Posted on 04/21/2017 7:49:18 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Science shouldn’t be controversial. Why would it be? Natural science offers powerful methods for learning about the universe. Given the benefits that, over the centuries, have been derived from these methods, who on earth isn’t “pro-science?”
Beyond crackpots like Ted Kaczynski, no one I have ever met. So, why are there national marches planned to defend science? Science isn’t under attack. The marches “for science” are nothing more than cynical attempts to prevail in public policy issues where the results of science are being applied to the human condition. It is, in short, to confuse science with politics.
Let me offer one example. A few years ago, self-proclaimed science advocate Hank Campbell, the head of the American Council on Science and Health, tried to persuade National Review to fire me as a contributor. What had I done to attract such scorn? Did I copy someone else’s work? Had I expressed a racist sentiment? Did I publish libel? None of the above. Campbell simply disagreed with me on how reproductive technology should be used. Note that this is a question of ethics and public policy, not natural science.
For that, Campbell accused me of being “anti science” and “hating biology.” He even accused me of viewing IVF “as a tool of Lucifer.” Lucifer? I have never brought up Beelzebub, Old Scrap, El Diablo, Satan, or the devil in any of my many books, articles, or speeches. I hadn’t done so in the column that got Campbell in such a dither. Nor have I ever written anything opposing biology itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at stream.org ...
I am glad there are some talking about this.
Like what the recent Nobel committees have done to demean the honor of a Nobel Prizes.
The liberals arts and other ‘soft sciences’ have done to the meaning of the word science.
In current times I would not want to be known as a ‘scientist’, do to the countless number of frauds that have sullied what the word means.
Phd in Poly-sci just means Piled higher and Deeper
I agree that science shouldn’t be controversial, but it has been from wa-ay on back. The earth revolves around the sun? Heresy! Evolution of species? Blasphemous! Truly, it seems, the more things change, the more things stay the same.
Affirmative Science...
[Promoters of the March for Science] are clearly conflating their own public policy goals with science itself. This could do greater harm to science than anything the activists have labeled “anti-science.” If most Americans come to believe that they must choose between “science” and their their moral and political views, science would be the loser.Indeed, it might easily be argued that the promoters of the March for Science have made precisely that decision - that their moral and political views cannot withstand the skepticism of actual scientific inquiry, and that they therefore have rejected actual science in favor of a Potemkin Village version of “science."
If b o and bill nye say global warming is settled science then it must be so.
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.