Politics Has No Place in Science

[Scott Mayers]

Scott -

If he's one of the anti-climate change promoters

You don't appear to have done any checking. He's not a promoter, he's a respected top-level climate change scientist who has just resigned from his job because his findings were being suppressed by Trump & co. There's a link in the posts here, just above.

Yes, I recognized that afterwards. I don't necessarily comment on specifics but to the general concerns on the topic. That is, for this, I think politics IS intrinsic to science as is true of politics in general is also a moderator of science where it involves issues of the people as a whole.

[TheVat]

I would ask if the OP author was saying the thread title phrase in a more specific and straightforward way, i.e. that political agendas must not influence the actual DOING of science, i.e. collecting and interpreting data.

If a Mars probe brings back some Martian soil with biological materials in it, we defer to the expertise and methods of scientists in determining what they are and what they may indicate. What we must not do is defer to (just a hypothetical example for purposes of discussion) a political faction that wants Mars to be a completely dead world that can be exploited by corporations. Or a religious group that insists there can be no life elsewhere than Earth, as God made Earth the one special place for life. Such influences would suppress facts and promote falsehoods or, at best, ignorance.

Of course politics will influence what priorities are given to what areas of research, as already discussed. The hope is that these priorities reflect the will of the people and serve their best interests. But the OP title refers, I think, to the inner workings of science and the integrity of its methods.

[hyksos]

It is LOGICAL THAT humans can affect the environment. To the conservative who sees those 'scientists' putting forward 'science' that proves we have ANY affect, is merely an obvious insult because the only rationale for putting money INTO science on this is itself POLITICAL. The attempt of supporting a popular support of the science regarding climate change is the problem. This is because it presumes that the welfare of the majority (now and into the future) have meaning when it doesn't attend to the specific virtue of that 'majority'. If you happen to have no children, for instance, WHY should it matter that you sacrifice your comfort today for the sake of some other people (or equally, any other species) when or should that same 'majority' today could care less about you specifically?

I personally think that permitting unrestricted population growth based upon the whims of particular people's choices is itself something we need to stop because this affects the welfare of the whole. I could set up studies to show how human birthing contributes to global warming. In fact, obviously if we DO have an impact in today's climate science with certainty, then MORE people living to abuse this Earth should suggest that we make laws BASED ON THIS SCIENCE to restrict people's independent rights to have children.

If we had many studies done to point out how more human density affects the environment AND if there was extensive such studies by some particular INTERESTS, would this not suggest to you that the purpose of these interests is suspect? I mean, given the logic suffices with LESS, any extended efforts appears itself to be acting to influence the stupidity of the crowds in disrespect of their intellect.

If it is any consolation. In the 1950s and 1960s, right-wing conservative thinktanks figured out the impacts of industry on the environment. Those thinktanks then concluded that the only solution to the problem was massive government intervention in the economy. They wrote these conclusions and then distributed the dossiers among their private circles.

Decades later, younger right-wing think-tankers found these things, and coordinated an effort to bury and discredit the science of industrial effects on climate. The conclusions struck so deep at their core beliefs that they had to get rid of it.

It is LOGICAL THAT humans can affect the environment.

Speaking of logic, your use of capitalized words has no logical scheme. ;)

[Scott Mayers]

@hyksos,

I should be using italics and bold rather than capitals but it is easier to do that. However, I know that some treat that as yelling. I don't text and so lack the same concern of etiquette. Is there an actual universal standard for accenting....and quoting?

[...and where did the rule of placing final periods or commas before closing quotes come from??? now that is a 'logic' I'd like to know. I purposely ignore that rule when I can just for a 'fuck you' to whomever made up that one.]

[Forest_Dump]

As a quick FYI, my understanding was that punctuation marks before the quotation marks was only when they are in the original AND are applicable in the context of the quote. Sorry for yelling.

[Scott Mayers]

As a quick FYI, my understanding was that punctuation marks before the quotation marks was only when they are in the original AND are applicable in the context of the quote. Sorry for yelling.

Thanks. I think it would be more rational for teachers of grammar (or texts) to give some background on the origins of exceptions like that one. You remember better for knowing this and can comply better without rebelling as I had. There is always some logic for such origins.

[charon]

Frankly, I'd worry less about the use of textual embellishments and more about making intelligent contributions to the subject.

The rule is simple, less is more.