Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I also think most people are smart enough to know the difference between real science and opinion.
|
i quickly interject here to say
ace, i assume that you making this statement in jest? its not always a question of the ability of our population to detect truth in scientific statements, its the deliberate attempt to make pseudo-scientific statements
sound as though they carry more weight than they do. what, praytell, are the magic words that give way to obvious political hack jobs versus scientific results, when the name of the organization making the study (usually a political think tank) sounds official, the study makes a lot of claims with numbers and percentages, and you're not reading the entire study or familiar with the field? its difficult for scientists to do this internally, which is why we have field-specific peer-review systems. i really don't see how the general public can be expected to.
as to the op, i think the tendency of any powerful group (in this case, our government and the career politicians who inhabit it) is to cherry-pick information sources that further their agenda. on this general point, i agree with you
ace. however, from what i can see - the current administration is awful at it. furthermore, it fits with what i perceive to be a pattern of deception out of these guys that is having devastating consequences.
in particular, i find this site to be interesting :
union of concerned scientists. i think they were brought up in a previous thread concerning global warming specifically, but that's not the only area they
deal with:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Union of Concerned Scientists : Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.
————
Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.
President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990
---------
Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.
-----snip-----
Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:
*
Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
*
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters.
*
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
*
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
*
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
|