| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Robert Cohen" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2005 09:17:29 PM |
| Object: |
NYT Book Review: THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE |
My comment: I have perceived some on-going 21st century Lysenkoism: Am
I'm using the term appropriately in the context/accusations of the
book/"diatribe?" I could also call it, "rightwing religious/ethical
suppression of science."
Meanwhile: Today while watchiing the U.S. House of Representatives, the
encouragement by speakers from all factions of both major political
parties to facilitate/encourage (cord? natal?) blood research was an
interesting & heartening rare consensus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18horgan.html
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: NYT Book Review: THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE |
19 Dec 2005 12:02:50 PM |
|
|
Robert Cohen wrote:
My comment: I have perceived some on-going 21st century Lysenkoism: Am
I'm using the term appropriately in the context/accusations of the
book/"diatribe?" I could also call it, "rightwing religious/ethical
suppression of science."
Meanwhile: Today while watchiing the U.S. House of Representatives, the
encouragement by speakers from all factions of both major political
parties to facilitate/encourage (cord? natal?) blood research was an
interesting & heartening rare consensus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18horgan.html
The link says I must log and be some kind of card carying member to see
your proof. This is a dispicable way to argue and should be banned.
Provide your evidence and don't be fooled by anti-pasters, else I
shallt acuseth yea of an "appeal to authority!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: NYT Book Review: THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE |
19 Dec 2005 12:07:10 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135015370.563085.290580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Robert Cohen wrote:
My comment: I have perceived some on-going 21st century Lysenkoism: Am
I'm using the term appropriately in the context/accusations of the
book/"diatribe?" I could also call it, "rightwing religious/ethical
suppression of science."
Meanwhile: Today while watchiing the U.S. House of Representatives, the
encouragement by speakers from all factions of both major political
parties to facilitate/encourage (cord? natal?) blood research was an
interesting & heartening rare consensus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18horgan.html
The link says I must log and be some kind of card carying member to see
your proof. This is a dispicable way to argue and should be banned.
Provide your evidence and don't be fooled by anti-pasters, else I
shallt acuseth yea of an "appeal to authority!"
http://battellemedia.com/images/googlebot_earth.png
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fluidly Unsure" |
|
| Title: Re: NYT Book Review: THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE |
19 Dec 2005 05:51:25 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:
My comment: I have perceived some on-going 21st century Lysenkoism: Am
I'm using the term appropriately in the context/accusations of the
book/"diatribe?" I could also call it, "rightwing religious/ethical
suppression of science."
Meanwhile: Today while watchiing the U.S. House of Representatives, the
encouragement by speakers from all factions of both major political
parties to facilitate/encourage (cord? natal?) blood research was an
interesting & heartening rare consensus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18horgan.html
The link says I must log and be some kind of card carying member to see
your proof. This is a dispicable way to argue and should be banned.
Provide your evidence and don't be fooled by anti-pasters, else I
shallt acuseth yea of an "appeal to authority!"
Why?
Why force others to read the whole enchilada when the information is only
supportive of his main idea? When the whole gist of the post relies solely on
one article, the first paragraph or two definitely could help. But don't post
too much. Just enough so people can decide whether or not they want to read further.
If you are worried about sites that require registration, there are ways to log
on that won't compromise your information. Stupid, yes. But it can be gotten around.
--
Liquid
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: NYT Book Review: THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE |
21 Dec 2005 01:41:00 PM |
|
|
Fluidly Unsure wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:
My comment: I have perceived some on-going 21st century Lysenkoism: Am
I'm using the term appropriately in the context/accusations of the
book/"diatribe?" I could also call it, "rightwing religious/ethical
suppression of science."
Meanwhile: Today while watchiing the U.S. House of Representatives, the
encouragement by speakers from all factions of both major political
parties to facilitate/encourage (cord? natal?) blood research was an
interesting & heartening rare consensus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18horgan.html
The link says I must log and be some kind of card carying member to see
your proof. This is a dispicable way to argue and should be banned.
Provide your evidence and don't be fooled by anti-pasters, else I
shallt acuseth yea of an "appeal to authority!"
Why?
Why force others to read the whole enchilada when the information is only
supportive of his main idea? When the whole gist of the post relies solely on
one article, the first paragraph or two definitely could help. But don't post
too much. Just enough so people can decide whether or not they want to read further.
If you are worried about sites that require registration, there are ways to log
on that won't compromise your information. Stupid, yes. But it can be gotten around.
I was thinking of an obscure slant on the appeal to authority;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
But its not contained in that article, I see it in two of my many logic
books and philosophy introductions.
It is the idea that if I claim something about some author's argument
but do not present the authors position in any way, I am required to at
least formulate his argument in my own words, or I am merely claiming
that there is a good argument out there but there is no easy way to
comprehend the argument while it is still used to support some
conclusion.
--
Liquid
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: NYT Book Review: THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE |
20 Dec 2005 12:38:27 PM |
|
|
This is the first page of the book review: Registering for access to
most of the internet NY TIMES is as bad as anything that has ever
happened on Planet earth except a beautiful spring day.
Political Science
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article
Review by JOHN HORGAN
Published: December 18, 2005
Last spring, a magazine asked me to look into a whistleblower case
involving a United States Fish and Wildlife Service biologist named
Andy Eller. Eller, a veteran of 18 years with the service, was fired
after he publicly charged it with failing to protect the Florida
panther from voracious development. One of the first species listed
under the Endangered Species Act, the panther haunts southwest
Florida's forests, which builders are transforming into gated golf
communities. After several weeks of interviews, I wrote an article that
called the service's treatment of Eller "shameful" - and emblematic of
the Bush administration's treatment of scientists who interfere with
its probusiness agenda.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Viktor Koen
THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE
By Chris Mooney.
342 pp. Basic Books. $24.95.
Forum: Book News and Reviews
My editor complained that the piece was too "one-sided"; I needed to
show more sympathy to Eller's superiors in the Wildlife Service and to
the Bush administration. I knew what the editor meant: the story I had
written could be dismissed as just another anti-Bush diatribe; it would
be more persuasive if it appeared more balanced. On the other hand, the
reality was one-sided, to a startling degree. An ardent
conservationist, Eller had dreamed of working for the Wildlife Service
since his youth; he collected first editions of environmental classics
like Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." The officials who fired him based
their denial that the panther is threatened in part on data provided by
a former state wildlife scientist who had since become a consultant for
developers seeking to bulldoze panther habitat. The officials were
clearly acting in the spirit of their overseer, Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton, a property-rights advocate who has questioned the
constitutionality of aspects of the Endangered Species Act.
This episode makes me more sympathetic than I might otherwise have been
to "The Republican War on Science" by the journalist Chris Mooney. As
the title indicates, Mooney's book is a diatribe, from start to finish.
The prose is often clunky and clich=E9d, and it suffers from smug,
preaching-to-the-choir self-righteousness. But Mooney deserves a
hearing in spite of these flaws, because he addresses a vitally
important topic and gets it basically right.
Mooney charges George Bush and other conservative Republicans with
"science abuse," which he defines as "any attempt to inappropriately
undermine, alter or otherwise interfere with the scientific process, or
scientific conclusions, for political or ideological reasons." Science
abuse is not an exclusively right-wing sin, Mooney acknowledges. He
condemns Greenpeace for exaggerating the risks of genetically modified
"Frankenfoods," animal-rights groups for dismissing the medical
benefits of research on animals and John Kerry for overstating the
potential of stem cells during his presidential run.
In "politicized fights involving science, it is rare to find liberals
entirely innocent of abuses," Mooney asserts. "But they are almost
never as guilty as the Right." By "the Right," Mooney means the
powerful alliance of conservative Christians - who seek to influence
policies on abortion, stem cells, sexual conduct and the teaching of
evolution - and advocates of free enterprise who attempt to minimize
regulations that cut into corporate profits. The champion of both
groups - and the chief villain of Mooney's book - is President Bush,
whom Mooney accuses of having "politicized science to an unprecedented
degree."
Some might quibble with "unprecedented." When I starting covering
science in the early 1980's, Ronald Reagan was pushing for a
space-based defense against nuclear missiles, called Star Wars, that a
chorus of scientists dismissed as technically unfeasible. Reagan
stalled on acknowledging the dangers of acid rain and the buildup of
ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Warming the
hearts of his religious fans, Reagan voiced doubts about the theory of
evolution, and he urged C. Everett Koop, the surgeon general, to
investigate whether abortion harms women physically and emotionally.
(Koop, though an ardent opponent of abortion, refused.) Mooney notes
this history but argues that the current administration has imposed its
will on scientific debates in a more systematic fashion, and he cites a
slew of cases - including the Florida panther affair - to back up his
claim.
One simple strategy involves filling federal positions on the basis of
ideology rather than genuine expertise. Last year, the White House
expelled the eminent cell biologist Elizabeth Blackburn, a proponent of
embryonic stem-cell research, from the President's Council on Bioethics
and installed a political scientist who had once declared, "Every
embryo for research is someone's blood relative." And in 2002 the
administration appointed the Kentucky gynecologist and obstetrician W.
David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the
Food and Drug Administration. Hager has advocated treating premenstrual
syndrome with Bible readings and has denounced the birth control pill.
123Next Page >
John Horgan is director of the Center for Science Writings at the
Stevens Institute of Technology. His latest book is "Rational
Mysticism."
Next Article in Books (11 of 31) > TicketWatch - great theater seats
at great prices
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: NYT Book Review: THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE |
19 Dec 2005 01:24:18 PM |
|
|
The Republican attack is actually on Reason; scientists are merely
more aware of the attack than others and they are more vocal so it just
SEEMS like the Republicons are attacking science.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
