Good perspective on the future of Science

[donkhater]

http://www.nature.com/news/science-m...divide-1.12119

Science must be seen to bridge the political divide

To prevent science from continuing its worrying slide towards politicization, here’s a New Year’s resolution for scientists, especially in the United States: gain the confidence of people and politicians across the political spectrum by demonstrating that science is bipartisan.

That President Barack Obama chose to mention “technology, discovery and innovation” in his passionate victory speech in November shows just how strongly science has come, over the past decade or so, to be a part of the identity of one political party, the Democrats, in the United States. The highest-profile voices in the scientific community have avidly pursued this embrace. For the third presidential election in a row, dozens of Nobel prizewinners in physics, chemistry and medicine signed a letter endorsing the Democratic candidate.

The 2012 letter argued that Obama would ensure progress on the economy, health and the environment by continuing “America’s proud legacy of discovery and invention”, and that his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, would “devastate a long tradition of support for public research and investment in science”. The signatories wrote “as winners of the Nobel Prizes in Science”, thus cleansing their endorsement of the taint of partisanship by invoking their authority as pre-eminent scientists.

But even Nobel prizewinners are citizens with political preferences. Of the 43 (out of 68) signatories on record as having made past political donations, only five had ever contributed to a Republican candidate, and none did so in the last election cycle. If the laureates are speaking on behalf of science, then science is revealing itself, like the unions, the civil service, environmentalists and tort lawyers, to be a Democratic interest, not a democratic one.

This is dangerous for science and for the nation. The claim that Republicans are anti-science is a staple of Democratic political rhetoric, but bipartisan support among politicians for national investment in science, especially basic research, is still strong. For more than 40 years, US government science spending has commanded a remarkably stable 10% of the annual expenditure for non-defence discretionary programmes. In good economic times, science budgets have gone up; in bad times, they have gone down. There have been more good times than bad, and science has prospered.

In the current period of dire fiscal stress, one way to undermine this stable funding and bipartisan support would be to convince Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, that science is a Democratic special interest.

This concern rests on clear precedent. Conservatives in the US government have long been hostile to social science, which they believe tilts towards liberal political agendas. Consequently, the social sciences have remained poorly funded and politically vulnerable, and every so often Republicans threaten to eliminate the entire National Science Foundation budget for social science.

“Politicians would find it more difficult to attack science endorsed by bipartisan groups of scientists.”

As scientists seek to provide policy-relevant knowledge on complex, interdisciplinary problems ranging from fisheries depletion and carbon emissions to obesity and natural hazards, the boundary between the natural and the social sciences has blurred more than many scientists want to acknowledge. With Republicans generally sceptical of government’s ability and authority to direct social and economic change, the enthusiasm with which leading scientists align themselves with the Democratic party can only reinforce conservative suspicions that for contentious issues such as climate change, natural-resource management and policies around reproduction, all science is social science.

The US scientific community must decide if it wants to be a Democratic interest group or if it wants to reassert its value as an independent national asset. If scientists want to claim that their recommendations are independent of their political beliefs, they ought to be able to show that those recommendations have the support of scientists with conflicting beliefs. Expert panels advising the government on politically divisive issues could strengthen their authority by demonstrating political diversity. The National Academies, as well as many government agencies, already try to balance representation from the academic, non-governmental and private sectors on many science advisory panels; it would be only a small step to be equally explicit about ideological or political diversity. Such information could be given voluntarily.

To connect scientific advice to bipartisanship would benefit political debate. Volatile issues, such as the regulation of environmental and public-health risks, often lead to accusations of ‘junk science’ from opposing sides. Politicians would find it more difficult to attack science endorsed by avowedly bipartisan groups of scientists, and more difficult to justify their policy preferences by scientific claims that were contradicted by bipartisan panels.

During the cold war, scientists from America and the Soviet Union developed lines of communication to improve the prospects for peace. Given the bitter ideological divisions in the United States today, scientists could reach across the political divide once again and set an example for all.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by petegz28

dude you are wound so ****ing tight it's hillarious

You said "good" Catholics wouldn't believe in evolution. I guess you didn't mean it. Hard to tell when you're serious or not.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Seriously, you obviously do. If you think "scientific theory" has no different meaning than the generic use of "theory" you need it. Here's where the "wilfully ignorant" thing kicks in. Just ****ing read it.

The scientific method is about making experiments to prove a theory/hypotheses as true. Please tell me what experiments can really be conducted using deep time to prove this? That is macro evolution. The theory has gaps as a result.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You said "good" Catholics wouldn't believe in evolution. I guess you didn't mean it. Hard to tell when you're serious or not.

Well, some don't.

Btw, I did your homework for you. It's 58% of Rs in office that don't believe in evolution. Just as gay marriage is claimed by your side to not affect your life, what they believe on this doesn't affect yours.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, some don't.

Btw, I did your homework for you. It's 58% of Rs in office that don't believe in evolution. Just as gay marriage is claimed by your side to not affect your life, what they believe on this doesn't affect yours.

Sure it does. "Officeholders" shape what is taught in schools. It affects me if we are raising a generation of dumbasses.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Sure it does. "Officeholders" shape what is taught in schools. It affects me if we are raising a generation of dumbasses.

You mean dumbasses that you Demcorats insist on passing through school so as not to hurt their feelings and you can keep getting the Fed $'s?


You know, the kids you want to teach how to blame everything on someone else and how to depend on the government for everything???

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Sure it does. "Officeholders" shape what is taught in schools. It affects me if we are raising a generation of dumbasses.

National officeholders Constitutionally have no authority to dictate what is taught in schools.
That's supposed to be a local issue.

But using your argument, people feel that way about gay marriage. For one we live in a welfare-state, pay pensions to spouses and now have Obamacare and the gay lifestyle drives up rates.

So there. You're a hypocrite too. Using the same argument as the right on something.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

National officeholders Constitutionally have no authority to dictate what is taught in schools.
That's supposed to be a local issue.

But using your argument, people feel that way about gay marriage. For one we live in a welfare-state, pay pensions to spouses and now have Obamacare and the gay lifestyle drives up rates.

So there. You're a hypocrite too. Using the same argument as the right on something.

You're talking about a guy who on one hand supports the legalization of pot yet on the other supports telling you how big of a soda you can buy.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

There are worms spilled all over the place here. I will focus my answer on your last point.

The idea that the mind is able to overcome a true physical ailment is a viable scientific hypothesis. It can be investigated because the mind is a natural thing that obeys the laws of physics and could be scientifically studied using observation. The inability of science to offer a satisfactory explanation at this moment does not remove this idea from being a valid area of scientific inquiry.

The idea that the healing was caused by God according to his will is not a viable scientific hypothesis since it cannot be investigated because humans cannot access the will of God and an assumption from the beginning is that God doesn't have to follow the laws of physics.

Yeah, but some of those cures are also not supposed to be possible per science too. And no one knows the scientific mechanism, unless the illness or disease is psychosomatic. It's simply "belief" on behalf of the person. One doesn't even have to prove what was in the mind of a God, if he/she even has a mind. Then there's the matter of a dead girl whose body did not decompose. That's not done by her mind since she died.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

National officeholders Constitutionally have no authority to dictate what is taught in schools.
That's supposed to be a local issue.

But using your argument, people feel that way about gay marriage. For one we live in a welfare-state, pay pensions to spouses and now have Obamacare and the gay lifestyle drives up rates.

So there. You're a hypocrite too. Using the same argument as the right on something.

You said "officeholders" did you not? Pay attention. To what you are saying.
And constitionally or not, I'm talking about reality.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by petegz28

One can be an atheist all day and still not disprove the fact that there would be no life without said fetus. The value you place on either is up to you based on whatever you believe. Scientifically speaking though, your argument is bunk.

Secondly when I said people refer to unborns as a fetus I was referring to a psychologically scientific observation based on proven theories that when we as humans tend to defend the intentional termination of another life we often refer to the being as something other than a life, e.g. fetus, criminal, animal, etc. This makes one feet better about justifying the taking of a life.

Science can tell you that a fetus three months into the development process is a form of human life that is not viable outside the womb. It has no recognizable intelligence. It does not have emotions. It can feel pain. It does not have self awareness.

Science can tell you that a new born baby is a form of human life that is viable outside the womb, but would die without outside intervention, for example from a parent. It has very limited intelligence. It has very limited emotions. It can feel pain. It does not have self awareness.

Science can tell you that 6 month old baby is a form of human life that is viable outside the womb, but would die without outside intervention, for example from a parent. It has recognizable intelligence. It has developing emotions. It can feel pain. It has a developing sense of self awareness.

Science can tell you that a fully developed chimpanzee is a form of non-human life that is viable outside the womb, and can survive on its own in an environment with sufficient resources. It has recognizable intelligence. It has significant emotions and mourns over dead members of its clan. It can feel pain. It has a sense of self awareness.

Science does not tell you how to value any of these organisms.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You're talking about a guy who on one hand supports the legalization of pot yet on the other supports telling you how big of a soda you can buy.

BEP, you better yell at this guy for making shit up.

Pete, how do you explain you being in favor state-mandated female circumcision?

[BucEyedPea]

There's more than one saint whose body never decomposed.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You said "officeholders" did you not? Pay attention. To what you are saying.
And constitionally or not, I'm talking about reality.

No you're not. The reality is that anyone can still learn and/or be taught to disregard what public schools teach at Sunday school if they want. Same goes for the other side.

Secondly, the only way a certain district or local area would affect you with their officeholders deciding what to teach is if you lived there.

But this is why there shouldn't be any govt schools or just give tax credits and allow different groups or people to set up it's own schools in the states.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yeah, but some of those cures are also not supposed to be possible per science too. And no one knows the scientific mechanism, unless the illness or disease is psychosomatic. It's simply "belief" on behalf of the person. One doesn't even have to prove what was in the mind of a God, if he/she even has a mind. Then there's the matter of a dead girl whose body did not decompose. That's not done by her mind since she died.

Every time I make a statement you write something that indicates you didn't comprehend what I said (underlined above) and then you bring up a bunch of new or tangential points (bolded above) before adequately dealing with the first point. Every post repeats this process until the conversation is completely intractable for me. I apologize, but I am unable to continue this conversation with you.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Every time I make a statement you write something that indicates you didn't comprehend what I said (underlined above) and then you bring up a bunch of new or tangential points (bolded above) before adequately dealing with the first point. Every post repeats this process until the conversation is completely intractable for me. I apologize, but I am unable to continue this conversation with you.

You've been BEPped!