Back in August, Deborah Byrd posted a blog about “Why do some people resist science?” It generated a lot of interest. Now author Chris Mooney has published a book called “The Republican War on Science,” and you can hear a 27-minute interview with Mr. Mooney on “USCD Guestbook” with Naomi Oreskes:
The Republican War on Science.
(By the way, there are lots of other great things on Learnoutloud.com — check it out!)
I’m going to state my opinion here and let it go, as this is not something I wish to spend a lot of time on. Please understand that this is my blog and my opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is not the official opinion of Earth & Sky or anyone else related to it — it is just my opinion. I am posting it here for the informational value, and while you are welcome to add your comments as long as you are civil, I don’t want the comments to become a debating ground.
Ever since I have been thinking about this — probably the late 60’s — it has been increasingly obvious to me that the majority of Republican politicians (note that I said “politicians” — not necessarily “ordinary” Republicans) have a strong tendency to distrust science, to “pooh-pooh” environmental issues, and to justify their often extreme views through distorted religious pretentions and the ridiculous argument that “we do not have enough information, so we should not change anything” — except when it is to their political or monetary advantage.
Now, lest you think that I am a registered Democrat — I am not. I am not a registered anything but I *do* vote, and yes, it is usually for the Democratic candidate. However, there are many areas, in which my preferences are far more Republican than Democrat. However, I do not want to be considered as either. Nor I am I an extremist libertarian. People need to think for themselves, and they need to think more for the benefit of all, not for their own short term benefit, not just today’s bottom line or ego. Everyone needs to think, act and vote for the best interests of others, society as a whole, the rest of the world, and the environment. Sometimes making a decision that is the best one in the long run does not yield pleasant results in the short term — it may not make you popular. But we all need to do what is right, not what is popular.
My opinion is that politicians do what is best for their specific and immediate or short-term political and monetary advantage. Democrats and other certainly are not immune to this self-centered perversion, but Republican politicians are the greatest and most consistent culprits — and this is especially true in science.
Science is about truth, whether you like it or not. It may sometimes be politically expedient to deny certain truths, but it is never the best solution in the long term or for the majority. I am in favor of rationality, reason and logic, coupled with human compassion. I am far from being perfect in that area, but in my opinion, most politicians are *very* far from it. Still, I give Democrats the nod here, if hesitantly.
i am whole heartedly republican and must point out republicans want us on the moon by 2020. i should also point out that twice in the past decade genetic scientists have tried to have meetings on behavioral genetics(which are as legitimate as the genetic markers for being prone to illness)yet democrats have poo poo,ed and marched and chanted and assembled to shoot down this scientific endeavor. scientists want you to know they can help people that are prone to violent or anti social behavior can be helped earlier but dems are against this.i believe if you look hard you will find reps and dems make up a 50 50 of the overall number…as in life.
Hi, Sam. You could be right, and I certainly don’t think all Republicans are anti-science, but to me at last, a lot of those who are in power certainly show those tendencies. I am not too familiar with the specific items you mention, except for the return to the moon thing. Going to the moon is important, but much more scientific information can be had otherwise. Going back to the moon is a political ploy, which unfortunately can also be said for the original motivations for going there the first time as per John Kennedy. Democrats can show some pretty strong and stupid tendencies ins science and elsewhere, but it is my contention that int he overall picture, science advances more under Democrats than Republicans. But as I said, it is an opinion.
Larry S.
Science must ba apolitical. Science is about discovery of truth and fact. Politics, unfortunately is about twisting logic, facts and lies into a melange sutable for an election campaign. A politician either must create a scenario dire enough to scare folks into support for a candidate (see global warming and national healthcare) or a rosy future alluring enough to generate enthusiasm.
Most of these stumpers have no real education in science at all and most should have failed freshman economics. THese folks have no experience running any sort of business. They specialize in obfuscation and rhetoric. And yet, we the people send these folks to office and trust our very lives to them.
As far as Republicans and Democrats: I see no discernible difference between them. They tend to be socialists and liars and never met any program to waste money on they didn’t love.
If anyone believes there is some politician that can fix the environment or make life great, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. If you want things different, make them different.
I was a Democrat, but Jimmy Carter made me into a Republican an I hold a science degree. If it were pollitically expeident, members of both parties would say that the world is flat! Just because a politican opposes a certain procedure does not mean they oppose science. Remember a non-scientist politican and well known Democrat says Global Warming is real!
A P:
I think I hear what you are saying. We all need to look beyond the labels to the actions. There are good and bad on both sides, but by an large I think we would all be better off if there were more real scientists in Congress (and the White House), and fewer lawyers and business interests. One prominent Republican (I can’t remember his name) used to come up with a list of political pork every year, on which there were many ridiculous “science” and other programs that frankly *didP need to be eliminated. I think he did it mostly as a politcal move. But what we really need is rational, logical thought rather than greed or political vindictiveness. It doesn’t take a Republican, or a Democrat, or a scientist to see the reality of Global Warming. You just have to be alive and pay attention. It seems to me that Republicans have wasted a lot of time saying that we either do not have enough evidence or denying the human element. I say we need to start doing things to minimize the impact, and leave politics out of it.
LS
It’s been surprising to me - after 30 years as a science educator - that both Republican and Democrats are not more supportive of science.
I’m not one to say that science is the only path. But science has some truly vital tools that we need for the 21st century. I join others here in hoping the next administration can look beyond political posturing and begin to fully support the scientific endeavor to understand Earth and our human challenges in this century.
It could happen!
Deborah
Dear Larry Sessions,
Thanks for speaking whatsoever is true to you.
I believe this is one way to begin. We have to speak of topics that are taboo, politically unpopular, economically inexpedient, socially incorrect……..just as we do in this community.
My greatest concern is that the undoing of the human species, and life as we know it, could inadvertently occur as a result of the adamant and relentless maintenance of SILENCE.
Silence is something to be feared. Silence is especially disturbing and potentially ruinous when it is actively employed as a tool for resisting and denying good science.
Are ubiquitous daily decisions to remain silent, and not speak the truth as we see it, not tantamount to becoming co-conspirators with the hiers of Ozymandias, the children of men, the masters of the universe who are pursuing a primrose path, one which leads to an unacceptable risk of NO-FUTURE for our children?
Perhaps the time has come for us to follow your example by telling the truth as we see it in the “now here” lest our children end up no-where.
It’s so alarming that a party or politician would have to weigh their decision first - rather than encouraging progress or innovations in science. They fear so much that one small decision could affect their polls or that corporations would retaliate if they don’t comply, at the expense of the human race.
When the Church was in power and Galileo made significant discoveries, those in power would rather see him rot in a dungeon than allow him to continue with his observations.
Today we see that power from the Church as having a backward mentality and it is no different than a politician refusing to allow stem-cell research.