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 science activism
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.
It has come to the point where we must separate real science from pop “science.” There’s a big difference between scientists who perform scientific inquiry for the sake of knowledge and activists who propose an enormous restructuring of Western and Eastern civilizations. Real scientists use the scientific method and offer scientific critiques of accumulated data. A real scientist doesn’t need a majority consensus. Most people are not climate change deniers but are instead critical of the current climate change community which states essentially “you must give a lot of money to us scientists (activists) and ‘green’ industries in the forms of taxes and grants or the planet will die within 100 years.” And if things don’t come to fruition as predicted by these activists then have no fear all these changes to energy, economic, and political sectors would be for the greater good in the end. What could be wrong with that? People are further critical of science activism because it is constantly fear mongering. First it was a call to arms to save the poor polar bears whose population it turns out is not under any threat. That was soon followed by the notion that there would be more hurricanes like Katrina and natural disasters which again has yet to be realized. Nearly 40 years ago it was the fear of the coming ice age that was the real threat and now its global warming that’s the issue. Notice how the rhetoric has changed from global warming to climate change? It was done intentionally of course. So enough with calling people science deniers because they are merely critical of your activism- not the science. The earth very well could be in the process of changing permanently or simply going through a fluctuation. Either way I don’t understand this purveying ideal in the West that its man’s duty to actively manipulate nature.