to research and expansion of renewables and no more kowtowing to the nucklheads in Detroit regarding milage standards.

Most importantly, funding for research is bad and getting worse right now. That is mostly the fault of an admistration that doesn't know how to balance a check book. On the bright side, a few of those freshly minted billionaires being created may decide to donate some of their money to research.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Actually, this is a perfect example of Bush distorting information to the breaking point in order to justify a decision.

Bush claimed their were "60 lines" of stem cells available to researchers when he gave his rationale for his policy decision. This was outright mistaken, if not an outright lie. There may have been 60 derivations, but there's an enormous differences between a derivation and a line -- one starts with a derivation, then one hopes to create a line, but the odds of getting a good line from a derivation are low. The reality was that there were no more than 20 lines, and most of those were so contaminated that researchers considered them useless.

Now, if Bush's ethics tell him that we shouldn't make new lines of stem cells no matter what, why not say, "We don't have many viable lines, but what we have will have to do."? I'll tell you why -- he'd rather dress up his decision behind false data so he doesn't end up looking as harshly against stem cell research as he would without the false data for cover.

BTW, saw this today and just had to throw it in for fun.

http://home.earthlink.net/~trumptman/data/Pictures/dilbert.gif

On the stem cell matter, you claim the Bush motivation for exaggerating the number of available stem cell lines it to appear less harsh when limiting a type of research that ethically is not resolved yet. Again, can you think of any politician or even any person who, when pressed to make a decision that will probably piss off about half the population would not try to avoid being harsh about it?

Isn't that called being empathetic? Would you have considered it better if he had said screw you all and you get no stem cells?

I'm sure you would have just preferred the federal government fund stem cell research with no reservations. However the reality is that people do have moral and ethical concerns about the science. The disagreement here doesn't mean one party "hates" science or even is misrepresenting the results.

We could scientifically engineer a better society by limiting who can procreate but ethical and moral concerns limit what we can do there. They don't limit it with animals or with plants. No one would think twice about limiting the breeding of horses to mates that will only produce strong, faster horses. Yet with humans we call this eugenics and do not allow it even though selective breeding for improvement is sound science with proven results. If someone does not endorse eugenics do they "hate science." Are they at war with science? Are they misrepresenting what science could accomplish?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
You obviously don't even understand the premise of the book. It appears you've simplified it in your mind to "Republican BAD!" and have decided to take offense at your own oversimplification.

What I am discussing is straight out of the editorial reviews. Science alone is not enough. Science can possibly give us cures to various ailments from stem cells, and it can also give us the atomic bomb. The fact that someone disagrees with a use of a particular science does not mean they are at war with it, hate it or even that they

BTW, when you dig into the all the editorial reviews you see that mentioned in the Washington Post review...

Evidence abounds of the Bush administration's ham-handed approach to making science policy. The topic is thus ripe for a quasi-scholarly, quasi-journalistic study -- perhaps one akin to Daniel S. Greenberg's 1967 classic, The Politics of Pure Science , or its excellent 2001 successor, Science, Money, and Politics. Unfortunately, Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science is not that study.

That's a shame, for he is a talented and energetic young Washington correspondent for Seed, an excellent and relatively new popular-science magazine. In writing a book about science-policy-making in America today, Mooney has bravely tackled a gigantic and complex topic. Unfortunately, the journalist in him won out over the scholar, for he ends up trying to reduce the subject's complexities to the "good guy/bad guy" categories of TV polemicists. The resulting book is ill-formulated, overwrought and surprisingly unconvincing. (Trust me: As a resident of tree-hugging, gay-marrying, marijuana-scented, Bush-bashing San Francisco, I was prepared to be convinced.) At best, the book is a handy summary of familiar stories about the Bush administration's comic-opera style of making science policy. But the stories here seem curiously disconnected; if they're covertly linked by a systematic, subterranean Republican conspiracy against science, Mooney has failed to uncover it.

Historically, debates over U.S. science policy have at least two broad features. First, there are the scientific/technical details of the debates. (How do cirrus clouds affect global warming? Are embryonic stem cells more promising, in terms of potential medical applications, than adult stem cells?) Then there are the broader, quasi-philosophical questions that loom beyond the technical details. (Is the hype over the alleged benefits of stem cell research camouflage for the long-running corporate effort to commercialize, patent and commodify the ingredients of life? Is global warming symptomatic of a deeper problem, namely the inherent dependence of consumer-capitalist societies on massive and perhaps finite sources of cheap energy?) A thoughtful book on U.S. science policy would have explored questions from the first category and, ideally, touched on questions from the second. But Mooney's book deals with neither.

And then there's that title. I know that publishers must "move" books, but The Republican War on Science -- really, now! Could Ann Coulter be any more glib? The book's theme would have been more accurately captured with The Right-Wing Evangelical Republican War on Science, but I suppose that sounded clunky. Hence the present go-for-the-jugular title, which proved unfortunate for Mooney, timing-wise: On July 29, less than two months before the book's publication, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a doctor, split with the Bush administration by supporting legislation for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. If there really is a sustained Republican war on science, Frist's announcement suggests that some of the rebel generals are starting to wave white flags.

Judging by the book, Mooney isn't interested in scientific research per se. He says almost nothing about the technical details of debates over computer models, observational anomalies, instrumental glitches, data-collection methodologies and the like. To me, such debates are intellectually fascinating; they're a sobering reminder of how selfishly Mother Nature guards her secrets and, thus, of why we must proceed pragmatically but cautiously in basing any irrevocable societal decision on tentative scientific findings. (They're always tentative: Yesterday's paradigm is today's compost.) Even more interesting, the scientific debates dramatize how reasonable, honest people -- including scientists -- can fundamentally disagree when they're looking at exactly the same data. Among philosophers of science, a favorite analogy for this is a Gestalt diagram. To one person, the diagram looks like a duck; to someone else, it's an antelope.

By ignoring such philosophical complexities, Mooney has produced a book without much intellectual gravity. Instead, he offers a kind of conspiracy theory, which might be summarized thus: "If Republicans support a certain science policy, it's bad. If they oppose it, it's good."

As you'll note from the review, me pointing out that the book is a simplification is not a simplification on my part.

Of course, if the book is really about home plumbing, and you're ranting about how nothing is going to make you change your mind about wife beating and the book is too awful to read for even bringing it up, you'll have to understand why everyone else looks at you funny at tells you you're missing the point.

It's strange how the San Francisco review who declares himself all too ready to bash Bush and who read the entire thing happens to come to my exact same point as well.

And the book says just this. I've said just this. But please, don't let me interfere with the straw man you're having such a good time knocking down.

Don't stop jerking your knee long enough to engage in real thought. You might realize I have a point and have tried multiple means of explaining it to in order to get past your "Go team go" set of goggles.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

How does one use a Science?

Does one use an English Literature?

Does one usa a History?

No, no they don't.

Science is a field of knowledge, one does not use a field of knowledge. One uses techniques from a field of knowledge.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
It isn't like the cooler heads supported homosexual marriage at one time and allowed one time events or immediate threats to override what they know to be best. This isn't a japanese interment camp type affair. There wasn't a time where homosexuality was generally accepted and now some hot-button issue has made it less so. Sorry but that is simply not true.
Mmm. But he's not really saying that.

It's a 'hot button issue' right now because homosexual people are explicitly demanding what they feel they deserve and, given the current political climate in America, because it's politically expedient for conservative politicians to make capital on the issue.

It's a fact that many believe that status quo can't be allowed to continue on the one hand and on the other the broad consensus in America is more conservative than it's been since the '50s. It's one of those flashpoints.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
As you'll note from the review, me pointing out that the book is a simplification is not a simplification on my part.
There are plenty of positive reviews of the book out there too. You've cherry-picked a negative review. Rather than look at the overall consensus of reviews, or do much thinking about the issues in the book yourself, it's much easier to cherry-pick a review that matches how you want things to be, and go with that.

This exactly how the Republicans are handling science (FOR THE MOST PART, AND MUCH MORE SO THAN DEMOCRATS, WHO I AM NOT CLAIMING ARE TOTALLY INNOCENT -- not that I expect any such caveats to ever sink in with you) . They show no respect at all for strongly held, well-researched, well-reviewed consensus opinions held by large majorities of scientists when those opinions don't match their agenda. These Republicans instead happily cherry pick any (typically industry funded and/or political-advocacy funded) support they can find for their desired agenda, no matter how fringe the opinions behind that support might be.

Here's part of the review by Scientific American (underlining mine):
Thomas Jefferson would be appalled. More than two centuries after he helped to shape a government based on the idea that reason and technological advancement would propel the new United States into a glorious future, the political party that now controls that government has largely turned its back on science. Even as the country and the planet face both scientifically complex threats and remarkable technological opportunities, many Republican officeholders reject the most reliable sources of information and analysis available to guide the nation. As inconceivable as it would have been to Jefferson--and as dismaying as it is to growing legions of today's scientists--large swaths of the government in Washington are now in the hands of people who don't know what science is. More ominously, some of those in power may grasp how research works but nonetheless are willing to subvert science's knowledge and expert opinion for short-term political and economic gains. That is the thesis of The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney, one of the few journalists in the country who specialize in the now dangerous intersection of science and politics. His book is a well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists. Mooney's chronicle of what he calls "science abuse" begins in the 1970s with Richard Nixon and picks up steam with Ronald Reagan. But both pale in comparison to the current Bush administration, which in four years has:

* Rejected the scientific consensus on global warming and suppressed an EPA report supporting that consensus.
* Stacked numerous advisory committees with industry representatives and members of the religious Right.
* Begun deploying a missile defense system without evidence that it can work.
* Banned funding for embryonic stem cell research except on a claimed 60 cell lines already in existence, most of which turned out not to exist.
* Forced the National Cancer Institute to say that abortion may cause breast cancer, a claim refuted by good studies.
* Ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to remove information about condom use and efficacy from its Web site. Mooney explores these and many other examples, including George W. Bush's support for creationism.

In almost every instance, Republican leaders have branded the scientific mainstream as purveyors of "junk science" and dubbed an extremist viewpoint--always at the end of the spectrum favoring big business or the religious Right--"sound science."

One of the most insidious achievements of the Right, Mooney shows, is the Data Quality Act of 2000--just two sentences, written by an industry lobbyist and quietly inserted into an appropriations bill. It directs the White House's Office of Management and Budget to ensure that all information put out by the federal government is reliable. The law seems sensible, except in practice. It is used mainly by industry and right-wing think tanks to block release of government reports unfavorable to their interests by claiming they do not contain "sound science."
What this book talks about, and does a damn good job of documenting -- while often pointing to abuses by Democrats for contrast, and without pretending Democrats are innocent -- is that what Republicans are doing these days in terms of abusing and ignoring science (especially starting with the Gingrich Republicans in 1994. and even more so now with the Bush administration) is different in DEGREE and KIND from any comparable abuses of science by Democrats.

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to disbanding the OTA (Office of Technology Assessment).

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to the so-called "Data Quality Act".

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to the Republican's large-scale cultivation of friendly "expertise" via industry funded and politically funded think tanks, most of which do very little original research and which clearly operate more as political than scientific entities.

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to the way Congressional debate on scientific topics is being used to bypass the (not perfect, but far more) meritocratic process of peer review with staged debates between representatives of consensus views and agenda-friendly cherry-picked representatives of fringe views, treating them as equal opponents, with the judgment of which science is best left to the non-scientific opinions of Congressmen.

Of course, I fully expect you to keep coming up with examples of Democrats abusing or ignoring good science -- not hard to find -- and completely ignore the big picture, the DEGREE and KIND of these actions.

I also fully expect -- and even your cherry-picked bad review of Mooney's book doesn't help you here -- that you'll continue to totally miss the point that the book makes very clear the distinction between science and policy, and that the book doesn't pretend that science can replace or supplant policy.

[BRussell]

Oh take off your go-team glasses shetline.

[shetline]

Originally posted by BRussell
Oh take off your go-team glasses shetline.
Can I leave on the body paint and the big foam rubber hand? :D

[BRussell]

Have you seen this (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/specific-examples-of-the-abuse-of-science.html) shetline? I imagine it's featured in that book. It's a science group that accused the administration of interfering in science for political reasons. That link has a bunch of different reports and examples.

[addabox]

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to disbanding the OTA (Office of Technology Assessment).

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to the so-called "Data Quality Act".

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to the Republican's large-scale cultivation of friendly "expertise" via industry funded and politically funded think tanks, most of which do very little original research and which clearly operate more as political than scientific entities.

There is no Democrat-driven parallel to the way Congressional debate on scientific topics is being used to bypass the (not perfect, but far more) meritocratic process of peer review with staged debates between representatives of consensus views and agenda-friendly cherry-picked representatives of fringe views, treating them as equal opponents, with the judgment of which science is best left to the non-scientific opinions of Congressmen.


Yeah, but the secret council of Vengeful Liberal Lesbians puts out disinformation about how men are bad, so it all evens out.

Funny how this thread is so similar to the "Liberals are....." thread.

Lots of specific, documented, high profile stuff to back up the notion that in this particular instance the right really is doing something uniquely fucked-up, and the response is a lot of anecdotal ranting that appear to arise from a well developed sense of victimization at the hands of liberals.

I wonder how much of the right's base is predicated on this dynamic? The left gets exercised by things like withholding the Plan B pill for obscure moral reasons, or the wholesale capitulation to business interests for crafting "policy", while the right gets red in the face thinking about those goddamn liberals and elitist ways and how probably they hate white men and women get away with purely malicious rape charges and how they pay black people not to work and did we mention they hate men? So how is that good science, huh?

No wonder the right wants to do everything in its power to replace a sense of cause and effect for faith based resentment.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Mmm. But he's not really saying that.

Actually he is saying that. He is claiming that the majority has suddenly turned against a minority in some regard and the courts must now step in to guard against the irrational and chaotic movements of the masses.

It's a 'hot button issue' right now because homosexual people are explicitly demanding what they feel they deserve and, given the current political climate in America, because it's politically expedient for conservative politicians to make capital on the issue.

Wow, look at those beer goggles. Homosexual people make demands. People, including conservative politicians but also including Catholic Hispanics, Black Baptists and others also say no to the demands. Thus it has become a "politically expediant" issue on which conservatives can "make capital."

People started putting initiatives and constitutional amendments on ballots in RESPONSE to to actions taken. The fact that the response galvanizes a group into an action is nothing like what you portray. Your strange double standard allows conservatives and others no option but to lay down and do nothing, otherwise they are "exploiting homosexual hate for political gain."

People are allows to respond to actions that attempt to alter the society in which they live.

It's a fact that many believe that status quo can't be allowed to continue on the one hand and on the other the broad consensus in America is more conservative than it's been since the '50s. It's one of those flashpoints.

More conservative in what manner? We have a record number of out of wedlock births this year while watching fewer households than ever get married. We have record immigration both legal and illegal. More women than men graduation from high school and college. While not "earning" as much as men women have equal net-worths and will control the majority of wealth in the future.

So in what way are we more conservative than ever? America is in no way becoming more white, more married, more male oriented, more whatever else your cartoonish reasoning declared to be from the 50's and thus conservative. I think it is just a convenient way for you to forgo thinking on matters and to dismiss the reasoning of anyone who happens to disagree with you.

Nick

[BRussell]

I saw this graphic at pollingreport.com today. People definitely don't trust this administration. People think Clinton was more trustworthy than Bush. That must really get conservatives' goat. The other thing about this graph is that it shows how close Independents and Democrats are, but Republicans see things in their own special way.

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/HARwh_info.GIF

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
I think it is just a convenient way for you to forgo thinking on matters and to dismiss the reasoning of anyone who happens to disagree with you.

Nah. I don't generally need an excuse to do that.

Originally posted by trumptman
Actually he is saying that. He is claiming that the majority has suddenly turned against a minority in some regard and the courts must now step in to guard against the irrational and chaotic movements of the masses.
Er, no, I don't think he is saying that. I think you've misinterpreted his words. Let's ask him. Shetline?

Originally posted by trumptman
Wow, look at those beer goggles.

Prosecco. I shared a bottle of Prosecco for lunch with my ex-girlfriend. Nice.

Originally posted by trumptman
Homosexual people make demands. People, including conservative politicians but also including Catholic Hispanics, Black Baptists and others also say no to the demands. Thus it has become a "politically expediant" issue on which conservatives can "make capital."

Well put; exactly. Conservative politicians and blog-types and talk radio people and religious leaders are making capital from it.

Originally posted by trumptman
Your strange double standard allows conservatives and others no option but to lay down and do nothing, otherwise they are "exploiting homosexual hate for political gain."

Er... I didn't use the word 'hate'. But, yeah, playing on people's fears for votes and trying to entrench a conservative consensus is 'political gain', yes. 'Doing nothing' means 'not imposing your values on people who are demanding equal rights', in a similar way to the silence of the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa and the South African National Party's militating against the uppity negroes who wanted, like, votes. And their land back.

Originally posted by trumptman
So in what way are we more conservative than ever? America is in no way becoming more white, more married, more male oriented, more whatever else your cartoonish reasoning declared to be from the 50's and thus conservative.
Conservatives have the House, and the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Stem cell research is contentious for religious religions. A state wanted intervention in the life and death of Terry Schiavo at the explicit behest of religious leaders and Christian politicians. The PATRIOT act is legislation unknown in peace time. America is holding people without trial. Peace campaigners are villified in the press; reasonable debate is impossible when even war veterans are called 'cowards' when the House is in session and a White House spokesman calls them 'extreme left wing'. You are even debating the validity of teaching evolution again.

What, Nick, the fuck are you talking about?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I saw this graphic at pollingreport.com today. People definitely don't trust this administration. People think Clinton was more trustworthy than Bush. That must really get conservatives' goat. The other thing about this graph is that it shows how close Independents and Democrats are, but Republicans see things in their own special way.

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/HARwh_info.GIF

Polling is like the weather. Give it a minute and it will change.:lol:

Nick

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Polling is like the weather. Give it a minute and it will change.:lol:

Nick

:lol: Until it"s convenient to shove it in liberal faces, that is. :p

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Nah. I don't generally need an excuse to do that.

You do when you aren't sharing the Prosecco with me.

Er, no, I don't think he is saying that. I think you've misinterpreted his words. Let's ask him. Shetline?

I don't really care how he justifies it. The reality is the judiciary is the third branch of government and is subject to the same forces as the other two.

rosecco. I shared a bottle of Prosecco for lunch with my ex-girlfriend. Nice.

I thought it was tequila that made her clothes fall off.

Well put; exactly. Conservative politicians and blog-types and talk radio people and religious leaders are making capital from it.

If a response makes capital by alerting the masses, then perhaps the best course of action would be to take this matter to the masses. That is the only way capital is occuring here.

Er... I didn't use the word 'hate'. But, yeah, playing on people's fears for votes and trying to entrench a conservative consensus is 'political gain', yes. 'Doing nothing' means 'not imposing your values on people who are demanding equal rights', in a similar way to the silence of the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa and the South African National Party's militating against the uppity negroes who wanted, like, votes. And their land back.

Last I checked homosexuals could vote, own land and in most instances even join into a civil union. The main issue is that people don't care to take an antiquated word and apply it to a new concept. I've said that both homosexuals and heterosexuals should be able to have civil unions and that civil unions should be able to occur with out additional concepts and man provider, woman caretaker and "till death do us part." If people were willing to look at this then they would understand why heterosexuals are abandoning marriage while homosexuals are claiming oppression by not being allowed it.

And no matter what you declare, governments impose values. When they tell you that you have to pay $1.00 extra for your smokes, when they tell you that you have to wear your seatbelt, when they tell you that you won't get a knee or hip replacement if you are obese, they are imposing values.

Conservatives have the House, and the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

Yet Roe still stands and federal spending is through the roof. Damn that sounds oppressively conservative. If we got even more conservative the federal deficit might only be going up a 100 billion a year instead of hundreds of billions.

Stem cell research is contentious for religious religions.

Stem cell research is contentious for lots of reasons. As the well-reasoned and well intentioned Washington Post review mentioned when raising this question...

Is the hype over the alleged benefits of stem cell research camouflage for the long-running corporate effort to commercialize, patent and commodify the ingredients of life?

A state wanted intervention in the life and death of Terry Schiavo at the explicit behest of religious leaders and Christian politicians.

You also forget at the behest of her parents. Any issue can create a sort of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type situation where it can turn out well or bad.

. The PATRIOT act is legislation unknown in peace time.

Hahahahaha....

America is holding people without trial.

Perhaps they should align themselves with a nation.

Peace campaigners are villified in the press;

Their "villification" consists of pointing out that they don't happen to represent anyone but themselves and their movement of one and that their claimed grassroots support happens to having funding ties to megamillionaires.

reasonable debate is impossible when even war veterans are called 'cowards' when the House is in session and a White House spokesman calls them 'extreme left wing'.

Actually I've watch the Republicans jump on their own when this sort of thing happens. Too bad I never see the same response on the left.

You are even debating the validity of teaching evolution again.

There are instances where that has become an argument about intelligent design. However there are many other instances, where even mentioning evolution is a theory becomes a religious attack. Putting a sticker noting that evolution is a theory in the front of a science book is not a religious attack or endorsement. For something people are so sure about, they seem awful thin skinned and fearful of questioning.

What, Nick, the fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about the America that exists unfiltered through whatever looking glass you happen to view it through. All the points I made are true and would not be if we were returning to some white male, patriarchal theocracy as you claim.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
You do when you aren't sharing the Prosecco with me.

Ai, me, you wound me.

I thought it was tequila that made her clothes fall off.
No. That was Sheila.

[hardeeharhar]

Stem cell research has nothing to do at its heart with the embryos republicans wish to protect. You don't need to have a totipotent cell line to create an organ, you do need one to create a human -- there is your disconnect. Suck it otherwise.

[midwinter]

I lost my "go, team!" glasses! Anyone have an extra pair?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by midwinter
I lost my "go, team!" glasses! Anyone have an extra pair?
Here. Have a suck on my beer hat.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Here. Have a suck on my beer hat.
But why are you holding your hat in your lap?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
I lost my "go, team!" glasses! Anyone have an extra pair?

To: Party addressed as midwinter
From: Trumptman Legal Department

Concerning: Go Team Glasses

Dear Sir,

It has come to attention of our legal department that you have attempted to take the copyrighted Go Team Glasses and turn it into a generic term which can then be appropriated for your own company for monetary gain.

Please be made aware that any further attempt to proceed with this course of action will be met with legal action including but not limited to an injunction from the appropriate controlling court forcing you to drink from the Hassan i Sabbah beer hat.

With best regards,

Some asshole who bills $250 per hour.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Nick

[midwinter]

To: Party addressed as "movement conservatives"
From: Liberal Legal Department

Concerning: Postmodernism

Dear Sir, Madam or transgendered individual,

It has come to attention of our legal department that you have attempted appropriate our patented postmodern interrogations of "fact" and "truth" and use them for your own political gain.

Please be made aware that any further attempt to proceed with this course of action will be met with legal action including but not limited to an injunction from the appropriate controlling court forcing you to compose a book report on the major works of Homi Bhabha, Edward Said and Helene Cixous.

With best regards,

Some asshole who bills $250 per hour.

[pfflam]

jeezus . . . I forget how much I love this place sometimes . . . .

Thanks for reminding me . . . :)

[BRussell]

hi pfflam.

[Aquatic]

This thread has scientifically been proven to be retarded. let's stop the philosophical bullshit and talk about why Bushies are fucking America.

Example 1. The Healthy Forests Initiative

It is supposed to prevent fire by removing fuel. But bad loggers leave slash (junk wood), and so are therefore actually increasing the amount and quality of fuel.

Example 2. Pretending global warming doesn't exist. Ummm...yeah. This like when the dittoheads and Republicans claimed there wasn't a hole in the ozone. Fuckers. We should throw them all in a tanning booth for a week so they have skin cancer and see if they change their mind about the effects of UV-B and ozone.

Example 3. They are creationist. Anyone who honestly believes the Earth is 10,000 years old is...stupid. I mean...wow. How can you be so stupid? If American kids don't learn biology in school they will be at a disadvantage in a number of industry sectors.
Educating our youth, and for that matter, adults in this country, about basic scientific concepts would improve our economy in the long run. If we do not do something about the "dumbing" of America soon our lunch will be eaten by Europe and Asia, China specifically, and perhaps someday India.


And yeah I'm too lazy but if you look enough on scholar.google.com you will see that yes, evolution exists, yes, global warming exists, etc.

Nick what was your major? poli sci? communcations?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
This thread has scientifically been proven to be retarded. let's stop the philosophical bullshit and talk about why Bushies are fucking America.

Example 1. The Healthy Forests Initiative

It is supposed to prevent fire by removing fuel. But bad loggers leave slash (junk wood), and so are therefore actually increasing the amount and quality of fuel.

Example 2. Pretending global warming doesn't exist. Ummm...yeah. This like when the dittoheads and Republicans claimed there wasn't a hole in the ozone. Fuckers. We should throw them all in a tanning booth for a week so they have skin cancer and see if they change their mind about the effects of UV-B and ozone.

Example 3. They are creationist. Anyone who honestly believes the Earth is 10,000 years old is...stupid. I mean...wow. How can you be so stupid? If American kids don't learn biology in school they will be at a disadvantage in a number of industry sectors.
Educating our youth, and for that matter, adults in this country, about basic scientific concepts would improve our economy in the long run. If we do not do something about the "dumbing" of America soon our lunch will be eaten by Europe and Asia, China specifically, and perhaps someday India.


And yeah I'm too lazy but if you look enough on scholar.google.com you will see that yes, evolution exists, yes, global warming exists, etc.

Nick what was your major? poli sci? communcations?

How the hell did I end up on the end of this rant?

Nick