Is There Hope for Texas after All?

Perry will probably come out against this if there's a chance that it might be passed. He's up for election next year and he knows that his base of support in the Republican primary will have from the right of the party. His likely opponent will be Kay Bailey Hutchison who is a more traditional Republican (that's a bad thing in Texas GOP terms).

Just this week Perry has invited Rush Limbaugh to relocate to Texas and will be speaking in support of the ridiculous right-wing Tea Parties tomorrow. Backing the wingnut creationists on the Texas State School Board will no doubt complete the trifecta.

there is NO hope for Texas
i'm sorry, its a fact

The school board election is still science by politics. So we are fire-fighting once again there.

I do think the way forward is to strip the Texas board of it's current powers as it is simply being abused by the people on it with their own agendas. Who, let's face it, don't seem to know or care much about education.

We will have to keep a close eye on this one.

tacitus,

Re: the Tea Party movement: isn't involvement like this exactly what people in government are always blathering on about? Get involved! Speak your mind! Get out and vote! Anyway, as far as I can tell they are no more ridiculous than any of the protest groups that went after the Bush administration and its odious policies.

________________________________________

Anyway, this issue and others like it will remain politicized lightning rods in the U.S. so long as public schools dominate the K-12 educational landscape. If you are going demand that people pay for something, and it is something that they object to, then they are going to object to it.

I'm not sure transferring authority is a good solution to an incompetent board. Appointment does not guarantee sanity any more than election does. And that appointed office could easily be targeted by creationists in the future.

IMO the Texas problem is at the voter level. Board officials will support good science when the majority of their voting constituents do. Now I think most Texans would actually support sound science. I think Texas is simply learning what Kansas learned over the past few years: a vocal minority can hijack an election if the majority is not willing to express their opinion.

eric,

I would suspect that the majority of Texans are skeptical of evolution, if they are anything like the American public at large. Those are the horns of the dilemma IMHO.

The Journal article didn't really give much information about the bills, other than mentioning that they exist. I've recently been tracking what's happening in the Texas legislature regarding bills on creationism and the Board of Education. If you want the numbers of the bills, with links so you can follow their progress through the legislature, you can find them in two posts at my place: info on 4 bills is here, and one more is here.

tacitus, Re: the Tea Party movement: isn’t involvement like this exactly what people in government are always blathering on about? Get involved! Speak your mind! Get out and vote! Anyway, as far as I can tell they are no more ridiculous than any of the protest groups that went after the Bush administration and its odious policies.

I would suspect that the majority of Texans are skeptical of evolution, if they are anything like the American public at large. Those are the horns of the dilemma IMHO.

The Curmudgeon said: The Journal article didn't really give much information about the bills, other than mentioning that they exist. I've recently been tracking what's happening in the Texas legislature regarding bills on creationism and the Board of Education. If you want the numbers of the bills, with links so you can follow their progress through the legislature, you can find them in two posts at my place: info on 4 bills is here, and one more is here.

harold,

Well, I don't think it matters whether creationism is coming up at the protests.

Second of all, the Bush administration actually was doing what the protesters said it was doing, whether you agree or disagree that it should have been protested. Claiming that the Obama administration is “fascist” or “communist” is ridiculous.

Well, from the standpoint of a surveillance society and the like the Obama administration isn't any better than the Bush administration. Governments like the populations that they rule to be - to use a lovely term I picked up from someone else some time ago - "legible.

Would the word doubtful be better?

They always refer to human evolution, force a false conflict with religion, and plant the false suggestion that there is a legitimate “controversy”.

Well, there is a conflict between science and religion, and it isn't a false one (and of course it is one which lies at the very heart of and genesis of human societies - the conflict between tradition, particularly of the religious variety, and reason - neither has a monopoly on truth of course). And I suspect the reason they likely refer to human evolution is likely because that is what is important to most people who disagree with the theory of evolution. And there is a "legitimate" controversy - a lot of people (not myself) find the idea of evolution to be deeply troubling on number of levels. But that is a different sort of controversy than the one you were probably referring to.

I'd love to see that poll.

Seems to me that our best defense against anti-evolution activists is to try to insure that the composition of the supreme court is at least pro-science if not pro-evolution. No matter who tries to insinuate their religious beliefs into public school science classes, from middle school teachers to BOE members to governors, they will face law suits. And even if some federal judge were to ignore the constitution, there could always be an appeal, eventually all the way up to the supreme court. If they realize that they can't win there, they might be a little less aggressive in their illegal activities. Unfortunately, Obama will probably only have eight years to shape the court of the future.

Of course these guys probably don't even care if they win or not. All they seem to care about is appearng to try to force their faith on others. Now why would anyone be proud of doing that?

I am glad to see that work is getting done in Texas that may moderate the influence of creationist/ID advocates on the public schools curriculum. Public schools should teach science in science class; children should not be indoctrinated about the existence of G-d one way or another in a public school. Religious issues are for parents to address with their children in religious schools or at home.

I am, however, very concerned about some of the comments above. Not everyone who is concerned about the massive spending/printing of money/debt that has been going on in this country over the past decade is right wing. It is very important to treat these issues as separate from one another, because there are many people who don't even recognize the one-size-fits-all right-left continuum imposed on us by political ideologues. A person's opposition to deficit spending is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining that same person's stance on abortion or how to teach evolutionary biology.

With respect to 'global warming'(I prefer the term global climate change for scientific reasons--although I consider the word 'global' to be somewhat redundant), I am equally concerned that it has become a political cause, and that politics is determining what is taught about it, rather than the science. Does the earth's climate change? Yes, it has over the 4.6 billion years of earth history. Is the climate changing now? For those of us who take the long view, the earth's climate is always in a state of flux, and has changed over and over again. Do the activities of living organisms play a role in changes in the earth's dynamic systems. Yes. They always have, and some of the earliest evidence we have of this is the "oxygen revolution" in the early Paleozoic. Can we stop it from happening? Not likely. Can we predict with any accuracy the actual trajectory and consequences? This is difficult because we are talking about numerous variables, and these shifts are not always linear over long time periods. For example, certain generations experienced relatively stable weather during the Little Ice Age, and other generations experienced extremely variable weather. The climate was changing, but it would have been difficult to determine a linear trend over some of that time.

How do we convey all of this to children in school? I would argue that the way that science is often taught is one root of the controversies we see. Science tends to be taught as a series of unconnected facts, and small children in particular, are often not developmentally ready to make the connection back to the theories that make sense of the facts. This becomes even more difficult when the teachers who are teaching science at the elementary level really do not grasp how science works. There are many issues of science pedagogy that need to be resolved but that are not ideological in nature.

I write from some experience. As an undergraduate and graduate student in Geology, I worked in Dr. Roger Anderson's Paleoclimatology lab at UNM. I did pollen identification and the identification of certain microfossils from Glacial Lake Estancia. These identifications were done as part of the evidence to answer questions about the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, and the 'pluvial' period that coincided with it here in the Southwest. I continued some of that work as a graduate student in Biology, where my research "organism" was cryptogamic crusts and the question we were considering in our lab was soil nitrogen and desertification. In my second career, I taught science at the high school level and then as part of Gifted programming, at the elementary level.

Bill would limit education board's power to set policy: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 The pitched political battles over several recent State Board of Education decisions could lead the Legislature to strip the board of most of its authority to set curriculum standards and choose textbooks for public schools..... www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/15/0415stateboard.html

How about something that causes them to be limited by expert opinion? It's ridiculous how they ask for intelligent input, then the idiot McLeroy decides it's his role to step in to block the experts.

Apparently the equivalents of the insane and children are allowed to decide what the children will learn. Indeed, isn't it about time children were judging the intricacies of evolution and of global warming? Or might we actually think that the people selected and paid to do so might know more than children and ignoramuses like McLeroy?

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Elisheva Levin said: I am glad to see that work is getting done in Texas that may moderate the influence of creationist/ID advocates on the public schools curriculum. Public schools should teach science in science class; children should not be indoctrinated about the existence of G-d one way or another in a public school. Religious issues are for parents to address with their children in religious schools or at home. I am, however, very concerned about some of the comments above. Not everyone who is concerned about the massive spending/printing of money/debt that has been going on in this country over the past decade is right wing. It is very important to treat these issues as separate from one another, because there are many people who don't even recognize the one-size-fits-all right-left continuum imposed on us by political ideologues. A person's opposition to deficit spending is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining that same person's stance on abortion or how to teach evolutionary biology. With respect to 'global warming'(I prefer the term global climate change for scientific reasons--although I consider the word 'global' to be somewhat redundant), I am equally concerned that it has become a political cause, and that politics is determining what is taught about it, rather than the science. Does the earth's climate change? Yes, it has over the 4.6 billion years of earth history. Is the climate changing now? For those of us who take the long view, the earth's climate is always in a state of flux, and has changed over and over again. Do the activities of living organisms play a role in changes in the earth's dynamic systems. Yes. They always have, and some of the earliest evidence we have of this is the "oxygen revolution" in the early Paleozoic. Can we stop it from happening? Not likely. Can we predict with any accuracy the actual trajectory and consequences? This is difficult because we are talking about numerous variables, and these shifts are not always linear over long time periods. For example, certain generations experienced relatively stable weather during the Little Ice Age, and other generations experienced extremely variable weather. The climate was changing, but it would have been difficult to determine a linear trend over some of that time. How do we convey all of this to children in school? I would argue that the way that science is often taught is one root of the controversies we see. Science tends to be taught as a series of unconnected facts, and small children in particular, are often not developmentally ready to make the connection back to the theories that make sense of the facts. This becomes even more difficult when the teachers who are teaching science at the elementary level really do not grasp how science works. There are many issues of science pedagogy that need to be resolved but that are not ideological in nature. I write from some experience. As an undergraduate and graduate student in Geology, I worked in Dr. Roger Anderson's Paleoclimatology lab at UNM. I did pollen identification and the identification of certain microfossils from Glacial Lake Estancia. These identifications were done as part of the evidence to answer questions about the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, and the 'pluvial' period that coincided with it here in the Southwest. I continued some of that work as a graduate student in Biology, where my research "organism" was cryptogamic crusts and the question we were considering in our lab was soil nitrogen and desertification. In my second career, I taught science at the high school level and then as part of Gifted programming, at the elementary level.

For some reason, Kwok never seemed to find reasons to complain daily on PT about Bush's runaway irresponsible spending. Suddenly all roads lead to Rome as far as bringing up Obama's alleged shortcomings in any context he can think of. I wonder why that is (hint: starts with an H- and ends with -ypocrisy).

The Texas Freedom Network blogged about this issue here.

http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/

For some reason, Kwok never seemed to find reasons to complain daily on PT about Bush’s runaway irresponsible spending. Suddenly all roads lead to Rome as far as bringing up Obama’s alleged shortcomings in any context he can think of. I wonder why that is (hint: starts with an H- and ends with -ypocrisy).

The reason I think these tea parties are stupid is that for the vast majority of us, taxes are about to go down. The Bush income tax cut saved me about $30 a year. Obama's should save me quite a bit more.

I'm opposed to excessive spending and excessive taxation (ask me about Minnesota's ridiculous car registration fees sometime), but Obama and this Congress, so far, haven't shown any plans to implement excessive spending or excessive taxation.

Well, I don’t think it matters whether creationism is coming up at the protests.

Well, there is a conflict between science and religion, and it isn’t a false one (and of course it is one which lies at the very heart of and genesis of human societies - the conflict between tradition, particularly of the religious variety, and reason - neither has a monopoly on truth of course).

And I suspect the reason they likely refer to human evolution is likely because that is what is important to most people who disagree with the theory of evolution. And there is a “legitimate” controversy - a lot of people (not myself) find the idea of evolution to be deeply troubling on number of levels.

But that is a different sort of controversy than the one you were probably referring to. I’d love to see that poll.

I am, however, very concerned about some of the comments above. Not everyone who is concerned about the massive spending/printing of money/debt that has been going on in this country over the past decade is right wing.

It is very important to treat these issues as separate from one another, because there are many people who don’t even recognize the one-size-fits-all right-left continuum imposed on us by political ideologues. A person’s opposition to deficit spending is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining that same person’s stance on abortion or how to teach evolutionary biology.

With respect to ‘global warming’(I prefer the term global climate change for scientific reasons–although I consider the word ‘global’ to be somewhat redundant), I am equally concerned that it has become a political cause, and that politics is determining what is taught about it, rather than the science.

Does the earth’s climate change? Yes, it has over the 4.6 billion years of earth history. Blah blah blah...

Sorry, the Harris poll I linked to above shows narrow plurality "against evolution" as measured. However, it deals with human evolution. Both polls I cite show stronger "support for" evolution than is sometimes claimed.

Seems to me that our best defense against anti-evolution activists is to try to insure that the composition of the supreme court is at least pro-science if not pro-evolution.

— DS

Public schools should teach science in science class; children should not be indoctrinated about the existence of G-d one way or another in a public school. Religious issues are for parents to address with their children in religious schools or at home.

— Elisheva Levin

I'm going to break my rule against multiple posts in a row one more time to clarify some things.

I may have been a bit blunt in my irritation at denial of the possibility of human contribution to climate change.

For the record, here are the reasons why I think that such denial needs to be re-evaluated by those who espouse it.

1) The human population has increased massively in the last few centuries, to say the least, and human production of atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels has increased even more dramatically. The idea that human activity may impact the climate is inherently credible.

2) Almost all expert climatologists believe that the evidence favors human contribution to climate change.

3) The fact that the climate is prone to change over time is evidence FOR the ability of environmental factors like human activity to affect the global climate, NOT evidence against this.

4) We don't know exactly what the impact of unmitigated human contribution to climate change will be.

5) The expected value of doing nothing about it is...

(money saved by doing nothing)*(probability that doing nothing will be okay) + (cost of something terrible happening)*(probability that something terrible will happen if we do nothing, that wouldn't have happened if we had tried to modify our behavior).

Now, "money saved by doing nothing" is not necessarily negligible, but "cost of something terrible happening" could be truly astronomical, and probably would be. That's why, even if you think that the fourth term is low, but admit it's non-zero, the expected value of doing nothing is surely far more negative than the expected value of trying to modify our behavior.

It makes perfect sense to question the degree of human contribution to climate change, but what doesn't make sense is to argue that we shouldn't try at all to minimize our own possible contributions to unpredictable and potentially quite unpleasant climate change.

As others have pointed out, human contribution deniers are often not even internally coherent. They often start by arguing that there can be no human contribution, then argue that human contribution exists but is good, then argue that human contribution exists but it's too late so we shouldn't do anything anyway - sometimes in the same conversation.

This type of denial doesn't help anything.

If there is a significant non-zero probability, even a low one, that human activity is contributing to adverse climate change, then it makes sense to take reasonable measure to reduce that contribution.

As a Christian, I simply can not understand why my fellow believers are always opposed to global warming. I can understand opposing evolution, that calls into question the nature of the Bible. But where in the Bible does it say man can't cause the climate to change? I just don't get why this became a religious issue.

Well, Texas is talking about secession from the Union to avoid "over bearing government", so I'm sure they think these science standards are just part of the oppressive federal oppression, that is federal.

Pete said: As a Christian, I simply can not understand why my fellow believers are always opposed to global warming. I can understand opposing evolution, that calls into question the nature of the Bible. But where in the Bible does it say man can't cause the climate to change? I just don't get why this became a religious issue.

Pete said: As a Christian, I simply can not understand why my fellow believers are always opposed to global warming. I can understand opposing evolution, that calls into question the nature of the Bible. But where in the Bible does it say man can't cause the climate to change? I just don't get why this became a religious issue.

It does seem strange that global warming has been drawn into the penumbra of the core issues like prayer (and effective sex education) in school, stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, and creationism. Offhand, I can't think of another issue where the relationship to fundamentalist doctrine is so hazy and dubious. But it seems closely associated for some reason stronger than vague Republican-leaning economic nervousness.

Flint said: It does seem strange that global warming has been drawn into the penumbra of the core issues like prayer (and effective sex education) in school, stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, and creationism. Offhand, I can't think of another issue where the relationship to fundamentalist doctrine is so hazy and dubious. But it seems closely associated for some reason stronger than vague Republican-leaning economic nervousness.

Flint said: It does seem strange that global warming has been drawn into the penumbra of the core issues like prayer (and effective sex education) in school, stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, and creationism. Offhand, I can't think of another issue where the relationship to fundamentalist doctrine is so hazy and dubious. But it seems closely associated for some reason stronger than vague Republican-leaning economic nervousness.

harold,

If a disproportionate number of people at the protests adhere to a stereotyped pseudoscience, it casts the credibility of the protests into doubt, to some degree.

Or not. People tend to compartmentalize.

Bullshit. I thought of using a more polite word, but I’m afraid only “bullshit” will do. I’ve known Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists whose religion did not in ANY WAY conflict with science. In the case of Catholicism, Reform Judaism, many Protestant denominations, and Tibetan Buddhism, it is actually the official theological position that their religion is not at odds with science.

Hmmm, so in case the of the Catholic Church its position on embryonic stem cell research doesn't conflict with science and what some scientists do? Every religion seems to find some portion or another what we might call the "scientific project" problematic, immoral, etc. There have been and will always be points of controversy between Jerusalem and Athens.

...science represents the objective, universal, ecumenical way of studying physical reality.

That is the goal of science certainly.

I strongly support the right of people to believe as they wish, but in the common public sphere which we all share, objective scientific reality is the truth and disprovable mythology is a mere personal belief.

I strongly the right of people to believe what they want to in the public sphere, and to make the public sphere as minimally coercive as possible. You cannot force people to believe what they don't want to believe.

...and the weapon has your fingerprints on it...

Apropos of nothing, but are you sure you want to defend fingerprinting as a scientific discipline?

That’s not a legitimate controversy.

It is to a lot of people, and that's what counts to them, and what counts in this situation.

Interestingly, this poll shows majority support for evolution of humans among Democrats and independants, but not among Republicans…

And I suspect that most people in neither group actually accurately describe what the theory of evolution in general states.

ndt,

If they enact a cap and trade plan your "taxes" will increase actually. Then again the issue isn't so much whether the taxes are high or low, the heart of the problem is the lottery we have for a tax system. We have a very antiquated, old fashioned form of taxation of income in the U.S. which is prone to bidding by various interest groups. I have as yet to see any politician really attack this issue as we fall behind other nations with more rational, modern forms of taxation (a VAT or a flat tax for example).

The Curmudgeon said: It's an historical accident (and a long story) that the creationists, who were once mostly Southern Democrats, ended up drifting to the Republican party. A couple of generations ago they'd be William Jennings Bryan followers.

If it's permitted to get back to the original topic -- Texas legislation affecting science education and creationism -- I just posted an update at my place, listing all pending legislation previously mentioned, plus a couple of new bills I located, so now it's all in one link.

Seward you can't compare the Catholic Churches position on embryonic stem cell research to other science denial positions. They aren't saying the ES cells are untrue they are making a strictly moral claim about doing research on them. I happen to think they are wrong, but that is categorically different than proclaiming saying global warming isn't happening because God didn't say so.

Seward wrote:

"I strongly the right of people to believe what they want to in the public sphere, and to make the public sphere as minimally coercive as possible. You cannot force people to believe what they don’t want to believe."

Exactly. So you shouldn't try to use the public school system to force people to believe things that aren't true just because you want them to join your church. Forcing your religious beliefs down gullible teenage throats in the guise of science is definately coersive, illegal and unconstitutional. Teaching young people the power of empiricism, how to think critically, how to form and test hypotheses, that is the antithesis of coersive. On the contrary, such an education will forever free students from the coersiveness of those who try to force their own myopic views on others.

By the same token, you shouldn't try to prevent others from doing ESC research just because of your own moral views. Those views can not rightfully constrain the practices of others. If the majority of taxpayers vote for ESC research, then the goverment is justified is spending taxpayer money on it. Those who object should not be forced to use ESC technology or the benefits of the research, but they should not be allowed to prevent others from having those benefits either.

The Curmudgeon said: Creationists tend to be anti-science in general, so they're in a strange alliance with traditional free-enterprise Republicans on global warming. But I don't think it's much of a religious issue, even for creationists. Loads of free-enterprise Republicans are uncomfortable with the creationists, but their votes are handy. Politics is a peculiar business.

DS,

Exactly. So you shouldn’t try to use the public school system to force people to believe things that aren’t true just because you want them to join your church.

First off, I'm an atheist. I am however also rather skeptical about the current model of K-12 education which we have, which largely monopolized by the state. I'm even more skeptical of the Jacobin approach to schooling which seems to be becoming the norm in the U.S.

Forcing your religious beliefs down gullible teenage throats in the guise of science is definately coersive, illegal and unconstitutional.

Well, there is the question as to whether atheism is a religion...

Second of all, the notion that I've advocated anything like that is just weird.

Teaching young people the power of empiricism, how to think critically, how to form and test hypotheses, that is the antithesis of coersive.

When the public school system starts to actually do that I'll be overjoyed.

DS,

If the majority of taxpayers vote for ESC research, then the goverment is justified is spending taxpayer money on it.

No it isn't. Merely because one gang or tribe of people can coerce another group of people doesn't justify that coercion. Majoritarianism as a political philosophy is to be frank disastrous. I certainly don't want to be ruled by a majority.

DS,

BTW, I will note that there is a reason why a lot of atheist and secular parents are opting out of the public schools and adopting homeschooling; it isn't due to the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Governor Perry, yesterday called the federal government oppressive and said he thought secceding from the USA was a good idea. He also claimed to be a proud right wing extremist.

Answering the rhetorical question in the title, "Texas, is there any hope?", not in the least. While Perry or McLeroy could be dismissed as Haters for jesus with brains the size of walnuts and lots of guns, someone keeps voting for these clowns.

As I recall, the last time the south tried this, we had a bloody war that lasted 5 years and they lost. The next civil war would likely quickly go nuclear and end in MAD, mutual assured destruction.

Although it might well end up with an internal civil war first. Contrary to the impression left by the Perrys and McLeroys, not all of Texas is (literally) dying to be the next Iran, Somalia, or Afghanistan complete with Mullahs ministers running amok and stealing all the oil money. 43% of Texans voted for Obama, not quite half but close.

Texas scores near the top on social problems like teen age pregnancy, child poverty and so on. A matter of public record and they obviously could care less.

Hmmm, so in case the of the Catholic Church its position on embryonic stem cell research doesn’t conflict with science and what some scientists do? Every religion seems to find some portion or another what we might call the “scientific project” problematic, immoral, etc. There have been and will always be points of controversy between Jerusalem and Athens.

I strongly support the right of people to believe as they wish, but in the common public sphere which we all share, objective scientific reality is the truth and disprovable mythology is a mere personal belief.

I strongly the right of people to believe what they want to in the public sphere, and to make the public sphere as minimally coercive as possible. You cannot force people to believe what they don’t want to believe.

…and the weapon has your fingerprints on it… Apropos of nothing, but are you sure you want to defend fingerprinting as a scientific discipline?

That’s not a legitimate controversy. It is to a lot of people, and that’s what counts to them, and what counts in this situation.

Interestingly, this poll shows majority support for evolution of humans among Democrats and independants, but not among Republicans…

And I suspect that most people in neither group actually accurately describe what the theory of evolution in general states.

ndt, If they enact a cap and trade plan your “taxes” will increase actually. Then again the issue isn’t so much whether the taxes are high or low, the heart of the problem is the lottery we have for a tax system. We have a very antiquated, old fashioned form of taxation of income in the U.S. which is prone to bidding by various interest groups. I have as yet to see any politician really attack this issue as we fall behind other nations with more rational, modern forms of taxation (a VAT or a flat tax for example).

harold,

Moral objection to an application of science is not the same thing as science denial. The Catholic church does not deny the findings of stem cell science.

It is a conflict with science. I never made any distinction about denying what science finds vs. a moral objection to such. That was never part of my argument, and I see no reason to adopt that distinction now. In that instance the Catholic Church - just as it does with IVF and other things - objects to what science has allowed for, is doing, etc., and the confrontation is just as heated as that between creationists and evolutionists.

It is patently obvious the fingerprinting is a scientific discipline...

No it isn't.

See the comments re: the criticism of fingerprinting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism

Repetition of an already rebutted argument is not an effective form of discourse.

And commenting that you've rebutted something without actually having done so is not an effective form of discourse either. What is and is not a "legitimate controversy" is in the eye of the beholder in this instance because this is in fact about politics, religion and social construction not just about science. That's the reason why Spinozan liberal states don't enter these kinds of controversies in the first place, yet they are the sorts of controversies we are driven into because of the state's ever increasing inclusion in the lives of the citizens of the state.

Furthermore, cap and trade plans are designed to reduce carbon emissions, not to raise or lower taxes.

Yes, and they are supposed to reduce such by making the use of certain fuels, etc. far more expensive; and this would be done by government planning. That for all intents and purposes is a tax and would work no more differently than the current taxes we have on car fuels for building highways. Never mind that it will not really decrease the use of such fuels over the medium and long term; we'll just find more efficient ways to use them, and then we'll see their use climb again due to the efficiency paradox. In other words, there is a reason why oil, coal, etc. will dominate our energy future for the next hundred years; because there are no currently good alternatives are not likely to be.

It is relevant if your political ideology predisposes you to deny scientific reality...

I haven't denied any scientific reality, so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from.

...whether because you don’t like some aspect of reality (probable human contribution to climate change)...

I don't deny that either. The solutions that some states want to pursue will likely be quite detrimental however. I am also rather skeptical of the doomsday scenarios we see from many of the advocates AGW, as well as the hundred year and thousand year prediction scenarios. A thousand year prediction is simply meaningless.

Do you believe that the theory of evolution should be taught in Texas public schools...

I'm with Milton Friedman on this. Public schools if they are to be funded at all should exist to teach the basic skills needed for public life; reading, writing and math. If that were the case then much of this controversy would die down. I would note that neither side favors that solution; both sides in general appear to want a monopolistic public school system. I just think that solution has proven itself to be far less appealing that other alternatives.

Anyway, I have to go stimulate the economy. I'll be back this evening.

raven said: As I recall, the last time the south tried this, we had a bloody war that lasted 5 years and they lost. The next civil war would likely quickly go nuclear and end in MAD, mutual assured destruction.

raven,

You know, as a result of BRAC, most of the military bases in the U.S. are now in the U.S. South.

harold,

Oh, and being the cosmotarian that I am, I very much doubt that I am Tea Party fellow traveller. However, I never made fun of Code Pink, so I am not going to make fun of Tea Party folks. Perhaps you ought to ask me what I think in the future.

Cosmotarian defined: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cosmotarian

Flint said: It does seem strange that global warming has been drawn into the penumbra of the core issues like prayer (and effective sex education) in school, stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, and creationism. Offhand, I can't think of another issue where the relationship to fundamentalist doctrine is so hazy and dubious. But it seems closely associated for some reason stronger than vague Republican-leaning economic nervousness.

ben said: For some reason, Kwok never seemed to find reasons to complain daily on PT about Bush's runaway irresponsible spending. Suddenly all roads lead to Rome as far as bringing up Obama's alleged shortcomings in any context he can think of. I wonder why that is (hint: starts with an H- and ends with -ypocrisy).

harold said: Elshiva Levin wrote -

I am, however, very concerned about some of the comments above. Not everyone who is concerned about the massive spending/printing of money/debt that has been going on in this country over the past decade is right wing.

However, all of those who mysteriously developed such a concern on a certain November Tuesday in 2008, while not having such concerns under Bush, are right wing, and deeply hypocritical to boot.

It is very important to treat these issues as separate from one another, because there are many people who don’t even recognize the one-size-fits-all right-left continuum imposed on us by political ideologues. A person’s opposition to deficit spending is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining that same person’s stance on abortion or how to teach evolutionary biology.

Indeed. Dick Cheney is on record as saying that "deficits don't matter", for example, while Bill Clinton had surpluses, and Obama has been at pains to clarify that his deficit spending is intended to be a temporary measure of investment and stimulus.

With respect to ‘global warming’(I prefer the term global climate change for scientific reasons–although I consider the word ‘global’ to be somewhat redundant), I am equally concerned that it has become a political cause, and that politics is determining what is taught about it, rather than the science.

Yes, indeed, climate change denial is an even better marker for right wing kool aid drinkers than evolution denial. Denial of potential human contribution to climate change is indeed a purely political cause. Although virtually all evolution deniers are right wing, a few right wingers defend the theory of evolution. Possibly because they wrongly think it has something to do with "social Darwinism". (It even seems plausible that one of them, John Derbyshire, has a somewhat correct understanding of evolution. Although I won't be surprised if this isn't the case.) However, almost all such "scientific" rigid adherents to right wing ideology deny the possibility of human contribution to climate change. The orthodoxy is more strict when it comes to this. For one reason or another, I have never seen a single example of a US right wing ideologue who did not deny one or more of the following - 1) Evolution 2) Human contribution to climate change 3) Cigarette/disease association 4) HIV as the cause of AIDS 5) Air pollution association with pulmonary conditions 6) Unsustainable nature of severe industrial pollution Denial of all six is common. I'm not offering an analysis as to why this is. I'm just pointing out a fact.

Does the earth’s climate change? Yes, it has over the 4.6 billion years of earth history. Blah blah blah...

Those who wish to read this dissembling, incoherent, disingenuous denial of the possibility of human contribution to climate change in its entirety can see it above. Again, although denial of evolution is a fairly strong marker for right wing ideology, it has some false negatives. Some right wing ideologues at least claim to accept the theory of evolution (whether they actually understand it or not). Denial of potential human contribution to climate change is an even better marker for right wing ideology. It has near 100% sensitivity and specificity. Almost no right winger fails to deny it, and almost no-one else does. Again, I merely observe.

Well, let me out myself here. Not only am I a Christian, I also live in Texas. I thought it was a joke when someone said Perry commented on Texas leaving the union. Absolute craziness.

I can resonate with the thoughts that global warming denial and Christianity is actually just a partnership of different branches of Republicans, I have thought such things myself. And yet, I can assure you I know plenty of individual people, adamant creationists, who are also adamant that global warming is all a huge lie. It drives me spare. Not all of them are dispensational either (believing in an imminent rapture), but they somehow assume that the idea that humans could change the climate is "based on atheistic principles".

John Kwok,

However, to his credit, Bush kept the country safe from another 9/11 terrorist attack.

Well, that was an easy thing to do, and that was largely because no group of airline passengers was likely going to allow a plane to be hi-jacked again. Oh the joys of voluntary association.

Amongst other things, the Bush administration increased the surveillance state (which Obama is not planning on scaling back) and then of course there is the whole torture problem. Bush was across the board an anathema to what those who argue for limited government believe. I am happy to say that I never voted for the guy.

Well, there is the question as to whether atheism is a religion…

Seward said: Do you believe that the theory of evolution should be taught in Texas public schools... I'm with Milton Friedman on this. Public schools if they are to be funded at all should exist to teach the basic skills needed for public life; reading, writing and math. If that were the case then much of this controversy would die down.

However, to his credit, Bush kept the country safe from another 9/11 terrorist attack.

However, to his credit, Bush kept the country safe from another 9/11 terrorist attack.

John Kwok said: However, to his credit, Bush kept the country safe from another 9/11 terrorist attack.

Regrettably, this was done at the same time that he and the Republican-controlled Congress failed to cut domestic spending. But this failure doesn't excuse either the Democratic-controlled Congress or President Obama from raising the Federal deficit to a level never really attained before, ensuring that your children will be held responsible for paying this debt, and perhaps plunging this country into a long-term economic recession, if not, God forbid, a Depression.

raven, You know, as a result of BRAC, most of the military bases in the U.S. are now in the U.S. South.

skyotter,

The comment was a joke. The person I was responding mentioned my "church." I then proceeded to tell him I am an atheist.

Mike,

From what little I’ve read of Milton Friedman, he seems...

Sadly, uncle Milty died about two years ago.

...to support equipping children for what they’ll need in industry and society.

His argument in Capitalism and Freedom as best as I understand it goes like this: support for education which clearly benefits everyone is alright for the state to support; specialized education which does not should not be. The benefit has to be clear and definite; it can't be a mere possibility.

The voting public must be able to interpret what they hear of science news bytes, and make productive decisions about biology and medicine in the voting booth.

For what reason should either be the primary concern of politics again?

There’s resistance to this obvious need for science and biology education, and this is partially the result of the poor job we’ve done of educating the public on what science is.

Is the solution for such more funding for public schools?

raven,

Much of the industrial capacity of the U.S. has shifted to the sun belt (and for good reason!), and this is also true of the brainpower as well. Oh, and all the nukes are out in the West, particularly the Dakotas. I could definitely see the Dakotas going secessionist. This is all just me making a joke of course.

I thought it was a joke when someone said Perry commented on Texas leaving the union. Absolute craziness.

Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that. "There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

but not your dismissal of reasonable concerns about substantial deficit spending done by Congressional Democrats and President Obama (see my previous post)

stevaroni said:

However, to his credit, Bush kept the country safe from another 9/11 terrorist attack.

I've always been suspicious of this particular claim. Seems to me that terrorists are historically small, poorly funded, groups that don't really have the resources to launch real military campaigns. They are really good, though, at holding grudges. Consequently, their M.O. has been to lie low, and brew up attacks in their garages at night after they get home from their day jobs. It takes time to gather resources and crazy operatives, and consequently, their attacks are pretty spread out to begin with. Historically, big attacks on the US seem to take about 7-8 years to plan and execute. The bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon - 1985. The first attack on the world trade center - 1993 (everybody forgets about this one). The second, ultimately successful attacks of 9/11 - 2001. Even if Bush did nothing, it seems like the nutcase terrorist groups only have the resources to strike America (which is, after all, a distant target) once in a while. Besides, let us not forget that after the second Gulf War, the al queda "enemies list" grew to include most of the coalition nations. Now they had to spread their resources over a much larger area. Nonetheless, they still managed attacks on the Madrid Metro, killing dozens, in 2005, and a mercifully inept bombing of the Edinburgh Airport in 2007, which, had it been executed a little more carefully would have killed hundreds more. And, if you look at American interests abroad, there have been successful attacks on American soldiers in Thailand and two American embassy bombings in Africa, killing hundreds. So, if by "He kept us safe" you mean "We weren't attacked again on his watch within the continental US, even though historically it was unlikely we'd get hit twice in such a small time span, and our allies got it instead anyway". Well, then, yeah. He did that.

Seward said: John Kwok, However, to his credit, Bush kept the country safe from another 9/11 terrorist attack. Well, that was an easy thing to do, and that was largely because no group of airline passengers was likely going to allow a plane to be hi-jacked again. Oh the joys of voluntary association. Amongst other things, the Bush administration increased the surveillance state (which Obama is not planning on scaling back) and then of course there is the whole torture problem. Bush was across the board an anathema to what those who argue for limited government believe. I am happy to say that I never voted for the guy.

seward: and this is also true of the brainpower as well. Oh, and all the nukes are out in the West, particularly the Dakotas. I could definitely see the Dakotas going secessionist. This is all just me making a joke of course.

Oh, and all the nukes are out in the West,

harold,

I think you are wrong about the social democratic systems that you praise (all of them are of course experiencing an economic downturn along with the U.S. - so they must all have been doing something wrong), but let's ignore that point.

I want to know exactly what "conservative economics" is? I've never encountered this term before. Are you referring to some fusion between classical economics and something else? Are Austrians "conservative economists?" If so, they why did Hayek write a paper titled "Why I Am Not A Conservative"?

harold said: John Kwok -

but not your dismissal of reasonable concerns about substantial deficit spending done by Congressional Democrats and President Obama (see my previous post)

I think we can avoid arguing about this. I don't dismiss all concerns about deficit spending. Economic policy preference is certainly more qualitative and subjective than the theory of evolution. I do to think that the evidence supports the kind of free-markets-with-strong-regulation-and-strong-social-programs model that we see in Canada, Australia, the UK, Ireland, continental Western Europe, and developed Asian countries. And here, too, just to a slightly lesser degree. However, that evidence is by no means a controlled experiment. Furthermore, my interpretation of that evidence is based on my subjective beliefs that high life expectancy, low childhood mortality, education and literacy, relatively equal opportunity, social mobility, etc, are good things, or more correctly, that they are such good things that the cost of providing them is exceeded by the benefits of having them. I don't see the Obama administration as "ideal", just as better than what I think John McCain would have offered. I do differentiate between deficit spending which is intended to be transient, and to stimulate the economy and invest in the public good, versus deficit spending based on what I perceive as regressive taxation and grossly excessive military spending. (*And I'm keenly aware that as far as progressive taxation and long term military spending go, the Obama administration is barely better the Bush administration - but I'll take "barely"*.) Surplus is better than deficit in most circumstances, but a severe recession is believed by many mainstream economists to be a time for deficit spending. I doubt if either of us can convince the other to abandon long held political and economic opinions, which are undoubtedly associated with emotional responses in both of our cases. I also think that the apparent association of conservative economics with science denial is becoming undeniable. This is more challenging for scientifically literate and otherwise moderate supporters of conservative economics, than it is for me. However, since we are both rational and reasonable on scientific topics, there is a whole host of things which we can agree on. (As well as, undoubtedly, a whole host of very basic ethical issues, and so on.)

Yet I predict that you will repeat this error - pretending to confuse ethical objection to an application of science or technology, with denial of the underlying science - over and over again. I’ll be delighted if you prove my prediction wrong, by the way.

It is a conflict with science. I never made any distinction about denying what science finds vs. a moral objection to such. That was never part of my argument, and I see no reason to adopt that distinction now.

Seward said: The voting public must be able to interpret what they hear of science news bytes, and make productive decisions about biology and medicine in the voting booth. For what reason should either be the primary concern of politics again?

There’s resistance to this obvious need for science and biology education, and this is partially the result of the poor job we’ve done of educating the public on what science is. Is the solution for such more funding for public schools?

Oh, and all the nukes are out in the West, particularly the Dakotas

harold,

You have now demonstrated yourself to be one who repeats wrong arguments over and over again, refusing to acknowledge correction.

Ok, fine by me. I don't see any useful distinction between the two and certainly their is no distinction when it comes to the political, social, etc. ramifications of such controversies. They are still conflicts between science and tradition. In other words, this is a distinction without difference.

1) 1996 Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia suicide bombing 2) USS Cole suicide bombing Both of these resulted in scores of US military personnel killed and wounded

I suggest you contact the Counterterrorist Unit of the New York Police Department and the FBI who, I am certain, would enlighten you...

Seward said: ...I will note that there is a reason why a lot of atheist and secular parents are opting out of the public schools and adopting homeschooling...

Mike,

A concern of effective and responsible governance.

And why should goverments be concerned with these issues again? You really didn't answer my question, in other words.

Disparities in funding is a separate subject.

It isn't an issue of disparity; it is an issue of very poor results for the amount of money spent (which seems to be a very common problem in government spending). I don't think it is controversial to argue that the bang for our buck in this area isn't nearly what it should be. I'd argue that this is in large part do the monopolizing power of the state re: k-12 education.

Paul Burnett,

:)

harold,

Anyway, your entire argument appears to hinge on what you believe to be what is appropriate to object to re: science; but that sort of bifurcation really is unimportant when it comes to politics, etc. I have also come to the conclusion that we are largely talking past each other; we're looking at two different things without realizing it.

I suggest you contact the Counterterrorist Unit of the New York Police Department and the FBI who, I am certain, would enlighten you as to the extent to which we were subjected to the possibility of major terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda since 9/11/01.

stevaroni said:

1) 1996 Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia suicide bombing 2) USS Cole suicide bombing Both of these resulted in scores of US military personnel killed and wounded

Um, OK. That makes the mean interval for attacks outside the US at 5 years. You, um, didn't count attacks outside the US in your original post, or else "kept us safe" doesn't work in light of the Thailand and African embassy bombings.

I suggest you contact the Counterterrorist Unit of the New York Police Department and the FBI who, I am certain, would enlighten you...

Um, yeah. Among their claims of success are breaking up a cell of men who were going to attack Fort Dix with small arms. (I bet that was going to go well) and a couple of guys who were plotting to destroy Kennedy Airport by lighting fuel pipelines on fire - in New Jersey. Idiots, in other words.

I suggest you do a bit of homework by contacting the NYC Police Department - especially its Counterrorism Unit - and the FBI, for starters before posting yet another inane comment here at PT.

stevaroni said:

I suggest you do a bit of homework by contacting the NYC Police Department - especially its Counterrorism Unit - and the FBI, for starters before posting yet another inane comment here at PT.

Really, seriously, John. We've both been posting here for years. Insults are neither required or helpful.

stevaroni -

I know of at least two major Islamic terrorist plots against the NYC subway system that were stopped by diligent counterterrorist work by the NYC Police Department since 2000.

Again, may I suggest respectfully that you do your homework before mocking the Bush administration's substantial efforts in dealing with potential Islamofascist terrorist attacks?

John

OK, perhaps we're talking about two different organizational groups, but I have seen the list of "thwarted attacks" issued by homeland security.

I remember it clearly because all the plots seemed clearly overblown.

Among their claims of success were the FBI breaking up a cell of men who were going to attack Fort Dix with small arms and arresting a couple of guys who were plotting to destroy Kennedy Airport by lighting fuel pipelines on fire in New Jersey.

Like I said, idiots. Possibly dangerous idiots, but small "d" dangerous. Not another 9-11, which is what the previous administration desperately wants us to infer with "he kept us safe".

As for the source of the data, I was under the impression that this was the New York division of the FBI and homeland security blowing it's own horn.

If, as you say, the NYPD has a separate (and hopefully more competent and less press-hungry) division, and they actually have a handle on it, that would indeed be good news.

If so, they keep it pretty quiet from the rest of the country.

All we get out here is color-coded alerts which mean nothing. I think today is puce, leaning toward mauve.

stevaroni said: So, if by "He kept us safe" you mean "We weren't attacked again on his watch within the continental US, even though historically it was unlikely we'd get hit twice in such a small time span, and our allies got it instead anyway". Well, then, yeah. He did that.

Seward said: Ok, fine by me. I don't see any useful distinction between the two [science findings vs science ethics] and certainly their is no distinction when it comes to the political, social, etc. ramifications of such controversies. They are still conflicts between science and tradition. In other words, this is a distinction without difference.

John Kwok -

I posted this before but I guess it ended up in cyberspace...

Any success by the NYPD - and I agree that they have had successes - is a blow AGAINST the credibility of GWB and his administration.

Don't you remember? Bush and his guys opposed the "law enforcement approach" and insisted that invading unrelated countries and torturing random "enemy combatants" was the way to go.

eric,

Wow, I thought the differences were obvious.

It isn't to me.

The reason the ethical argument is not a conflict between science and tradition is because science is utterly neutral on the question of whether you ethically should shoot the cannon.

Science is made up of human beings and is a human institution; it is not an entity unto itself. What makes science tick is individual actors; just like what makes government tick is individual actors. So as long as scientists are not neutral on the subject - and they aren't - science isn't neutral.

You never, for instance, see scientists publishing empirical data on the measured ethical content of an action.

But you do see scientists pursuing various goals based on what they perceive to be ethical, efficacious, etc.

Look, I'm not here today to debate the sociology of science, the psychology of scientists, the philosophy of science, etc. (these are all things I would happily discuss later), but the notion that ethical objections to say embryonic stem cell research do not point to a conflict between science and tradition is difficult for me to see. Indeed, I think what is most problematic about the distinction trying to be made here is that it ignores the viewpoint of those who have a problem with something like embryonic stem cell research; that they view science as tromping on traditional religious mores, etc.

Again, IMO, it is a distinction without difference, and I guess we will have to civilly agree to disagree on the matter.

Mike said:

Flint said: It does seem strange that global warming has been drawn into the penumbra of the core issues like prayer (and effective sex education) in school, stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, and creationism. Offhand, I can't think of another issue where the relationship to fundamentalist doctrine is so hazy and dubious. But it seems closely associated for some reason stronger than vague Republican-leaning economic nervousness.

I've seen it written that fundamentalists interpret global warming, and anthropomorphic environmental degradation in general, as a contradiction of divine omnipotence and the command that man use the earth as he sees fit. I suspect that this is a secondary excuse and not the primary objection however. I agree that the primary cause is political alignment. They see Al Gore and immediately want to obstruct.

Seward said: The reason the ethical argument is not a conflict between science and tradition is because science is utterly neutral on the question of whether you ethically should shoot the cannon. Science is made up of human beings and is a human institution; it is not an entity unto itself. What makes science tick is individual actors; just like what makes government tick is individual actors. So as long as scientists are not neutral on the subject - and they aren't - science isn't neutral.

You never, for instance, see scientists publishing empirical data on the measured ethical content of an action. But you do see scientists pursuing various goals based on what they perceive to be ethical, efficacious, etc. Look, I'm not here today to debate the sociology of science, the psychology of scientists, the philosophy of science, etc. (these are all things I would happily discuss later), but the notion that ethical objections to say embryonic stem cell research do not point to a conflict between science and tradition is difficult for me to see. Indeed, I think what is most problematic about the distinction trying to be made here is that it ignores the viewpoint of those who have a problem with something like embryonic stem cell research; that they view science as tromping on traditional religious mores, etc. Again, IMO, it is a distinction without difference, and I guess we will have to civilly agree to disagree on the matter.

I heard an Evangelical on the radio deny climate change because God had promised not to destroy us with a flood again. Really.

Robin,

I would just note that I don't think there is such a thing as "science" in general. That's a philosophical perspective or even hobby horse I suppose, but the individual actors are what is the appropriate locus of discussion IMHO.

As for the difference between science and technology, the distinction exists, but is it an academic distinction that I think doesn't speak to how this is framed in the world outside of academia. Furthermore, what is science and what is technology are even muddled in fields like the history of science and there is disagreement over which is which. Anyway, embryonic stem cell research is clearly an area of scientific endeavor; it is not merely a field of technology.

As for me being disingenuous, well, if you really think I am bordering on it, well so be it. I think that I am being quite honest.

Seward said: Science is made up of human beings and is a human institution; it is not an entity unto itself. What makes science tick is individual actors; just like what makes government tick is individual actors. So as long as scientists are not neutral on the subject - and they aren't - science isn't neutral.

You never, for instance, see scientists publishing empirical data on the measured ethical content of an action. But you do see scientists pursuing various goals based on what they perceive to be ethical, efficacious, etc.

the notion that ethical objections to say embryonic stem cell research do not point to a conflict between science and tradition is difficult for me to see.

Indeed, I think what is most problematic about the distinction trying to be made here is that it ignores the viewpoint of those who have a problem with something like embryonic stem cell research; that they view science as tromping on traditional religious mores, etc.

harold said: John Kwok - I posted this before but I guess it ended up in cyberspace... Any success by the NYPD - and I agree that they have had successes - is a blow AGAINST the credibility of GWB and his administration. Don't you remember? Bush and his guys opposed the "law enforcement approach" and insisted that invading unrelated countries and torturing random "enemy combatants" was the way to go.

MememicBottleneck said:

harold said: John Kwok - I posted this before but I guess it ended up in cyberspace... Any success by the NYPD - and I agree that they have had successes - is a blow AGAINST the credibility of GWB and his administration. Don't you remember? Bush and his guys opposed the "law enforcement approach" and insisted that invading unrelated countries and torturing random "enemy combatants" was the way to go.

On the other hand, Clinton embraced the "law enforcement approach" after the first attempt on the WTC, and now we have a big hole where those buildings used to be.

KP said:

stevaroni said: So, if by "He kept us safe" you mean "We weren't attacked again on his watch within the continental US, even though historically it was unlikely we'd get hit twice in such a small time span, and our allies got it instead anyway". Well, then, yeah. He did that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I have nothing but visceral contempt for all of the Bush people. Period. Not that I'm on board with the pack of Obama followers who treat him like the second coming either, but I think the results of the Bush people's 8 years of foreign (have we caught Bin Laden yet?) and domestic policies (is your 401K gone yet?) speak for themselves. The one shred of sympathy that I will give Mr. W. is that I think the scene used in "Fahrenheit 9/11" of him looking like a deer caught in the headlights, right after the secret service guy whispered the news in his ear, as he's trying to listen to story time in the classroom he was visiting, was unfair and somewhat mean of Michael Moore. For all of the arrogance and hypocrisy that consumed the republicans after that, perhaps it was deserved, but, seriously, how would any of us have reacted?

John Kwok said: Am sorry you act like an Obama IDiot Borg drone, KP.

John Kwok said: Am sorry you act like an Obama IDiot Borg drone, KP.

KP said: Not that I'm on board with the pack of Obama followers who treat him like the second coming either,...

stevaroni said: As an aside, I've been to Amirillo, and I don't know if it says anything about the DoE's perception of Amirillo as a town, but unlike, say, fireworks factories and rocket fuel plants, which are always located far outside of cities (ya know, just in case) the Pantex plant is right next to Amirillo's northeast suburbs. I'm just sayin'...

MememicBottleneck and John Kwok -

So John, I see that you now renounce your earlier position.

In a surprising and abrupt turnaround, you now agree with non-contributory troll Mememic Bottleneck feel that the law enforcement approach to terrorism doesn't work.

Do you seriously feel that Canada would have even better thwarted the Toronto subway attack attempt if, instead of using law enforcement, they had bombed and occupied a random weak country, and tortured some random individuals who were not associated with the attempt?

Previously you had been using the successful prevention of terrorism by NYPD as a defense of the claim that terrorists had been thwarted. Yet now you change your tune and seem to agree with MB that law enforcement isn't an effective approach.

I'm almost positive that Clinton wasn't president when 9/11 occurred, and that Bush essentially scornfully rejected all Clinton policies that had been in place.

Now, for me, it's moot. In the first place, I think Bush created risk of terrorism, rather than reduced it, to put it mildly. I think that borders on being obvious.

But in the second place, as I said earlier, the risk of being harmed by terrorists is exceptionally low. Even if the repulsive policies of the Bush administration had the silver lining of preventing terrorism, which they didn't, but even if, it wouldn't make me want the Bush administration.

Stanton said:

When did Obama ever show support for Intelligent Design Theory and or ever hire anyone specifically because he/she/they supported Intelligent Design Theory?

Good one. With all the Liberty University graduates and other such anti-science folks hired by the Bush administration, has anybody noticed a similar hiring pattern by the Obama administration? I don't think so, but we must remain vigilant.

eric,

Science is not simply ‘what scientists say,’ it is the body of research that is summarized and contained in published, peer reviewed work.

And that body of work is made by scientists. We wouldn't be having this conversation if we were talking about architecture or art.

So what? Judges play golf, that doesn’t make golf a part of what we call “law.” Not everything a scientist pursues or says is “science” just because a scientist said it. The same is true in every profession; not everything Michael Jordan does is ‘basketball’, not everything a surgeon does is surgery.

Sorry, but I don't understand where you are going here. I am pretty clearly discussing scientists as scientists, not what they do for an avocation.

Whose tradition? There are many. Before you say there is a conflict perhaps you should specify what tradition you think is THE tradition. Because I will argue that there are many traditions that have no such conflict, and your assumption that your tradition is primary is unwarranted and discriminatory.

I'm using the term as it is used by archaeologists and anthropologists. I have also made no assumption that my tradition is primary; whatever my particular tradition is. I mean, do atheists have a tradition? If we do it is largely about not telling people we are atheists and pretending that we're deists or something along those lines. I mean, it is hard to have much of a tradition beyond that when the first open atheist is a Frenchman named D'Holbach who few people know about and whose grave can't even apparently be found. :)

Science offers explanations that are useful for manipulating the world.

I agree.

We, as a society, decide whether to do that manipulation.

No, we do not as a society decide that. We as individual actors decide whether it is appropriate or not. Society is merely an abstraction of a bunch of individual decisions, most of which come up for no formal vote. There is no anthropomorphized Hobbesian Leviathan which speaks with one voice.

When religious people talk about science taking over their traditional space, most of the time what they mean is that society no longer listens to religious opinion on whether to do that manipulation.

I definitely think it is the case that a lot of the anxiety that some religious people feel is due to the increased competition from other religions as well from the irreligious. But I do not think it is because "society" no longer listens to religious opinion; it clearly does; the religious opinion that individuals listen to though is much more diverse however, and it ranges from Catholicism to New Age beliefs, all of which take issue with some aspect of science.

And the reason they are being ignored is because the populace has found science more useful to them than religious proclamations for solving problems the population wants solved.

Yet we do not see a burgeoning in the ranks of scientific clubs and the like for lay people; we do see such a burgeoning for all the new religions and such that have come to the U.S. since the 1960s (a lot of them were also indigenous of course). I think that is large part due to the fact that we have a very free market in religion as compared to most other countries; as an atheist it is a free market that I celebrate.

If you want to take back your territory, be more useful.

Since I am an atheist I have no idea what you mean. Atheists really don't have much territory to take.

The truth is that science provides a consistent way to produce effective antibiotics.

And yet people by the millions in the U.S. seek out "alternative therapies" for all manner of diseases and take umbrage at the notion of "Western Medicine." Which I think they should be perfectly free to do.

Seward said: Robin, I would just note that I don't think there is such a thing as "science" in general. That's a philosophical perspective or even hobby horse I suppose, but the individual actors are what is the appropriate locus of discussion IMHO. As for the difference between science and technology, the distinction exists, but is it an academic distinction that I think doesn't speak to how this is framed in the world outside of academia. Furthermore, what is science and what is technology are even muddled in fields like the history of science and there is disagreement over which is which. Anyway, embryonic stem cell research is clearly an area of scientific endeavor; it is not merely a field of technology. As for me being disingenuous, well, if you really think I am bordering on it, well so be it. I think that I am being quite honest.

eric said: Not everything a scientist pursues or says is "science" just because a scientist said it.

Seward said: So what? Judges play golf, that doesn’t make golf a part of what we call “law.”... Sorry, but I don't understand where you are going here. I am pretty clearly discussing scientists as scientists, not what they do for an avocation.

...Before you say there is a conflict perhaps you should specify what tradition you think is THE tradition... I'm using the term as it is used by archaeologists and anthropologists.

Seward said: eric, So what? Judges play golf, that doesn’t make golf a part of what we call “law.” Not everything a scientist pursues or says is “science” just because a scientist said it. The same is true in every profession; not everything Michael Jordan does is ‘basketball’, not everything a surgeon does is surgery. Sorry, but I don't understand where you are going here. I am pretty clearly discussing scientists as scientists, not what they do for an avocation.

Robin,

Science is a process and a body of very select and specific knowledge. It isn’t people, it isn’t technology, and it most certainly isn’t a moral frame-work or philosophy.

If isn't people then there would be no science. So science is a process created by human beings who argue about, etc. what sort of knowledge it includes. Again, we would not be having this argument about art; we'd all acknowledge that art is made by artists, and that what constitutes art is a process of discovery undertaken by individual artists.

I say there is a very real difference, and my examples were supposed to illustrate the point that when a scientist opines about ethics, they are doing something like playing golf; a non-science activity.

To suggest that scientists are somehow neutral actors when they are doing science flies in the face of what we know about human nature. Indeed, that's one of the very reasons why there is supposed to be so much error checking in science. I think there are basically two extremes here; there are the solipsists/complete subjectivists and then there are those who are their opposite. I love science, but I am not going to romanticize it, nor am I going anthropomorphize it and act like it some creature independent of individual human activity, opinions, etc.

That doesn’t help me.

Well, look it up then.

And what about scientists who participate in tradition? There are many very religious scientists.

Sure, and very many of them I am sure find one aspect or another of the scientific endeavor problematic.

Anyway, I think we are at an impasse here. You see my position, I see yours, we disagree, and that's where it will have to stand.

Robin,

BTW, it would be graceless for me not to recognize your apology (I don't think it was really necessary, but thankyou nonetheless). Perhaps I am an idiot, but I assure you that I am an honest idiot. :)

Robin -

You are wasting your time. I don't like to be rude, but I'm going to have to express my opinion here.

Seward, of course, IS disingenuous.

You have to understand, with a very few partial exceptions, people who care about being part of the US right wing political movement prioritize that over everything. I'm not talking about all conservatives, just the ones who are tribal and must attack all "liberals" and defend all "conservatives".

People who are stubbornly illogical once will continue to be.

His basic motivation seems to be to defend teaching creationism or distorting evolution in public schools, while dealing with the cognitive dissonance of maintaining a self-image as a "cool tough conservative Ayn Rand type atheist".

The reason he wants to defend it is because he's a right winger and he perceives creationists as fellow right wingers. They're on the "same side" and must be defended, the hell with logic or honesty.

He has to mentally gyrate to come up with ludicrous arguments.

His tactic is to use a sort of ad hoc "post modern" "it's all a construct" type of argument.

His attempted message is clearly this -

"Any time anyone disagrees with an application of science, it's the same thing as denying the basic findings of science. I will not back down from this obviously false statement. I will equivocate them both as 'conflict with science'.

I then conclude from this false equivocation that 'everyone is always in conflict with science'.

Therefore it's all arbitrary, and we shouldn't teach science in schools, or anyone can teach anything and call it science, there shouldn't be public schools anyway because that's 'coercive', blah, blah, blah...therefore I can be a cool atheist and still argue in favor of my right wing creationist buddies"

I KNOW I'm right. I KNOW you are being had. I KNOW a disingenuous troll whose patently illogical arguments are motivated by a hidden (or in this case not so hidden) agenda when I see one.

That's why I stopped responding.

Take it or leave it. I know I'm right. This is a guy who will say anything to directly or indirectly defend his political fantasies.

harold,

I read up to the Ayn Rand part, then I laughed my ass off. You don't know anything about me. I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. I've as yet to even complete one of her books, and I found what I read there to be turgid and offputting. I did not become a libertarian because of Ayn Rand; indeed, it was the writings of such august fellows as Friedman, Hayek, Schumpeter, etc. that lead me down that path. Indeed, in any of these conversations have I have ever referenced Ayn Rand? Or have I referenced instead folks like Spinoza, Friedman, Hayek, d'Holbach, etc.?

Now here I will become a bit more brusque, but I think you've basically asked for it. What I find interesting is the sort of arm chair, off the cuff pscyho-babble that is so common on the internet. It is the most unempirical sort of lazy thinking that one can imagine. The fact that you tried to peg me with the Ayn Rand crap illustrates the high degree of bullshit to fact ratio that is associated with it. I can't stand Ayn Rand and that is a very common opinion amongst libertarians. What you need to do is reassess your thoughts on this because you look incredibly foolish.

harold said: MememicBottleneck and John Kwok - So John, I see that you now renounce your earlier position. In a surprising and abrupt turnaround, you now agree with non-contributory troll Mememic Bottleneck feel that the law enforcement approach to terrorism doesn't work. Do you seriously feel that Canada would have even better thwarted the Toronto subway attack attempt if, instead of using law enforcement, they had bombed and occupied a random weak country, and tortured some random individuals who were not associated with the attempt? Previously you had been using the successful prevention of terrorism by NYPD as a defense of the claim that terrorists had been thwarted. Yet now you change your tune and seem to agree with MB that law enforcement isn't an effective approach. I'm almost positive that Clinton wasn't president when 9/11 occurred, and that Bush essentially scornfully rejected all Clinton policies that had been in place. Now, for me, it's moot. In the first place, I think Bush created risk of terrorism, rather than reduced it, to put it mildly. I think that borders on being obvious. But in the second place, as I said earlier, the risk of being harmed by terrorists is exceptionally low. Even if the repulsive policies of the Bush administration had the silver lining of preventing terrorism, which they didn't, but even if, it wouldn't make me want the Bush administration.

harold,

Actually, I must admit that I am mistaken; I did reference Ayn Rand once here; that is recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Corruption-Rationality-Critique-Epistemology/dp/0595267335

If you would like some specific criticisms from me I would be more than glad to get into say how Rand was uninformed and completely out in left field as regards to Kant.

KP said:

John Kwok said: Am sorry you act like an Obama IDiot Borg drone, KP.

Um, John, which part of

KP said: Not that I'm on board with the pack of Obama followers who treat him like the second coming either,...

makes me an "Obama IDiot Borg drone?" Please don't assume that because I hold the Bush people in contempt automatically means I'm a Democratic Party supporter. Frankly, I see little difference between the two major parties. The only improvement of the Obama administration I have seen so far is not ruling with the boundless arrogance that the Bush people showed. Emphasis on "so far." But I digress... Your accusation was unfair and my statement actually shows the opposite. May creationists come to your front door and proselytize every day at inconvenient hours for a week!

Seward said: Robin, Science is a process and a body of very select and specific knowledge. It isn’t people, it isn’t technology, and it most certainly isn’t a moral frame-work or philosophy. If isn't people then there would be no science. So science is a process created by human beings who argue about, etc. what sort of knowledge it includes. Again, we would not be having this argument about art; we'd all acknowledge that art is made by artists, and that what constitutes art is a process of discovery undertaken by individual artists.

I say there is a very real difference, and my examples were supposed to illustrate the point that when a scientist opines about ethics, they are doing something like playing golf; a non-science activity. To suggest that scientists are somehow neutral actors when they are doing science flies in the face of what we know about human nature. Indeed, that's one of the very reasons why there is supposed to be so much error checking in science. I think there are basically two extremes here; there are the solipsists/complete subjectivists and then there are those who are their opposite. I love science, but I am not going to romanticize it, nor am I going anthropomorphize it and act like it some creature independent of individual human activity, opinions, etc.

harold,

BTW, anyone with the most feeble knowledge about libertarians would realize that someone who references Hayek would not be some who likes Ayn Rand. Rand was an Aristotelian; Hayek believed in the subjective theory of value. I mean, duh. Think about it. I mean, there is a reason why Rand openly hated libertarians (something which she made mention of a lot).

Robin,

Well, I cannot, being the troll that I apparently am ;), state my position any more clearly than I have. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Seward -

I notice that I hit a nerve.

I notice that your rebuttal consisted of pretending to take my sarcastic reference to Ayn Rand as being literal, and ignoring the actual thrust of my comment.

Again, you are making a strained attempt to equivocate objection to potential uses of technology (which is near universal) with denial of scientific reality (which is not).

This equivocation is very easily rebutted.

For example, some of the physicists whose discoveries led to the human ability to manufacture nuclear weapons became strong opponents of the manufacture or use of nuclear weapons. This in NOT equivalent to their denying basic physics and stating that the manufacture of nuclear weapons is not possible. Nor did they object to the continued teaching of physics on any grounds; certainly not on the grounds of denying its accuracy.

You insist that the Catholic Church is equivalent in their objection to the destruction of human embryos (whether for stem cell research or otherwise) to creationists who deny evolution. But it is not equivalent. The Catholic Church does not deny the stem cells exist, and the Catholic Church does not object to full teaching of the science underlying stem cell research.

Indeed, an objection to an application of science is in some ways the opposite of a denial of science. If the Catholic Church denied the existence of embryonic stem cells, they would have far less reason to object to embryonic stem cell research. If nuclear physicists denied that it was possible to manufacture nuclear weapons, they would have no reason to protest such manufacture.

You are clearly an intelligent person, yet you persist in advancing and defending this false equivalence.

To me, it's very clear why. An emotional agenda is at work. Although you are a self-described libertarian and atheist, you see creationists as fellow travelers on the political right (as indeed they are). You want to stand up for your buddies.

Like almost all libertarians, you're actually focused on denying any tax-based aid to your more vulnerable fellow citizens. Overlooking the fact that your property is dependent on the existence of an organized society, you declare that taxation is "evil", "forcing you to be charitable", "theft", etc (I have seen all of these terms used by libertarians).

Despite the ironic resemblance of the name of your movement to the word "liberty", you will actually always support an authoritarian party that claims it will cut taxes and social programs over a party that will respect your actual constitutional rights (to a greater degree) but does not oppose social programs. Indeed, you will define a "right" to be free of taxation for the common good to be more valuable than the actual rights that you currently enjoy. I don't refer only to the two major US political parties here, but make a general statement.

Your highest priority is defending those whom you see as closer to you on the political spectrum, hence the ludicrous sight of an "atheist" and "libertarian" desperately spinning convoluted arguments in defense of authoritarian religious fanatics who wish to teach arbitrary religious dogma instead of science in the public schools.

harold said: [Re. Seward]: You have to understand, with a very few partial exceptions, people who care about being part of the US right wing political movement prioritize that over everything. I'm not talking about all conservatives, just the ones who are tribal and must attack all "liberals" and defend all "conservatives".

Seward said: To suggest that scientists are somehow neutral actors when they are doing science flies in the face of what we know about human nature.

harold,

I notice that I hit a nerve.

Yes, you insulted me. Brilliant deduction on your part. I think I can rather safely ignore you from this point forward.

GaryFaux,

The idea that science is indistinct from the endeavors of its individual actors (scientist) is a leftist philosophy.

Actually, it is a essentially Hayekian/Austrian viewpoint. The proper mode of analysis always lies with the individual; studying groups is merely studying the abstraction of individual choices, etc.

No, I haven’t changed my position at all regarding a “law enforcement approach to terrorism”. I realized how bad it was during the first Clinton administration when the Clinton Justice Department opted to try Ramzi Yusef and his collaborators in the first WTC terrorist attack in a civilian court. Had the Clinton administration demonstrated a bit more “spine” and conducted itself in a more appropriate manner - as strongly suggested by former White House advisor Dick Morris -

then maybe, just maybe, neither the USS Cole terrorist attack or the 9/11 attacks on both WTC and the Pentagon would have happened:

eric,

And I would respond that people to the best of my understanding do not bifurcate the world that way. I think such distinctions are artificial and do not describe accurately how people work by themselves and in interaction with others.

GaryFaux,

Oh, and Hayek was definitely not of the left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_hayek

Ok, I really have other things to do besides blogging. :)

Seward said: And I would respond that people to the best of my understanding do not bifurcate the world that way. I think such distinctions are artificial and do not describe accurately how people work by themselves and in interaction with others.

eric,

You really, honestly think that “is it ethical to charge $40 for an oil change” is a question of mechanics?

I think the problem is the way that you are framing the question. It isn't whether it is a question of mechanics, in other words. It is a question of the interaction between the two. I think you are arguing for a "purity" of human action (and human action is really in part is what is at the guts of what we are discussing) that doesn't comport with my experience of how human beings work.

Like I wrote, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The idea that science is indistinct from the endeavors of its individual actors (scientist) is a leftist philosophy.

eric said:

Seward said: And I would respond that people to the best of my understanding do not bifurcate the world that way. I think such distinctions are artificial and do not describe accurately how people work by themselves and in interaction with others.

You really honestly think that "is it ethical to use stem cells in research" is a quetion about how cells work?

harold,

I'm not quite sure if you are saying this, but if you are I would just note that relativism and subjectivism aren't post-modern inventions. They've been with us since the pre-Socratics and they were instrumental in breaking into the modern worldview, even if extreme subjectivism was in fact incorrect.

I am not a right-winger; I'm a libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing

There are fairly clear differences between libertarians and right-wingers; one of course being the adherence to set social hierarchies (which libertarians do not call for); another being the focus (or lack there of in the case of libertarians) on social control. Libertarians at heart emphasize choice and voluntary association. I would note that modern liberals do not emphasize either choice or voluntary association; they emphasize government planning.

Robin and eric,

Let me use an example of my own. Would the government allow research and would scientists risk their careers on research into drugs which merely enhance human emotions, perception, etc.? If not, why not?

If not, that means that we are stuck with what is legal - alcohol and tobacco - and what is illegal. I would argue that the general traditional mindset that many Americans have about pleasure - a sort of puritanism if you will - lays at the heart of why the government won't allow this research and why most scientists wouldn't do it in the first place. Or is that we've done a slew of research on the subject and found that the only two remotely safe and effective types of drugs are alcohol and tobacco? I guarantee you that in the U.S. it is not that we've done the research. I would suggest that similar things occur whenever science confronts a politically or culturally sensitive topic or rather a topic of controversy.

harold,

Now are you done accusing me of things that I am clearly not?

harold said: John Kwok - One last message, as we've drifted well off topic. We'll have to agree to disagree quite strongly (albeit cordially) on this issue.

No, I haven’t changed my position at all regarding a “law enforcement approach to terrorism”. I realized how bad it was during the first Clinton administration when the Clinton Justice Department opted to try Ramzi Yusef and his collaborators in the first WTC terrorist attack in a civilian court. Had the Clinton administration demonstrated a bit more “spine” and conducted itself in a more appropriate manner - as strongly suggested by former White House advisor Dick Morris -

To me, what takes "spine" is to maintain and defend freedom and the rule of law, even when frightened or angry.

then maybe, just maybe, neither the USS Cole terrorist attack or the 9/11 attacks on both WTC and the Pentagon would have happened:

I don't know why you believe this, as the first WTC attackers were convicted and had nothing to do with these attacks. I'll note again that I don't consider incrementally greater safety from terrorism to be worth the abandonment of my freedom, but I also don't think that eliminating freedom does make people safer. Actually, terrorism and crime tend to be higher in dictatorships. The safest countries on earth tend to be liberal democracies (there are a few rare partial exceptions like Singapore). And all liberal democracies tend to be fairly safe. Even the US and South Africa are very safe countries compared to many parts of the world. Let me emphasize that I don't wish to in any way minimize the incredible toll in human suffering that the USS Cole and embassy attacks took. I believe in extensive efforts to prevent such things.

Seward said: I think you are arguing for a "purity" of human action (and human action is really in part is what is at the guts of what we are discussing) that doesn't comport with my experience of how human beings work.

I would argue that the general traditional mindset that many Americans have about pleasure - a sort of puritanism if you will - lays at the heart of why the government won’t allow this research [into perceptual/emotional enhancement] and why most scientists wouldn’t do it in the first place.

eric,

Well, I don't believe that you can separate the two things; particularly when it comes to controversial issues. Perhaps I can amend my remarks to refer to controversial science, but I don't that makes much of a difference.

At the risk of being too trite, you answer the first question with a hand count and the second question with an MRI.

And what happens when the MRI isn't done because of the handcount?* Scientists are not really independent of those sorts of considerations, particularly on controversial issues.

You see, I think we are arguing past one another and emphasizing two really different things. I don't really know how to articulate what is going on more specifically than that, but that is my gut impression.

*Off topic, I would love it if there were actually a handcount on the drug war; we'd see a dramatic reduction in its scale if that were case. So you are being somewhat trite.

Sorry, I can't help adding to my last comment but I'll try and bring us back on topic.

Seward, if you want to know why the methodological distinction between the two types of questions is important (i.e. a distinction WITH a difference), you only have to consider Texas creationism. They would be all too happy to teach H.S. students that biology questions can be answered with a hand count, or by an appeal to authority. Creationism is what happens when you do not draw a distinction between scientific questions and nonscientific ones, or broaden the definition of "scientific question" to include ethics, morality, spirituality, etc...

Seward said: At the risk of being too trite, you answer the first question with a hand count and the second question with an MRI. And what happens when the MRI isn't done because of the handcount?

eric,

They would be all too happy to teach H.S. students that biology questions can be answered with a hand count, or by an appeal to authority.

And my point is that this is what happens all the time in science in a number of areas.

Creationism is what happens when you do not draw a distinction between scientific questions and nonscientific ones, or broaden the definition of “scientific question” to include ethics, morality, spirituality, etc…

And I am suggesting that such a distinction is not possible to make, particularly with regard to controversial issues. I know that there is Gouldian separate spheres idea that is popular (which is really just a restating of Spinoza in many ways), but I do not find it be a credible explanation of how tradition and science interact. Some of the time one has to choose one or the other.

Seward said: Robin and eric, Let me use an example of my own. Would the government allow research and would scientists risk their careers on research into drugs which merely enhance human emotions, perception, etc.? If not, why not? If not, that means that we are stuck with what is legal - alcohol and tobacco - and what is illegal. I would argue that the general traditional mindset that many Americans have about pleasure - a sort of puritanism if you will - lays at the heart of why the government won't allow this research and why most scientists wouldn't do it in the first place. Or is that we've done a slew of research on the subject and found that the only two remotely safe and effective types of drugs are alcohol and tobacco? I guarantee you that in the U.S. it is not that we've done the research. I would suggest that similar things occur whenever science confronts a politically or culturally sensitive topic or rather a topic of controversy.

Seward said: Some of the time one has to choose one or the other.

Robin,

Well, if that is the case we may just be engaged in logomachy then.

I can’t fathom a valid example where this would ever be the case.

Historically it has been quite common; heck, Socrates died as a result of such a choice.

Seward said: They would be all too happy to teach H.S. students that biology questions can be answered with a hand count, or by an appeal to authority. And my point is that this is what happens all the time in science in a number of areas.

And I am suggesting that such a distinction is not possible to make, particularly with regard to controversial issues.

eric,

I figured it was obvious that I was talking about more than what happens in public schools; if that wasn't clear, sorry.

I have no idea what sort of science you’ve seen happen, but I have never been in a lab, seminar, lecture, meeting, or read a journal correspondence where differing scientists decided the validity of some scientific observation using a vote.

So you are suggesting that social pressure and all the normal things we know about human interactions don't exist amongst scientists? If so, you are little too optimistic IMHO.

Whether the earth is warming up is a scientific question. What to do about it is not.

Whether it is warming up and for what reasons is also a political, philosophical, etc. question; or at the very least, those issues are pretty deeply imbedded in how people, even scientists, think about the subject. I think that is pretty obvious given what I have seen regarding the supporters and detractors of such. Then again, the science regarding evolution far more clear, substantiated, etc. than is the science associated with climate change (AGW or otherwise).

Whether to build nuclear reactors is not.

Which depends on what one thinks about the science of reactor safety.

Seward said: So you are suggesting that social pressure and all the normal things we know about human interactions don't exist amongst scientists?

Whether it is warming up and for what reasons is also a political, philosophical, etc. question; or at the very least, those issues are pretty deeply imbedded in how people, even scientists, think about the subject.

Whether to build nuclear reactors is not. Which depends on what one thinks about the science of reactor safety.

Seward -

You are a right winger. I know it. You know it.

"Libertarian" is what right wingers who want a "cool intellectual rebel" image call themselves.

If there were any libertarians who actually believed in libertarianism, they would have been the most adamant opponents of the Bush administration.

The silence was deafening.

Nobody is fooled any more.

All of your "philosophical" arguments are designed to excuse your more honest, overtly authoritarian fanatic fellow travelers when they do the very thing that libertarians ostensibly oppose the most (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!), violate constitutional rights.

A friend of mine sums up people like you in a pithy phrase.

"Anything for a flat tax".

You'll always support the authoritian figure who wants to halve the gruel ration at the orphanage.

Just admit it. All that cognitive dissonance is taking its toll on you. Liberate yourself, "libertarian".

harold said: Seward - You are a right winger. I know it. You know it. "Libertarian" is what right wingers who want a "cool intellectual rebel" image call themselves. If there were any libertarians who actually believed in libertarianism, they would have been the most adamant opponents of the Bush administration. The silence was deafening. Nobody is fooled any more. All of your "philosophical" arguments are designed to excuse your more honest, overtly authoritarian fanatic fellow travelers when they do the very thing that libertarians ostensibly oppose the most (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!), violate constitutional rights. A friend of mine sums up people like you in a pithy phrase. "Anything for a flat tax". You'll always support the authoritian figure who wants to halve the gruel ration at the orphanage. Just admit it. All that cognitive dissonance is taking its toll on you. Liberate yourself, "libertarian".

Seward said: Robin, Well, if that is the case we may just be engaged in logomachy then.

I can’t fathom a valid example where this would ever be the case. Historically it has been quite common; heck, Socrates died as a result of such a choice.

Seward said: eric, I figured it was obvious that I was talking about more than what happens in public schools; if that wasn't clear, sorry. I have no idea what sort of science you’ve seen happen, but I have never been in a lab, seminar, lecture, meeting, or read a journal correspondence where differing scientists decided the validity of some scientific observation using a vote. So you are suggesting that social pressure and all the normal things we know about human interactions don't exist amongst scientists? If so, you are little too optimistic IMHO.

Whether the earth is warming up is a scientific question. What to do about it is not. Whether it is warming up and for what reasons is also a political, philosophical, etc. question; or at the very least, those issues are pretty deeply imbedded in how people, even scientists, think about the subject. I think that is pretty obvious given what I have seen regarding the supporters and detractors of such. Then again, the science regarding evolution far more clear, substantiated, etc. than is the science associated with climate change (AGW or otherwise).

Whether to build nuclear reactors is not. Which depends on what one thinks about the science of reactor safety.