Posted on 02/16/2011 3:12:28 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[British] Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington is stepping up the war on pseudoscience with a call to his fellow government scientists to be “grossly intolerant” if science is being misused by religious or political groups.
In closing remarks to an annual conference of around 300 scientific civil servants on 3 February, in London, Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia. “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality...We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method,” he said.
Beddington said he intends to take this agenda forward with his fellow chief scientists and also with the research councils. “I really believe that... we need to recognise that this is a pernicious influence, it is an increasingly pernicious influence and we need to be thinking about how we can actually deal with it.
”I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant...We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems.
“There are enough difficult and important problems out there without having to… deal with what is politically or morally or religiously motivated nonsense.”
Beddington also had harsh words for journalists who treat the opinions of non-scientist commentators as being equivalent to the opinions of what he called “properly trained, properly assessed” scientists. “The media see the discussions about really important scientific events as if it’s a bloody football match. It is ridiculous.”
His call has been welcomed by science groups, including the Campaign for Science and Engineering.
Edzard Ernst, professor of the study of complementary medicine at Exeter University, whose department is being closed down, said he was “delighted that somebody in [Beddington’s] position speaks out”. In an interview with Research Fortnight Ernst said that the analogy with racism was a good one and that he, like Beddington, questioned why journalists have what he called “a pathological need” to balance a scientific opinion with one from outside of science.
“You don’t have that balance in racism,” he said. “You’re not finishing [an article] by quoting the Ku Klux Klan when it is an article about racist ideas,” Ernst said.
“This is strong language because the frustration is so huge and because scientists are being misunderstood. For far too long we have been tolerant of these post-modern ideas that more than one truth is valid. All this sort of nonsense does make you very frustrated in the end.”
Ben Goldacre, a science journalist and medical doctor, agrees. “Society has been far too tolerant of politicians, lobbyists, and journalists wilfully misusing science, distorting evidence by cherry-picking data that suits their view, giving bogus authority to people who misrepresent the absolute basics of science, and worse,” he told Research Fortnight. “This distorted evidence has real world implications, because people need good evidence to make informed decisions on policy, health, and more. Beddington is frustrated, and rightly so: for years I’ve had journalists and politicians repeatedly try to brush my concerns on these issues under the carpet.”
Scientists need to fight back, he says.
In closing, Beddington said: “I’d urge you, and this is a kind of strange message to go out, but go out and be much more intolerant.” He asked his audience to forgive him for what appear to have been unscripted remarks, adding: “But it is a thing that has been very much at the forefront of my mind over the last few months and I think we need to do it.”
Avatar "The film broke several box office records during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time in the U.S. and Canada"
Earth in the Balance Required viewing in public schools
National Geographic Inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888
First time I heard about that. Thanks.
If it were possible to nail jello to a wall,
I’d like to ask these people what they base their justification for intolerance of anti-homosexuality on.
After all, the justification for being pro-homo is based on relativism, or on the lack of absolute standards.
Therefor, they have no leg to stand on when judging others, because their standard for judgement cannot, by definition, be “better” than anyone else’s without an absolute standard to compare it to.
There ya go, bein’ all logical and stuff. The default position of liberals who are challenged is, “You have to be stupid if you don’t agree with me”.
How helpful...
Colonel, USAFR
This man is wielding the broad brush, claiming that if you don’t agree that global warming is real and become an activist against global climate deniers, then you are in bed (so to speak) with people who disparage homosexuals or people who are racist, ie wrong-headed and dangerous.
Never miss an opportunity for a gratuitous insult, do you.
Not quite. It is the politicians that start out with and agenda then pay to get the answers they want.
I more or less agree with the sentiment of the article. For instance, it was ludicrous for Meryl Streep to testify against Alar before Congress since she was in a movie about something related to farming.
One way to pick out true scientists vs. those who are trying to push an opinion or agenda is the way the scientist uses the language. A scientist uttering firm statements filled with words like “settled” or “the scientific community agrees” is trying to pull off a snow job. Science is not that certain. A scientist who uses what I call “hedge words” such as “the evidence could mean ___” or “this supports our belief that ___” is being honest.
While I’ve seen many times the complaint that scientists won’t ever come out and just state whatever they’re trying to say, the reason they talk the way they do is that they routinely deal with uncertainties, and they know that the current thinking may be revised at any time.
-——Science is not that certain. -———
That is, it is ok to be uncertain.
The need to cling to absolute certainty is intellectual dishonesty
I am fully in favor of being "intolerant" of that sort of tripe!
This can be applied to other fieldss other than Science as well.
No one has complained about your posting of SCRIPTURE in a SCIENCE thread?
HMMmmm...
Never miss an opportunity for a gratuitous insult, do you.
Without the assumptions of the God of the Bible,
science cannot be done.
Ask the Muslims - any assumption of uniformity or induction is considered to be a blasphemy, “chaining Allah”.
The only reason for is that they have an agenda, and that is not science that is advocacy. Too many of these global warming activists have been in academia all their lives. They buy into the idea that they are more intelligent, more informed and now what is best for the masses.
They mingle only with other "elites" and stroke each others' vanity. It's like inbreeding--not good. The truth is, they have been insulated from real work situations, other ideas and truths of life. They don't know what is good for anyone, including themselves.
Would you please comment on the content of the post.
If you want to discuss gay issues please take it elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.