Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Brazen]

A New Scientist opinion piece:

Stamp out anti-science in US politics

It is time to reject political movements that turn their backs on science, says Nobel prizewinner and Royal Society president Paul Nurse

IF YOU respect science you will probably be disturbed by the following opinions.

On evolution: intelligent design is "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science class". And don't believe in "a theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings - originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea or from monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees."

On the use of embryonic stem cell research to cure diseases: it should be shut down because it involves "the wholesale destruction of human life".

On climate change: variations are "natural, cyclical environmental trends". That "we can't say with assurance that human activities cause weather changes" and that climate problems in Texas are best solved through "days of prayer for rain".

You would probably be even more disturbed to be told that these are the opinions expressed by potential Republican candidates for the US presidential nomination (see "Science rears its head in Republican debates"). It's alarming that a country which leads the world in science - the home of Benjamin Franklin, Richard Feynman and Jim Watson - might be turning its back on science. How can this be happening? What can be done?

One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate. When some politicians try to sway public opinion, they employ the tricks of the debating chamber: cherry-picking data, ignoring the consensus opinions of experts, adept use of a sneer or a misplaced comparison, reliance on the power of rhetoric rather than argument. They can often get away with this because the media rely too much on confrontational debate in place of reasoned discussion.

It is essential, in public issues, to separate science from politics and ideology. Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications. We scientists also need to work harder at discussing the issues better and more fully in the public arena, clearly identifying what we know and admitting what we don't know.

Another concern is science teaching in schools. Is it good enough to produce citizens able to cope with public discussions about science? We have to ensure that science is being taught in schools - not pseudoscience. With the rise of free and faith schools and the academies in the UK, measures need to be put in place to safeguard science classes. This has been difficult to maintain particularly in the US.

We need to emphasise why the scientific process is such a reliable generator of knowledge - with its respect for evidence, for scepticism, for consistency of approach, for the constant testing of ideas. Everyone should know and understand why the processes that lead to astronomy are more reliable than those that lead to astrology.

Finally, scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the bunkum. We scientists have not always been proactive about this. We need to be vigilant about what is being said in the public arena. We need to be vigilant about what politicians are publicising about science and take them on when necessary. At elections, scientists should ensure that science is on the agenda and nonsense is exposed. If that nonsense is extreme enough then the response should be very public.

If those who are anti-science in the US are allowed to carry the day it will ultimately hurt the American economy. The best scientists will head for the established leaders of science, such as the UK and emerging powerhouses such as China and India. But beyond that it will damage the US's standing in the world. Who will be able to take its leaders seriously? They may not care, but they should.

Science is worth fighting for. It helps us understand the world and ourselves better and will benefit all humanity.

We have to hope that the people of the US will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject political movements that reject science and take us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128302.900-stamp-out-antiscience-in-us-politics.html

[CountDeMoney]

Sorry, Brazen.  No can do.  The US body politic equates anti-elitism with anti-intellectualism.

I find it sorta interesting that so much of the Republican Party is anti-intellectual to the point of combative contempt.  Usually that's a trait reserved for communists.

[DontSayBanana]

Ugh.  I wish.  Those asshats don't even understand the definitions of terms like "scientific theory."  Put a blurb about creationism in a history class and problem solved- then the only debate to be had is whether the Bible counts as a primary or secondary source.  I'm pretty sure the religious whackos want it in science class solely to thumb their nose at other religions and effectively say "our creation myth is better than yours."

[Ed Anger]

Stamp out Foreigners!

It is time to stop listening to foreigners says renowned crank Professor Monc E. Butt, even if the damn foreigner is right.

"Foreigners should mind their own business!" exclaimed Prof. Butt, before yelling at a cloud. Then the interview ended as Professor Butt started firing on the cloud.

[Admiral Yi]

Nurse does not demonstrate a very good understanding of his ostensible target audience.

[Viking]

I liked what Huntsman said about science in the Reagan debate. But, it is worrying that only one Republican candidate seems to think that science matters or is useful.

[PDH]

Stamp out Foreigners!

It is time to stop listening to foreigners says renowned crank Professor Monc E. Butt, even if the damn foreigner is right.

"Foreigners should mind their own business!" exclaimed Prof. Butt, before yelling at a cloud. Then the interview ended as Professor Butt started firing on the cloud.

We should tax all foreigners living abroad.

[DontSayBanana]

Stamp out Foreigners!

It is time to stop listening to foreigners says renowned crank Professor Monc E. Butt, even if the damn foreigner is right.

"Foreigners should mind their own business!" exclaimed Prof. Butt, before yelling at a cloud. Then the interview ended as Professor Butt started firing on the cloud.

That's not what your bosses meant when they told you to make rain, Ed.

[Valmy]

I liked what Huntsman said about science in the Reagan debate. But, it is worrying that only one Republican candidate seems to think that science matters or is useful.

Perry's big university reform idea was to turn the Texas and Texas A&M systems into degree factories and slash their research.  Seriously.  I am pretty sure that is not something most Republican Governors would support.  Or most people actually.

[Martinus]

Sorry, Brazen.  No can do.  The US body politic equates anti-elitism with anti-intellectualism.

I find it sorta interesting that so much of the Republican Party is anti-intellectual to the point of combative contempt.  Usually that's a trait reserved for communists.

I don't get why the US body politic is anti-elitist in the first place. Sure, you may hold a view that the "elite is not what it's used to be" or that wrong people are considered the elite, but a genuine anti-elitism has always baffled me. Surely, there are people who are wiser, more intelligent, or otherwise better than the rest. How can you function without agreeing that basic fact?

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I can think of only one political system in which the body politic was so virulently and ideologically anti-elitist - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The basic proverb "a petty noble in his household is equal to a king" was the fundament of this view, and uneducated, barely literate petty nobles looked down on internationally educated rich ones, who studies in Bologna, Paris or Cologne.

They would spend their time opposing every attempt at a reform or modernization as an assault on their god-given liberties, and despite being themselves poor and uneducated, they would virulently oppose any attempt to give any political rights to peasants who formed the backbone of the workforce.

We all know how it ended.

[Valmy]

I don't get why the US body politic is anti-elitist in the first place. Sure, you may hold a view that the "elite is not what it's used to be" or that wrong people are considered the elite, but a genuine anti-elitism has always baffled me. Surely, there are people who are wiser, more intelligent, or otherwise better than the rest. How can you function without agreeing that basic fact?

Good honest salt of the earth rugged individualists have no need for the soft city folks who have never worked a day in their lives and do not understand the real world.

It is part of our national myth.

[Martinus]

I don't get why the US body politic is anti-elitist in the first place. Sure, you may hold a view that the "elite is not what it's used to be" or that wrong people are considered the elite, but a genuine anti-elitism has always baffled me. Surely, there are people who are wiser, more intelligent, or otherwise better than the rest. How can you function without agreeing that basic fact?

Good honest salt of the earth rugged individualists have no need for the soft city folks who have never worked a day in their lives and do not understand the real world.

It is part of our national myth.

It's extremely destructive (and as I said above it is almost to a letter what the Polish nobility thought of itself in the 18th century).

[Valmy]

Incidentally, I can think of only one political system in which the body politic was so virulently and ideologically anti-elitist - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The basic proverb "a petty noble in his household is equal to a king" was the fundament of this view, and uneducated, barely literate petty nobles looked down on internationally educated rich ones, who studies in Bologna, Paris or Cologne. We all know how it ended.

Saving the western world at Vienna?

[Valmy]

It's extremely destructive (and as I said above it is almost to a letter what the Polish nobility thought of itself in the 18th century).

Probably.  But people just tend to prefer John Wayne to George Will.  I doubt it is really that unique to the US.