Re: [Phys-l] The political/scientific connection

[Marty Weiss <martweiss@comcast.net>]

From the Slate article:
"For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science."

	Somehow even a usually centrist outlet as Slate falls into the right-wing clap-trap of blaming everything on progressive policies that are on the edges of science or have nothing to do with science;  therefore, because these are progressive causes, science itself is to be disbelieved because many or most scientists consider themselves to be progressive.    The right-wingers like to speak and write in quick, easy to digest one-line retorts which fit into the narrow belief systems of the public eager for USA Today type reporting.   It's very easy to lump things into these neat one-liners:   global warming is being debated, therefore it is not to be believed because scientists can't agree;  scientists debate the mechanism of evolution, therefore evolution itself is not proven;   stem cell research uses fetal tissue, their religion says life begins at conception, therefore stem cell research goes against the will of God;  God destroyed Sodom because of *unnatural acts* therefore gays are condemned to hell.    One line fits all.  
	We know that scientists  and want to explain things in precise terms and details and can tend to be verbose.   Many scientists don't like the limelight and are poor public speakers.  Many progressives tend to want to compromise and try to see both sides of the argument.  However, that plays right into the reactionary attitude:  say something in a provocative one-line refutation and you will have the public eating out of your hands!  The public doesn't have time or want to hear a long explanation and the right-winger can get the whole crowd on his side with a quick one-line nonsensical sentence that riles up the audience and soon has them running down the road with their torches and pitchforks to kill the Frankenstein monster.     The real explanation is too complex and takes too long to understand in this hurry-up society, and thus most people take the easy way out and nod at the quick, pert, easy to digest answer.     Science and the intellect is given so little value in general society anyway, that if a right-winger says "Look,  these 100 scientists wrote a letter saying climate change isn't caused by humans;  that tells us that climate change isn't caused by humans",  the average Joe will nod and say,  "See, scientists don't agree, so it must be false."      They would rather listen to sports radio go on and on how Michael Vick is the best quarterback in football today;  they will spout tons of statistics from football games of a hundred years ago to prove their point,  they will go on for hours debating sports, they know every stat possible about every sport ever conceived, but mention science and their eyes glaze over and the one-line clap-trap sticks and all the rest quickly floats off into the ether.  This is the nature of American society and one main reason why the Asians are rapidly overtaking us in academia and research and why over half the grad students at MIT and other such prestigious universities are from elsewhere and not from the USA.    

Marty
	
 
On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:37 PM, John Clement wrote:

> Go to:
> http://www.slate.com/id/2277104?wpisrc=xs_wp_0001
>
> This explores the politics-science connection.  It supports my contention
> that one party is aligned with anti-science factions.  Their solution is to
> start encouraging Republican students to study science.  A "Young
> Republicans for Science" club?  Or do scientists become Democrats after
> studying science and math?  Or have scientists been driven away from one
> party?
>
> The reason for this is not clear, and might make a good sociology paper.
>
> In either case "practicing scientists" are such a small fraction of the
> population that they have little effect on politics except as they speak out
> to influence policy.  Their voting strength is nil.  Pickle packers may have
> more voting strength.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l