We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
blogs.scientificamerican.com
We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
1–10 of 134 posts
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#2I have a feeling it is too late. The train has left the station on this one.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#3If you cannot see that the March for Science is part of the problem of the politicization of science, then you are lost all the same.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#4One of the problems with the “defend science” movement is that it’s often being (mis)-used to support philosophical positions that are fundamentally unanswerable by science: concepts like afterlife, gender, and when life begins. I’m not saying I disagree with the popular viewpoints, but science is the wrong tool for the job. (Does human life have inherent value? I don’t know, but better predictive models and more experimentation isn’t going to answer that question.)
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#5SciAm made the same battlecry (plea) back in the 90s. I supported it then as I support it now. But it didn't work then and won't work now.
Because we don't understand the enemy.
The remedy isn't messaging, framing, engagement, empathy, discussion, or whatever else rational people hope will induce irrationals to step into the light.
Trying to sneak science thru the infotainment propaganda blockade ain't gonna work. And is a waste of effort.
Perhaps the alternative is our own media empire.
Fox News was run at a loss its first decade. Something like $500m/yr is spent, at a loss, on the right wing noise machine. All those popular alt-right sites have patrons.
Does the left have anything comparable? In scale and gumption?
I don't know if it'd work. Reason ain't sexy. Versus the outrage and fear factory. But I'd like to try something new.
--
Also, impartiality and objectivity is a trap. Just tell your story sincerely, unapologetically. The opponents will blather regardless, so don't share your soapbox.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#6>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc
If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize science.
We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#7If you cannot see that the March for Science is part of the problem of the politicization of science, then you are lost all the same.
Calling the march a part of the problem is a cop-out excusing the real problems - the political response to science that spurred the march, the political response to the march itself, and mass-media's role in the politicization of science. If we say that the march is the problem, then we're saying that we should be taking at face-value anything the lobbyist talking heads of Fox News and CNN say about whatever they're pointing their fingers at.
Climate Science denialist PR campaigns by Koch Industries are politicization, and it feels filthy wrong that we're overwhelmingly pointing fingers at the scientists and grassroots actors responding to these campaigns instead of the groups publishing and hosting the lies.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#8>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize science. We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent work…
I'm more concerned what they mean by diversity of ability. Is that just another term for physically disabled people, or are we seriously at the point where only having smart people in the sciences is offensive?
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#9You have a group of people in Washington tasked with doling out money for research. By its very nature this federal funding has politicized science for a long time. Ask anyone who has been through a scientific PhD program whether or not their field has been politicized because of grants received or not received.
The trick this article plays is to argue in part that science needs to be politicized the right way. Diversity initiatives. Massive spending programs without clearly-defined revenue streams. Protecting scientists from "political interference," a term which is impossible to define without eliminating the ability to filter junk science. Everyone needs to sign off on this or the bad things will happen.
I'm sure the author's intentions were good, but restoring public confidence in science means that scientists themselves need to take a good look in the mirror.
Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks
#10This article is dog shit. "We must defend science against extremist political attacks by being political extremists." Their solution is to scream the loudest. People like this are incredibly tiring to deal with and offer nothing practical.