The thing that links politics and science is money. Money drives politics. And, unfortunately, money also drives science, or at least the scientists.
So the question is not whether science and politics can be separated. The question is whether scientists and politicians can be separated. Apparently not.
Can we produce science, especially medical science, that is not influenced by money? Clearly not.
Translation: "follow the science - follow my opinion and politics." These days, public discourse of science seems more like religion, and absolutely we should keep religion out of politics.
Given that scientists and science ideologists (such as you call out here) are pied-pipers and priesthood of the new religion of the so-called "secular" state, it is profoundly naïve to think you can just "separate" politics and science.
Just look at how your own employer was set up to enable every parasite possible in the face of the pandemic -- and still does. UC policy is profoundly tone deaf to any of these issues -- and they were already predisposed to be that way.
You need to think more deeply -- WHY is science so vulnerable to politics?
What accountability measures need to be put in place to help this distinction be realized?
The Biden endorsement in Nature says, “ His administration (Trump’s) has… walked away from crucial international scientific and environmental… organizations: even, unthinkable in the middle of a pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO).” And yet it was the same group of Biden-supporting U.S. doctors that said that WHO’s guidance on not masking children was wrong, WHO’s guidance on not closing schools was wrong, and a host of other WHO policies. Evidently it was to okay to disagree with WHO if and only if your criticism was that their policies were not harsh enough.
I'm glad they endorsed. It showed once and for all what folks on the right have been saying about bias. I don't know if there are *SANE* far left progressive in academia anymore. Maybe Trump caused all the brains to explode. If *anyone* should debate, shouldn't it be the folks in academia? Look at what happened with Standford law students. I'm PETRIFIED that these morons will get the choice jobs. Maher is right. There is a rot in the democratic party and it starts in academia. PreK to college.
The unfortunate fact is that journals such as Nature, Science and the NEJM, and 3 letter agencies such as the NIH, CDC, FDA and NAS have damaged science almost irretrievably. They canceled/discredited anybody who didn't agree with the official narrative on Covid (and for that matter Climate change), and accused all such people as conspiracy theorists. Yet all those so-called conspiracy theories, such as the lab leak (which should have been the default position simply based on Occam's Razor) have proven to be correct. When one politicizes science one reaps the whirlwind, and all public trust is lost. In this instance, the trust of at least 50% of the US population.
Heavy sigh. You nailed it again. It is a future study to look at why science is vulnerable to politics. Human nature? Financial reward? One thing at a time.
Very interesting, especially considering getting a degree in Political Science or a Law Degree is more about Psychology, which I’m starting to doubt is or has ever been a science for politicians, but rather a sudo-science or perhaps acting school in disguise.
We also need to ask “What was the carrot and what the stick” at each instance of political posturing. And a nation-wide secret conspiracy among all Equity-aligned institutions to: (A) Create top secret projects that nobody is informed of. (B) To employ absolute censorship (C) Agressively vilify, slander and witchhunt free-thinkers - is the source of cuckoo directors/editors. Each Equity program at University, Institution, city-gov, state-gov and fed gov has to be abolished before we can begin to rebuild normalcy.
A subscriber to the printed AAAS journal since 2017, I canceled membership in June 2020 because of political posturing. The question about Trump vs. Biden’s response to Covid is contaminated by the fact that Trump’s Covid performance began when less was known and Biden’s inauguration occurred on “Covid-month 10”, (If dating from St. Patrick’s Day 2020).
Clearly there MUST be separation of science and politics...
The scientific method promotes objectivity. FAR too many science-based practitioners seem to lose all objectivity, and they are consumed by *emotion*!
Asserting climate-change may be an extinction event, therefore scientists must jump into the fray is patently absurd. This type of emotional reasoning is detrimental to objective science. I can’t picture Richard Feynman behaving in this manner
The thing that links politics and science is money. Money drives politics. And, unfortunately, money also drives science, or at least the scientists.
So the question is not whether science and politics can be separated. The question is whether scientists and politicians can be separated. Apparently not.
Can we produce science, especially medical science, that is not influenced by money? Clearly not.
Translation: "follow the science - follow my opinion and politics." These days, public discourse of science seems more like religion, and absolutely we should keep religion out of politics.
Given that scientists and science ideologists (such as you call out here) are pied-pipers and priesthood of the new religion of the so-called "secular" state, it is profoundly naïve to think you can just "separate" politics and science.
Just look at how your own employer was set up to enable every parasite possible in the face of the pandemic -- and still does. UC policy is profoundly tone deaf to any of these issues -- and they were already predisposed to be that way.
You need to think more deeply -- WHY is science so vulnerable to politics?
What accountability measures need to be put in place to help this distinction be realized?
The Biden endorsement in Nature says, “ His administration (Trump’s) has… walked away from crucial international scientific and environmental… organizations: even, unthinkable in the middle of a pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO).” And yet it was the same group of Biden-supporting U.S. doctors that said that WHO’s guidance on not masking children was wrong, WHO’s guidance on not closing schools was wrong, and a host of other WHO policies. Evidently it was to okay to disagree with WHO if and only if your criticism was that their policies were not harsh enough.
I'm glad they endorsed. It showed once and for all what folks on the right have been saying about bias. I don't know if there are *SANE* far left progressive in academia anymore. Maybe Trump caused all the brains to explode. If *anyone* should debate, shouldn't it be the folks in academia? Look at what happened with Standford law students. I'm PETRIFIED that these morons will get the choice jobs. Maher is right. There is a rot in the democratic party and it starts in academia. PreK to college.
Where do we turn to?
The unfortunate fact is that journals such as Nature, Science and the NEJM, and 3 letter agencies such as the NIH, CDC, FDA and NAS have damaged science almost irretrievably. They canceled/discredited anybody who didn't agree with the official narrative on Covid (and for that matter Climate change), and accused all such people as conspiracy theorists. Yet all those so-called conspiracy theories, such as the lab leak (which should have been the default position simply based on Occam's Razor) have proven to be correct. When one politicizes science one reaps the whirlwind, and all public trust is lost. In this instance, the trust of at least 50% of the US population.
Heavy sigh. You nailed it again. It is a future study to look at why science is vulnerable to politics. Human nature? Financial reward? One thing at a time.
Very interesting, especially considering getting a degree in Political Science or a Law Degree is more about Psychology, which I’m starting to doubt is or has ever been a science for politicians, but rather a sudo-science or perhaps acting school in disguise.
Just do your research and tell me what you found. Political science does not mean that politics is scientific.
We also need to ask “What was the carrot and what the stick” at each instance of political posturing. And a nation-wide secret conspiracy among all Equity-aligned institutions to: (A) Create top secret projects that nobody is informed of. (B) To employ absolute censorship (C) Agressively vilify, slander and witchhunt free-thinkers - is the source of cuckoo directors/editors. Each Equity program at University, Institution, city-gov, state-gov and fed gov has to be abolished before we can begin to rebuild normalcy.
A subscriber to the printed AAAS journal since 2017, I canceled membership in June 2020 because of political posturing. The question about Trump vs. Biden’s response to Covid is contaminated by the fact that Trump’s Covid performance began when less was known and Biden’s inauguration occurred on “Covid-month 10”, (If dating from St. Patrick’s Day 2020).
Clearly there MUST be separation of science and politics...
The scientific method promotes objectivity. FAR too many science-based practitioners seem to lose all objectivity, and they are consumed by *emotion*!
Asserting climate-change may be an extinction event, therefore scientists must jump into the fray is patently absurd. This type of emotional reasoning is detrimental to objective science. I can’t picture Richard Feynman behaving in this manner