> “Science is political. It is what we define it to be.”
Uh...no.
1. Science is ‘politicized’; not political. Science is most frequently politicized in the actual arena of politics rather than the domain of science.
2. It is what ‘some spin’ it to be; not what it is defined to be.
Science is an attempt to ascertain the spectrum of observations and events and rank them in terms of influence and relevance to a question of interest. It involves data gathering according to a sampling plan that selects data based on a design that ideally minimizes selection bias. It then involves assembling or aggregating data and measuring the data according to an acceptable objective measurement device or method where the device is adjusted to the proper scale of influence and relevance.
The resulting measurements are then tested for trends or emergent patterns against random distributions. If the measurements deviate in a statistically significant way from the random cases, then it is said the data have signal.
None of this was presented in Zita’s presentation. It’s a big fat F for failure in the serious world of analysis. It’s why serious people don’t read the PTR but they are happy to take in garbage when it fits the way they’ve been programmed. Readers of such rags as the PTR are lazy readers. They don’t want science, they want relief from boredom whether from the comics or from page 1. And such readers of liberal media fiefdoms as the PTR are in decline by most objective measurements.
I could write a schlocky article for PTR that ranted on about Ted Cruz and it would get accepted. I could write a first rate analysis of how gun control laws don’t work and it would be routed inside the PTR to the circular file.
Statistics is like a scalpel. The outcome of the surgery is nearly entirely dependent on how talented the surgeon is handling the scalpel. Statistics don’t lie; liars lie and liars use statistics to lie. Same with guns; guns don’t kill people; people kill people and people use guns to kill people.
Zita used selected facts to denigrate the Tea Party. The facts selected were chosen to denigrate. Other facts supporting the Tea Party were left out. This is what makes the analysis a garbage analysis.
Science is indeed what we humans define it to be. It is the shameless chameleon that exploits the one and only true system of thought clearly set apart from it.
There are abut dozen subjective (to the observer/implementer) variables in your first paragraph outlining the “non-political” nature of science.
Nonetheless, I’ll defer to your scientific analysis of the article. It make sense.
And I still believe it’s Zito as in bandito.