3 ms·

This kind of rhetoric disturbs me. The burden doesn't lie with the scientific community, but rather the republican party. Science is not a movement, it's a set

This kind of rhetoric disturbs me. The burden doesn't lie with the scientific community, but rather the republican party. Science is not a movement, it's a set of practices that emphasize observation and empirical analysis to interpret the world around us. Science is there for anybody who wants to open their mind to it to enjoy. I'm sure some republicans have and assuming those numbers are correct, 1 of 3 things happened: 1) they've changed their affiliation over time (becoming either democrat or unaffiliated), 2) they didn't find what they were looking for in science and stopped practicing, 3) they're in the current minority.

Jun8 16y ago
Although it is true that the scientific method cannot be thought of as "political" in any sense, I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations. It is done by scientists and in all ages scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics. Also, not all science is as abstract as, say, mathematics or hunting for dark matter. Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific but also contain a large dose of ethics, i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter.
- verysimple 16y ago
  "I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations [...] scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics" It's neither a mistake nor inaccurate. Once you've observed, measured, calculated and concluded, you can involve all form of non-empirical disciplines you want, after all we are morally and emotionally bound beings. One thing we can't do however is hide from the truth the data has spoken. Those are usually very profound paradigm shifts, a crossroad between being comfortable with what was revealed, or choosing to be more at peace with one's oblivion and folkloric truths. "Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific [...] i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter." If the approach can't be objective then the question isn't scientific. Granted, those are science related questions and have a dose of moral and ethics involved, but that's not what science is about. Science isn't there to answer what you should or shouldn't do. It's there to provide you with facts on what would happen if you do it. Change your question should we eradicate mosquitoes into what would happen if we eradicate mosquitoes and we can talk science. Lets take out the tools, dust off old books, go in the nature, observe, measure, extrapolate, calculate and conclude. Then based on those conclusions we'll look at each other and our moral fiber will tell us, nah we should probably let the little scoundrel be.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Some questions, e.g.: should we ... are scientific No, none of those "should we" questions are scientific. Those are policy questions. Policy is informed by science, but passes through a filter of cultural values as well. I've said it several times here, but I'll do so again. Just because we can establish a theory as true does not necessarily lead to any particular policy. Suppose that climate change is not happening, at least to the extent of the sky falling. That does not mean that we do not have an obligation to preserve our environment; that is still determined by our values. Conversely, even if the climate is changing as significantly as some say, it doesn't necessarily mean that we must change our lifestyle to avoid it. Again, it's a question of values. Science should not be seen to lead directly to policy.

Jun8 16y ago

Although it is true that the scientific method cannot be thought of as "political" in any sense, I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations. It is done by scientists and in all ages scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics. Also, not all science is as abstract as, say, mathematics or hunting for dark matter. Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific but also contain a large dose of ethics, i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter.

verysimple 16y ago
"I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations [...] scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics" It's neither a mistake nor inaccurate. Once you've observed, measured, calculated and concluded, you can involve all form of non-empirical disciplines you want, after all we are morally and emotionally bound beings. One thing we can't do however is hide from the truth the data has spoken. Those are usually very profound paradigm shifts, a crossroad between being comfortable with what was revealed, or choosing to be more at peace with one's oblivion and folkloric truths. "Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific [...] i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter." If the approach can't be objective then the question isn't scientific. Granted, those are science related questions and have a dose of moral and ethics involved, but that's not what science is about. Science isn't there to answer what you should or shouldn't do. It's there to provide you with facts on what would happen if you do it. Change your question should we eradicate mosquitoes into what would happen if we eradicate mosquitoes and we can talk science. Lets take out the tools, dust off old books, go in the nature, observe, measure, extrapolate, calculate and conclude. Then based on those conclusions we'll look at each other and our moral fiber will tell us, nah we should probably let the little scoundrel be.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Some questions, e.g.: should we ... are scientific No, none of those "should we" questions are scientific. Those are policy questions. Policy is informed by science, but passes through a filter of cultural values as well. I've said it several times here, but I'll do so again. Just because we can establish a theory as true does not necessarily lead to any particular policy. Suppose that climate change is not happening, at least to the extent of the sky falling. That does not mean that we do not have an obligation to preserve our environment; that is still determined by our values. Conversely, even if the climate is changing as significantly as some say, it doesn't necessarily mean that we must change our lifestyle to avoid it. Again, it's a question of values. Science should not be seen to lead directly to policy.