Politics is subverting Science

About: Podcast Chris Mooney vs Tom Bethell

The left and the right agree on very little but at least we can see that they agree that politics is subverting science. This hour long podcast is well worth a listen, thanks boingboing. Of course they put different spins on it ... of course they will not say they agree ... but it is seems plain to me that they are pointing to the same phenomena ... We cannot get to the science because the politics gets in the way.

Comments

Mark de LA says
Nice IF you are a liberal & like repeated Bush Bashing. Notice the liberal almost always attacks the person & the source of the science of the Republican side & rarely considers the substance of the science. I'll give it an

Ugg!

- with a sense for there are arguments to be considered. The liberal, as all good liberals do, wants to assume that a concensus means truth or proof. That is so congruent with the Democrat party taking polls to figure out what they believe. It is such a shame (for those not knowing what it is like) that the conservatives follow core beliefs & do not take a poll to figure out what they believe in & actually try to carry out policies congruent with the core beliefs.

Seth says
Real science, of course, relies neither on "taking polls" nor "congruence with core beliefs". Rather it relies on repeatable results. I would bet that you can find examples where either side will use one tactic or the other should the actual repeatable results diverge from their adgenda.

Mark de LA says

M 2006-06-20 08:06:40 3749

Where personal beliefs come in is in the interpretation of the so-called results & what they mean.

As far as Global Warming it is hard to put the Earth & the Sun into a laboratory or cause a Hurricane on the global scale. Most of stuff there is measurement, model & interpretation.

Seth says

M 2006-06-20 07:30:52 3749

seth 2006-06-19 08:47:16 3749

Real science, of course, relies neither on "taking polls" nor "congruence with core beliefs". Rather it relies on repeatable results. I would bet that you can find examples where either side will use one tactic or the other should the actual repeatable results diverge from their adgenda.

The "core beliefs" of a scientist should be the so-called scientific method & the axioms & postulates of his field of research. Somewhere in there also I would hope there is some allegiance to the truth (or at least the scientist shouldn't lie!)

Well you have a good point there ... but just so that we are clear that one's "core beliefs" are not political or religious "core beliefs" when one is doing science. In practice this is difficult ... hense the reliance on repeatable results. You can believe whatever you dam well please, but if i give you a procedure which always ends up with the same result, you should not ignore it.

Seth says

M 2006-07-03 11:41:37 3749

Do you somehow expect the science to be so convincing that nobody would object & you can actually do something on the concensus view ? Scientists are human - they have political view-points

... not at all.

Forming a consensus with a known group is difficult enough ... many times impossible. Forming a consensus on a group defined merely as "climent scientists" must be even more problematic. Yet with science we can check thesis against reality. That gives us an edge which is not available with just social questions ... consequently consensus becomes more tangeable. But politicians and editorial spinners will cherry pick and latch on to language in the scientific literature and attempt to erode what consensus actually does exist amoung scientists. That is the primary reason that we need to stop reading and concentrating on partisan rhetoric and start reading the scientists themselves.

Scientist are by nature very cautions about what findings they publish. Their reputation is at stake ... not so with spin doctors. When a scientist is in doubt or uncertain about the findings, that will almost always be reported. When the question before the house is the certainty of a scientific proposition we certainly need to examine those reports of uncertainty.

source: ...
We have already proved in the global warming debate that quite a few make up the conclusions - even though the data may say inclusive or otherwise or not say anything about the topic at all.

I have seen nothing proven in globalwarming ... to say something important here you would need to point to specific examples where scientists "make up the conclusions - even though the data may say inclusive or otherwise or not say anything about the topic at all." ... otherwise you are just pissing more rhetoric into the wind.

Mark de LA says
Again when action gets into the picture it becomes political. Remember when project 2 started we couldn't get anything done. Even though there were votes to get it done. It takes persuasion & one-on-one conversations to get something done. And sometimes it takes executive power. Everything else is hot-air.
Note to ALL: We do NOT elect scientists! We do elect congress & the executives & occasionally a judge.

Seth says

M 2006-07-03 11:20:59 3749

Again when action gets into the picture it becomes political.

I am not understanding why you seem to continually underline that action is political. Nobody is disputing that. I totally agree, changing things in the public domain is politics. Absolutely it is political. Ok ok ?

I am saying that political action need not be partisan political action. My thesis is that the partisan rhetoric gets in the way ... it becaomes static ... to practical political action. My thesis, imho, is not even new or at all contraversial ... in fact it is common knowledge. It comes up now simply because it is time we beat back the partisanship ... deescalate the rhetoric ... why? ... well because there are many issues before us the people of the United States that require level headed political action.

Mark de LA says
Do you somehow expect the science to be so convincing that nobody would object & you can actually do something on the concensus view ? Scientists are human - they have political view-points We have already proved in the global warming debate that quite a few make up the conclusions - even though the data may say inclusive or otherwise or not say anything about the topic at all.

Politics is subverting Science

About: Podcast Chris Mooney vs Tom Bethell

Tags

Comments

See Also