Some important points were brought up in this article which highlight the overarching problems with the politicization of science. Science is not a religion or belief system but a method by which we utilize our intellect to better understand the physical world. It is not a method for establishing morality nor is it an authority in the realm of politics. It truly appears that these pseudo-pop-scientists are content to promote political advocacy by masquerading as a scientific authority whose claims must be revered. I agree with the conclusion that if these “scientists” continue to discredit science in the same vain that the media has been discredited then we are in for some serious trouble.
Archives For popular science
I agree with the premise of the article that a human society based on reason and objectivity simply isn’t feasible. Historical precedence such as the French Revolution leads me to believe this to be true. Science is a wonderful process which has accounted for the extraordinary progress by which humans have changed over thousands of years. It is not without its flaws which include human error in weighing results, inability to duplicate results, and external variables such as financial motivation. How does Tyson propose to account for the outside interests at work affecting scientific research in his governmental plan? Furthermore the scientific process does have its limitations such as not being able to objectively proclaim which human values are most important and therefore which action governments should take. In order to do so Tyson’s “rationalia” would need to be a totalitarian state. I’ll pass on the science worshiping totalitarian police state thanks.