![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
autographedcatI pretty much agree with this. We need more science driving policy, not less. More rationality, less superstition. More reason, less dogma.
The new barbarism: Keeping science out of politics - How the World Works - Salon.com
The new barbarism: Keeping science out of politics - How the World Works - Salon.com
Keep science out of the political process? Science? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around; that the goal was the keep politics out of science. I can understand, albeit disagree with, categorizations of anthropogenic global warming as bad science, but I'm afraid I just can't come to grips with the notion that we should keep "science" from influencing politics at all. What is the point of civilization in the first place if we don't use our hard-won understanding of how the universe works to influence our decisions on how to organize ourselves?
Watching one Republican candidate for office after another declare outright that they do not believe humans are causing climate change is befuddling enough. But to flat-out reject science as a guide to policy is beyond medieval. It's a retreat to pure superstition, a surrender to barbarism. We might as well be reading omens in the entrails of sacrificial animals. Our wealth as a country, our incredible technological wonders -- the Industrial Revolution! -- were built upon scientific discovery.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-28 06:02 pm (UTC)... and the wealth that contributes to your campaign coffers!
Incredibly short sighted for corporate America to back candidates against science. Sure, science is calling for some corrections that'll be inconvenient to the corporate bottom line in the medium term. But, science develops the products they get to sell. Put a strangle on science, you kill profits in the long term.