Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
i quickly interject here to say ace, i assume that you making this statement in jest?
|
Not at all. Take smoking for example - people knew and know smoking is unhealthy, however they choose to smoke. that choice had nothing to do with claims by the tabacco industry when they attempted to contradict the real science. There will always be some people who will believe "you can lose 30 pounds in 30 days with this pill", but most people know the truth.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It is very rare that people actually change their behavior because of pseudo-scientific statements. You can take global warming as a perfect example, even assuming it a scientific truth, those who believe the globe is warming have not changed their behavior and the odds are that they regularly consume on a net basis more fossil fuel today than they did 10 years ago. I would be interested in knowing how Gore has changed his behavior.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Perhaps you mean they are not as deceptive about it as other administrations have been. Bush has an "in your face" approach. I like that. It is clear and he has no hidden agenda.
Who is at fault if people blindly buy into what Bush says when they normally would disagree? Not Bush in my opinion. For example, everyone knew Bush wanted to invade Iraq. He presented his case with his data. Congress and the UN authorized the use of force, then they were surprised that he used force????? Perhaps those members of congress needed to call timeout and realize that they needed to take a closer look at the data, since it was that data that caused them to vote as they did. In reality I think they are using the data that was proved wrong as an excuse for their lack of conviction.
Another example creation vs. evolution. The religious right simply wants their view of creation presented in schools, that is their goal, it is not a scientific debate to them, it about faith and spreading their faith. The religious right knows that, but their opponents argue science trying to prove them wrong when in reality the two sides are not even discussing the same question. So if Bush says there are holes in the theory of evolution or emphasizes that it is "just a theory", and scientists get their panties in a bunch, perhaps they should count to ten, relax and simply say scientific theory has a place in public schools, teaching religious faith does not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I have a hard time understanding what your example of hypocracy (people pretending to care.....taking a private jet) has to do with the manipulation of government science studies by non-scientist political appointees.
|
If you believe the science regarding global warming as an example why would you continue contributing to the problem? If the problem is with the consumption of fossil fuels, why use fossil fuel for recreation.
Quote:
|
The hypocracy I see is a party that conducted dozens of oversight hearings of the previous administration, with hundreds of subpoenas of, and testimony by, administration witnesses (i.e.e political appointees) AND yet has refused for the last six years to conduct any meaningful public hearings on the actions of the current administration and blocked every attempt by the minorty party to have such hearings.
|
I agree with you. Personally I thought the way the Republican controlled conress handled the Clinton administration was shameful. I changed to the Libertarian party during that time. However, I think there is a level of "tit for tat" in politics. I accept that as a reality.
Quote:
In any case, Waxman will conduct hearings on the alleged manipulation and suppression of government scientific studies (among other issues). If the hearings are perceived as "politicizing" the issue(s), as you seem to infer, then the public may hold that against the Dems in the next election. If the hearings produce findings that the Bush administration acted unethically or illegally, then perhaps the public will hold the Repubs accountable.
It comes down to you notion of "politicization" and mine of Congress fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.
|
I guess there is a fine line between fulfilling oversight responsibilities and politicizing. We will see what happens, my bet is they are going to politicize issues inspite of saying they won't. That is hypocracy. If they simply said we are going to "rack Bush and the Republican party over the coals" for what they believed are deceptive practices, I would respect that, but don't try to make me believe the hearings are for some other grand purpose.