3 ms·

I think we should be precise here. Saying the march is part of the problem does not mean that the lobbyists are not also part of the problem. It also does not

I think we should be precise here. Saying the march is part of the problem does not mean that the lobbyists are not also part of the problem. It also does not mean the march is a _root cause_ of the problem. It just acknowledges that the march is a part of the politicization of science, which it is.

komali2 7y ago
What action, with the objective of reducing the politicization of science, could be taken that could be construed as "non-political?"
- mooseburger 7y ago
  One that does not serve the interests of any one political faction.
  - komali2 7y ago
    In that case it is impossible to do Climate Change, science, no? It serves the interest of the Democratic "agenda," as a side effect.
    - ameister14 7y ago
      That can be construed as political but also as non-political.
    - mooseburger 7y ago
      There are many ways around global warming, of which current Democrat policy is just one. Republicans are being silly by not proposing alternative approaches to this problem, agreed, but they absolutely can.
      - komali2 7y ago
        More specifically, to the republican party, climate change does not exist. Therefore, any climate change research is politically anti-republican (why would you research something that doesn't even exist?) In the words of the leader of the republican party: "Climate Change is a Chinese hoax." This isn't the fault of scientists in any way, shape, or form. This is a direct result of society, for some reason, organizing its political parties along "pro-intellectualism" vs "anti-intellectualism" lines. How can scientists fight back against this without being political? Should they just "deal with it?"
- ameister14 7y ago
  Conducting scientific experiments and publishing their results absent government funding.
snowwrestler 7y ago
Science is inherently political because it is done by people. And scientific knowledge has political implications because it tells us about the world around us, and politics is the process by which we decide how our laws will adapt to and affect that world. None of that is inherently negative! However, when political expedience and facts conflict, we should adapt the politics to the facts, and not the other way around. That's what the "march for science" was about.

komali2 7y ago

What action, with the objective of reducing the politicization of science, could be taken that could be construed as "non-political?"

mooseburger 7y ago
One that does not serve the interests of any one political faction.
- komali2 7y ago
  In that case it is impossible to do Climate Change, science, no? It serves the interest of the Democratic "agenda," as a side effect.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    That can be construed as political but also as non-political.
  - mooseburger 7y ago
    There are many ways around global warming, of which current Democrat policy is just one. Republicans are being silly by not proposing alternative approaches to this problem, agreed, but they absolutely can.
    - komali2 7y ago
      More specifically, to the republican party, climate change does not exist. Therefore, any climate change research is politically anti-republican (why would you research something that doesn't even exist?) In the words of the leader of the republican party: "Climate Change is a Chinese hoax." This isn't the fault of scientists in any way, shape, or form. This is a direct result of society, for some reason, organizing its political parties along "pro-intellectualism" vs "anti-intellectualism" lines. How can scientists fight back against this without being political? Should they just "deal with it?"
ameister14 7y ago
Conducting scientific experiments and publishing their results absent government funding.

snowwrestler 7y ago

Science is inherently political because it is done by people. And scientific knowledge has political implications because it tells us about the world around us, and politics is the process by which we decide how our laws will adapt to and affect that world. None of that is inherently negative! However, when political expedience and facts conflict, we should adapt the politics to the facts, and not the other way around. That's what the "march for science" was about.