Talk:Politicization of science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is it that the people who don't believe in global warming are the same people who don't believe in the ozone-hole? The two are different phenomenon. So the fact that the same people disbelieve both tells me that their views are motivated less by science and more by some sort of vague anti-environmentalism... Evercat 22:33, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ah why Green peace believe that both ozone hole and global warming to be both scientifically true when each are unrelated phenomenon. The fact that they do believe so tells me that their views are motivated less by science and more by some sort of vague green ideologies. Just an example of false argument. :) FWBOarticle

(William M. Connolley 22:03, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I've noticed the same thing, but sadly it runs in reverse: those that *do* believe in GW belive in OD and reverse... I can be made into a useful argument with more care, though, since OD is essentially done: there is no real argument except for the wackos: whereas with GW there is still some room for reasonable doubt, perhaps.

The politicisation of science happen on the both side of the debate. I will try to make the article bit more comprehensive. FWBOarticle

Should we redo this article under four headding. Allegation of , (1)Politicisation of science by scientist, (2) politicisation of science by politician, (3) politicisation fo science by NGO and Lobbying group. Afterall, everyone accused of politicisation would refuse such allegation. It's not a criminal offence afterall. FWBOarticle

FWBOarticle, could you sign with four tildes (~~~~), please? Knowing when people made remarks is handy. Cheers, Daniel Collins 18:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I tend to revise my Engrish edit often. For this reason, sigining with four tildes would be inappropriate. If the talk page is long, I utlise (=) or (:) so people can follow the debate. Cheers. FWBOarticle

1 Rubbish
2 Footnotes
3 Historical politicization of science
4 One-sided
5 Suppression of dissent
6 Eugenics
7 Removed material
8 WP:LEAD

[edit] Rubbish

The article in its current state is rubbish William M. Connolley 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; and no improvement since your evaluation.

Politicization is not "making science an issue" but rather misusing science to advance one view of a political issue. --Uncle Ed 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, do you have a citation for that? It can be either depending on the circumstances and how you define your terms. JoshuaZ 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the first version is rather amusing. — Dunc|☺ 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed's got this thing about global warming, in case you haven't noticed. Dollars to donut holes in the ozone, were global warming not mentioned Ed wouldn't be so hot on this article. •Jim62sch• 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Jim, there's been a lot of junk science ever since Science came into being. From the Catholic Church exalting Aristotle's writings over actual observations; to the European medical establishment refusing to examine the statistics on childbed fever reduction (see Ignaz_Semmelweis#Rejection_by_the_medical_establishment); and tobacco companies claiming no health risks from smoking. These, of course, have all been overturned, after much time and effort.

There are also health scares and other types of politicization, by environmentalists (see DDT ban, not to mention arsenic in drinking water, Alar on apples, asbestos in wall insulation; the list is seemingly endless. Someone takes a political stance on an issue (often with economic or ideological motives) and screams holy hell if anyone dares to question them. Results? Tests? Methods? We don't have to show you that. Trust us, we're experts and we care (not like those nasty corporations).

Anything other than Here's our hypothesis, fellas, see if you can reproduce our results or not is not science: it's politicized junk. If that's a POV, so be it. The article should include that POV, if it comes from published sources.

The idea that it's chiefly Bush & crew who politicize science is merely one point of view. The opposite POV, i.e., that it's also liberals & environmentalists must be included in the article. Otherwise it's slanted to favor one POV. --Uncle Ed 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you that's the minority point of view and there's this thing here called WP:NPOV#Undue weight. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Thank you for preserving the Frederick Seitz example in a footnote, FeloniousMonk.

By the way, I re-read NPOV on 'undue weight' and it said:

...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Wouldn't you say that a retired official of a major scientific organization (president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962 until 1969) is 'prominent'? --Uncle Ed 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seitz is a confirmed global warming skeptic. Global warming skeptics are in the minority within the scientific community. NPOV: Undue weight says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." FeloniousMonk 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Youn left out have been published by a reliable source - has Seitz? Not that I'm aware William M. Connolley 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical politicization of science

The article covers current event pretty well, but has no historical background leading up to them or historical examples. This is a blank that needs to be filled in. FeloniousMonk 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-sided

Article has a distinct pro-environmentalist, anti-Bush administration slant. --Uncle Ed 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And your objection, like most of your contributions to the project as of late, has a distinct anti-mainstream science, pro-Bush administration slant.

Your objection is noted Ed, but you're hardly the one to determine what is and isn't NPOV on topics which you admittedly hold strong ideological views on. The article presents the most notable instances of the topic, which the mainstream media has repeatedly shown to be the Bush administration's activities. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I'm saying: the article takes the POV the Bush administration is primarily to blame for politicization of various science issues. Is this your POV, as well?

Please help me to fix the POV/NPOV problems with this article, before removing the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute tag. --Uncle Ed 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, stop playing silly buggers here. You know as well as I do that there is no POV issue with this and most of the stories in the mainstream media on the topic of the politicization of science are about the Bush administration. Please find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the article does appear to be overly anti-Bush, but he is so eminently bashable. Doesn't seem to be a POV problem, just that's where the action currently is. Any sourced material supportive of Bush's excesses? Also the article is totally US centric, surely other governments have their excesses. I'm for removing the two ugly tags - which would improve the looks of the article while Ed & others find some reasonable balancing info (please not the same old worn out and/or discredited skeptics ) and some historical/international background. Vsmith 22:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suppression of dissent

Seitz and Lindzen make some implausible and unreferenced/unsupported claims about funding for dissenters being cut off (given the state of the current Bush govt, this seems to me quite implausibly the wrong-way-round). But... that isn't why I removed them, but because, as PoS is currently defined, they are irrelevant to the article William M. Connolley 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Smacks of suppressing complaints of suppression. Better we put their views back in. Otherwise, the article will go from mostly to completely one-sided. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't put their views in just for balance, they have to actually be *relevant*. As PoS is currently defined, their crit is just not relevant. You could redefine the article meaning so they became relevant, I suppose William M. Connolley 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

William is right about relevance here. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How could "pressure to influence the findings [or] the way the research is disseminated" be construed to exclude supression? 75.35.113.208 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seitz's views were relevant in October 2003. Why have they lost their relevance? See your version of the article. --Uncle Ed 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Seitz's views were irrelevant then too, I was too timid then William M. Connolley 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to explain why they're 'irrelevant' I'll just put back them in. Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. --Uncle Ed 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they are irrelevant for the reasons I've already expounded. You're welcome to say why you think they are relevant, since I've just decided I'm a bit less sure of myself :-) William M. Connolley 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read them, my opinion is that they are indeed irrelevant. •Jim62sch• 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics

If this article needs a section on eugenics (and I cannot say that it does not deserve one), it must be written properly. Not be a malformed quote of some science fiction author.

Chrichton is not an expert on eugenics, nor on the politics of science. Comparing eugenics to global warming is unfair since on the global warming is well accepted science, whereas eugenics never was, atleast not to the same degree. Michael Crichton (and the section author) has the rather transparent aim of casting doubt on global warming through innuendo, ironically an act of politicising science.

Scientific fact is unaffacted by politics. — Dunc|☺ 17:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But Dunc, don't you realise that Crichton is a reliable source on everything under the moon? •Jim62sch• 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crichton is not an expert on the topics of Eugenics, Global Warming, or the Politicization of science . Period. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material

I've removed this newly placed bloat of material on a very specific subject that should take no more than one or two brief paragraphs, even assuming it can be properly cited. One citation was to a blog, and is thus in violation of WP:VER and WP:OR. The Crighton perspective, if it's to be included, should summarize Crighton's assertion briefly and cite to him with appropriate weight. Obviously he's making an important assertion. Phrenology, incidentally, is another famous example of a "science" that got highly politicized in the mid-19th Century, as its "methods" were used as excuses to attack already disempowered classes (no cites available to me at the moment). No doubt there are other examples as well. ... Kenosis 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be summarized. I was about to do that, when Dunc and you reverted me three times. Fearing I might run afoul of 3RR, I self-reverted at the end of my series of edits and "reported myself at" Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

Would his account of the Eugenics movement be better if we took out the part where he links it to global warming? (Unsigned comment left by Ed Poor 12:26, 5 August 2006)

And would you like my help adding the politicization of Phrenology?

My opinion is that his lack of cred in the area means he shouldn't be quoted at all. Additionally, whether Crichton gave site for all those people and institutions named, we'd damned-well better if we're even going to consider including it. In other words, meat is needed to go with all that greasy gravy. •Jim62sch• 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the material I removed. ... Kenosis 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

- ===Eugenics===

- Physician Michael Crichton included a fact-based section in his novel State of Fear entitled, "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous", explaining:

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. - - This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms. -

- I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago. -

- Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. -

- These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. -

- All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. -

- Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people. -

- The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

—Michael Crichton, State of Fear

- - Some environmentalstis say that what Crichton wrote about eugenics is merely an attempt to cast doubt on global environment change by using innuendo suggesting guilt by association.<rev>"Somehow Hitler keeps popping into the discussion. Gore draws a parallel between fighting global warming and fighting the Nazis. Novelist Michael Crichton, in State of Fear, ends with an appendix comparing the theory of global warming to the theory of eugenics. Making an analogy of Gore’s beliefs to Hitler’s beliefs about the Jews is so outrages as to be a smear, through guilt-by-association, on his character. It is more than disingenuous so let’s please stop defending using terms so loaded and poisonous." Democrats and Liberals (blog)</rev> ... 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Crichton is a novelist. Calling him a Physician is bizarre, as is SoF William M. Connolley 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, William, he did "go" to med school and plagiarise George Orwell...certainly that means something. ;) •Jim62sch• 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Creighton's novel bit. Eugenics would possibly be a good example, but not by using a novel as a source. Absurd. Vsmith 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)