Everyone who has been paying attention knows that there is a strong anti-science movement in this country — driven partly by populist anti-intellectualism, but increasingly by corporate interests that just don’t like what science has to say. It’s an old problem — tobacco companies succeeded for years in sowing doubt about the health effects of smoking — but it’s become significantly worse in recent years.
Nina Fedoroff is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which is holding its annual meeting right now. She is not holding back about the problem, but tackling it directly. From a weekend article in the Guardian (h/t Dan Gillmor):
“We are sliding back into a dark era,” she said. “And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.”
Tim F. at Balloon Juice points to this flowchart at Climate Progress that illustrates how the money and message gets sent around to sow doubt about scientific findings. (Okay, it’s not really a flow chart, but you get the point.) I was also struck by a link to an older article by Ian Sample, which put the problem in its starkest terms: the American Enterprise Institute was offering $10,000 to scientists and economists who were willing to write op-eds or essays critiquing the IPCC climate report — before it was published. Money goes a long way.
Relatedly, here’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg trying to push the Supreme Court away from its ruling in Citizens United, the notorious case that led to the creation of SuperPACs by deciding that corporations were persons, and not letting them advertise anonymously would be a grievous violation of their free-speech rights. We’ll see how well she does. Scientists, meanwhile, need to keep speaking out about the integrity of our field. When researchers are attacked and their jobs threatened by politicians who disagree with their results, it’s time to stand up for what science really means.
GM,
Your points 1-3 @#8are typical stereotypes which I hear from Muslim immigrants. But, the main thing which betrays you is your amazement at simple, trivial assertion that AGW Theory is merely a theory. Islam is the only religion and culture that considers its scripture, the Quran as a direct word of a deity unmodified and uninfluenced by limitations of human reasoning and conceptualization. As a consequence, Muslim culture and thinking stereotypes have little to offer to help you to distinguish between reality and human conception/reflection of reality. Hippies, Greenpeace activists whom you are channeling know that distinction too well. If you were one of them you would see it too. So, how do I explain unique absence of any philosophical sophistication in your posts and unique blood-thirstiness at the same time? One way to explain it is to assume that you are a Muslim. But, take it easy man, it is just an assumption, a conjecture, a hypothesis, a theory, a guess, a prediction. And unlike some, I make clear distinction between assumptions/theories and facts. To be precise: you may be a Muslim, but you not necessarily a Muslim.
Do not dwell on my comments too heavily. Look, I have been merely trying to help you to understand the difference between “possibility” and “necessity.” It was discussed e.g. by Aristotle. Understanding those logical modalities( “possibility” and “necessity”) may help you to eventually understand the difference between predictions and facts .
The “merely a theory” canard is a trademark of creationist imbeciles. I can not take seriously accusations of “unique absence of any philosophical sophistication” in my posts (when did we talk about philosophy to begin with) or anything else from people who are not ashamed to use it. Period.
Thanks for telling your mind GM. So, you imply that you do have some philosophical sophistication and, as I see, it comes from your familiarity with creationist vs evolution theory debates in US. I’m sorry but I can’t and don’t watch those debates as I see *both* sides lacking any philosophical sophistication. It is just as watching food fight between savages e.g. watching Muslim girls fighting for food during Ramadan fiesta.
If you want to know more about philosophy of scientific knowledge, may I recommend Karl Popper’s “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” If you read it you may start understanding why I see you as lacking any philosophical sophistication.
Pingback: Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Tell President Obama to support the Federal Research Public Access Act
http://www.treelobsters.com/2010/06/160-denial.html
Pingback: What you think you know! « The Book of Ascension Blog
Pingback: Weekly List Bookmarks (weekly) | Eccentric Eclectica @ ToddSuomela.com