"The Republican War on Science" is nothing short of a landmark in contemporary political reporting. Mooney compiles and presents an extraordinary mountain of evidence, from several different fields, to demonstrate that the conservative wing of the Republican Party has launched an unprecedented and highly successful campaign to sow widespread confusion about the conclusions of science and its usefulness in political decision making. Using methods and strategies pioneered under the Reagan administration by the tobacco industry and anti-environmental forces, an alliance of social conservatives and corporate advocates has paralyzed or obfuscated public discussion of science on a whole range of issues. Not just climate change but also stem cell research, evolutionary biology, endangered-species protection, diet and obesity, abortion and contraception, and the effects of environmental toxins have all become arenas of systematic and deliberate bewilderment.

Mooney quotes an internal strategy document from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson, written around 1969: "Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." B&W and the other tobacco giants achieved no better than a stalemate in their long battle against government regulation, but whatever chain-smoking, skinny-tied executive wrote that memo ought to be beatified by the conservative movement. With those two sentences he became its accidental Karl Marx, launching an antiscientific counterrevolution that rages around us today.

No matter how much you think you know about Republican distortion and misuse of science, Mooney's account will startle and perhaps terrify you. Many conservatives, he argues, have stopped regarding science as an objective search for truth (conditional as that truth necessarily is). Instead, they see it as just another realm of naked power politics or, less cynically but more ominously, as a contest between a pseudo-socialistic, tree-hugging worldview and one that is avowedly pro-Christian and pro-capitalist. Furthermore, right-wingers have mystified this conflict almost completely, cloaking it in self-defined terms of "sound science" (i.e., science that agrees with them, or reaches no conclusions at all) versus "junk science" (anything that might impinge on corporate profits or conflict with the most extreme version of Christian morality).



More here, free one-day regsitration required to read the whole thing (I highly recommend NOT buying membership to Salon, the only thing consistently worth reading is their Tom the Dancing Bug comic strip, however they've had a couple great articles and book reviews by freelancers lately):

http://salon.com/books/review/2005/09/14/mooney/index.html

The article you cited is retarded.

They are engaging in the deceptive and sometimes dangerous practice of "cherry picking" studies and data that fit their agenda and ignoring others ... and that is when the BA has actually gone to the trouble of gleaning scientific advise from scientists and not industry hacks

The old Office of Technology Assessment used to perform this service but ran afoul of the Reagan administration when they said that his pet star-wars program was not going to work. It was finally done-in by gang Gingrich in '95


http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so05mooney

They are engaging in the deceptive and sometimes dangerous practice of "cherry picking" studies and data that fit their agenda and ignoring others ...
If this is true, I'm 100% confident it isn't only Republicans that are doing it.

The article you cited is retarded.
Calling an article "retarded" as your sole response to it and entire argument is retarded.

How many times have we seen "studies" that are accepted as fact only to find out later that it was bunk? One example...how many of you have been eating margerine for the last 20 years because you thought it was more healthy? Guess what? Now they're saying that the transfats it contains are actually more dangerous than the saturated fats you were trying to avoid!

How many times have we seen "studies" that are accepted as fact only to find out later that it was bunk? One example...how many of you have been eating margerine for the last 20 years because you thought it was more healthy? Guess what? Now they're saying that the transfats it contains are actually more dangerous than the saturated fats you were trying to avoid!

Who is "they"? I think you're sort of proving the point of the article here. Conservatives are on a crusade to convince the public that it's impossible to ever know anything through science.

Not just climate change but also stem cell research, evolutionary biology, endangered-species protection, diet and obesity, abortion and contraception, and the effects of environmental toxins have all become arenas of systematic and deliberate bewilderment.
This is just plain false.

"Climate change" has neither been proved or shown to be the result of human activity.

"Stem cell research" has not been proven to remedy all the illnesses its propontents foster. But, collection of such cells does result in the deaths of unborn babies...babies that some of us believe are human beings. All of this is the pro-abort faction giving false hope to people while giving excuses for their industry.

"Evolutionary Biology"...what's the issue? The fact is, evolutionary theory has not been proven to be true. In fact, no one can point to the creation of even one example of a new species emerging from another. You'd think this would be required. Not only that, many of the "truths" of evolution are fabrications. Look into it.

"Endangered species protection", huh? Republicans don't want to help endangered species? I didn't know that. Oh, maybe you're talking about the fact that they don't want to prevent ppl from developing private property because of some insigificant fly or something... Does anyone have any idea how many species became extinct in the past? Sometimes, that's just what happens. It's nature.

"Diet and obesity", wtf? I don't even know what they're talking about here...

"Abortion and contraception", and? What are Republicans doing to confuse the issue? I think I see conservative ppl saying that if you want contraceptives, go buy them...its not the government's job to give them to you. As far as abortion...how is anything the Republicans are saying wrong? It seems they just have a difference of opinion. I guess we don't allow that in this country anymore... :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard the term "consensus", soylentgreen? Science can never "prove" anything beyond a shadow of any doubt, that's not even the purpose of science.

There is very broad consensus within the scientific community on at least three of the issues you listed.

"Diet and obesity", wtf? I don't even know what they're talking about here...


Indeed.

Who is "they"?Pretty much the entire medical community. Read a newspaper or search the internet for "transfats".

I think you're sort of proving the point of the article here. Conservatives are on a crusade to convince the public that it's impossible to ever know anything through science.That's just plain B.S. Do you actually believe that?

I have one for you...if Democrats are so chummy with science, why don't they insist that we make tabacco illegal? They say it's killing ppl...even by second-hand smoke. Well?

That's just plain B.S. Do you actually believe that?



I not only believe it, I just posted an article explaining why- an article which you have yet to refute with anything besides stories about the history of margarine and exclamation points.

Have you ever heard the term "consensus", soylentgreen? Science can never "prove" anything beyond a shadow of any doubt, that's not even the purpose of science.
I get it. Just because there exists consensus, that doesnt mean they're right. I think science should require a very high standard before we start using it to set public policy.

Indeed.The point is, are Republicans claiming that diet has nothing to do with obesity? I don't think so. In the end, so what? Is it the government's job to decide what people eat?

I not only believe it...You actually believe that Republicans are anti-science.

'Hey, we're Democratic liberals and we have the monopoly on science. If you disagree with us you are WRONG!!!' LOL.

I just posted an article explaining why- an article which you have yet to refute with anything besides stories about the history of margarine and exclamation points.
It's a dumb article. The margerine thing was just an example of how science does not always get the right answers...and people suffer because of it.

You actually believe that Republicans are anti-science.

'Hey, we're Democratic liberals and we have the monopoly on science. If you disagree with us you are WRONG!!!' LOL.


I never said anything about liberal Democrats being better or worse. Republicans tend to be more brazen about their corporate patronage, but that doesn't mean Democrats are necessarily "better".




It's a dumb article. The margerine thing was just an example of how science does not always get the right answers...and people suffer because of it.


Yes, surely the scientific community was dealt a severe blow to their credibility with the great Margarine Scandal of the 1990's. I forget: how many died of margarine poisoning again due to those damn incompetent scientists? :rolleyes:

I never said anything about liberal Democrats being better or worse. Republicans tend to be more brazen about their corporate patronage, but that doesn't mean Democrats are necessarily "better".But, of course, that is the assumption one is supposed to make after reading the article, right?

BTW, just so you know, Democrats are bought and paid for by corporations too. Why do you think they support free trade? Why do you think they refuse to shut down our border? Why do you think Clinton okay'd Loral Corp's transfer of missle technology to China? Wake up, my friend.

I
Yes, surely the scientific community was dealt a severe blow to their credibility with the great Margarine Scandal of the 1990's. I forget: how many died of margarine poisoning again due to those damn incompetent scientists? :rolleyes:
You think it is a joke, but the truth is, people have died because of it. Did you know that in Germany transfats have been banned? Did you know that some doctors say that transfats are so dangerous they should NEVER be consumed? Transfats are a contributor to heart disease...the #1 killer in this country. People are dying because of it.

I'm a registered Republican and I support free trade and oppose closed borders.

I talked about Democrats...not Republicans. Anyway, the motivation for both to support free trade and keep the border unobstructed comes from one source...the desire to appease corporations in order to get big cash at election time. Pure and simple.

I talked about Democrats...not Republicans. Anyway, the motivation for both to support free trade and keep the border unobstructed comes from one source...the desire to appease corporations in order to get big cash at election time. Pure and simple.

Well I agree with that entirely. But you'd rather criticize liberals and I'd rather criticize conservatives, so I guess neither of us is as objective as we'd like to think.

Either that or you're wealthy and I'm poor.

I talked about Democrats...not Republicans. Anyway, the motivation for both to support free trade and keep the border unobstructed comes from one source...the desire to appease corporations in order to get big cash at election time. Pure and simple.

Yes.

I have no doubt a Democrat in the White House would also try to use and abuse science towards political ends.

However right now, we have a republican administration that, if you follow Mooney's evidence, is doing this with unprecedented boldness and abandon.

M.

Ras, your article suggests that there's no such thing as "junk science". I know you don't believe that. I don't really know why you posted this.

Ras, your article suggests that there's no such thing as "junk science". I know you don't believe that. I don't really know why you posted this.

I don't read the article as suggesting any such thing.

M.

I don't think Republicans or Democrats are necessarily out to kill science, per se. I think most Americans are just too stupid to understand what science is. And, rather than bother educating, our leaders in whatever party you prefer have now resorted to trying to show that being educated is meaningless in making decisions.
For instance, the earlier margarine post. Yes, sometimes you will see science say something one day, and refute it the next. Scientists aren't writing a never changing document that explains reality, as you would expect with something like the Bible. They are doing research, and publishing the results. Interpretation of the results can change as more information becomes available.
And climate change. There is no argument among the world's scientists as to whether humans are causing climate change. The only argument they have is about how much humans are affecting climate change. This is clear if you actualy read science journals, as opposed to reading what CNN or FOX tells you and claiming you know about science because of it.
However, if the USA continues to place idealism above science in our decision making, we won't have to worry about maintaining technological superiority. We will lose it. Europe and Asia do not have hang ups about science...they embrace it. And day by day, the good ol' USA is falling behind. While we argue about cloning, the Koreans are making clones. While we argue about stem cells, the Europeans and Koreans are testing new stem cell therapies on people.
I think it's depressing, really. Science and religion can coexist quite well, if you are educated enough to realize the difference between them.

Ras, your article suggests that there's no such thing as "junk science".

It does no such thing. The quote is:

right-wingers have mystified this conflict almost completely, cloaking it in self-defined terms of "sound science" (i.e., science that agrees with them, or reaches no conclusions at all) versus "junk science" (anything that might impinge on corporate profits or conflict with the most extreme version of Christian morality).


How is that suggestive of there being no such thing as junk science?

I know you don't believe that.

No I don't and I never said I did, nor did the author of this book.

I don't really know why you posted this.

I don't believe that either.

Furthermore, right-wingers have mystified this conflict almost completely, cloaking it in self-defined terms of "sound science" (i.e., science that agrees with them, or reaches no conclusions at all) versus "junk science" (anything that might impinge on corporate profits or conflict with the most extreme version of Christian morality)


Does that suggest that there's no such thing as junk science?

I mean, if you're going to accuse "right-wingers" of being biased in their definitions of sound science, how can you escape applying the same criticism to "left-wingers"?

And day by day, the good ol' USA is falling behind. While we argue about cloning, the Koreans are making clones. While we argue about stem cells, the Europeans and Koreans are testing new stem cell therapies on people.
I think it's depressing, really. Science and religion can coexist quite well, if you are educated enough to realize the difference between them.

And you touch on a big part of the problem and particularly with the BA

Pushing biblical dogma as "science" has made the US into international laughing stock ... India and China are cranking out scientists and are catching up technologically ... we will be left in the dark-ages dust in the near future if we continue this lunacy

Does that suggest that there's no such thing as junk science?

I mean, if you're going to accuse "right-wingers" of being biased in their definitions of sound science, how can you escape applying the same criticism to "left-wingers"?

I have no need or desire to "escape" applying the same principle across the board of political and industrial elites, so I don't know what your point is.

The article is right, period. When scientists discover something that might be bad for industry, the industry pays some other scientists- who are often in the strong minority- to contradict the theories on which the vast majority of scientists concur. This minority of contrarian scientists (for example, those who claim global warming is not occurring) then receive a disproportionate amount of media coverage relative to the overall acceptance of their ideas within the general scientific community. The intended- and achieved- effect is that people stop believing that scientists know anything about how the world works. People already want to believ this anyways, because we have discovered a few distrubing things over the years.

It's strange that anyone could even doubt that this happens. You're really surprised that corporations pay a lot of money and go to great (sometimes unscrupulous) lengths to silence ideas which would be financially damaging to their industry?

In our society or any other, one should never underestimate the importance of good theologians.

In our society or any other, one should never underestimate the importance of good theologians.

Also, you should never underestimate their tendency to preserve dogma above all else. Change is not permitted in most religious systems, in terms of modifying the religion as new information is discovered. Science, by design, is always changing. This is where the conflict most likely originates.

Ras is right. I'll add more if it's necessary :P And what is "junk science" supposed to be anyway?

More here, free one-day regsitration required to read the whole thing (I highly recommend NOT buying membership to Salon, the only thing consistently worth reading is their Tom the Dancing Bug comic strip, however they've had a couple great articles and book reviews by freelancers lately):

http://salon.com/books/review/2005/09/14/mooney/index.html- http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/ You're welcome :p

Edit: as an apropos:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2005/td050702.gif

That comic is dumb. Natural selection is not a product of mutation. The genes required to resist anti-biotics already existed in the population. When anti-biotics are introduced, the non-resistant members of the population die off...leaving the resistant members to dominate. No new species was created. No mutation was necessary. This is not at all the same as saying that men evolved from common ancestors with apes.

Again, can someone please point to just one example of a new species springing forth from another? This is what evolutionary theroy claims...yet they can produce not even one example.

Well I agree with that entirely. But you'd rather criticize liberals and I'd rather criticize conservatives, so I guess neither of us is as objective as we'd like to think.
I'm happy to criticize either when I disagree. BTW, I pretty much don't like Dems or Reps...and I don't really consider Republicans to be the same as conservatives in most instances.


Either that or you're wealthy and I'm poor.Rich and poor has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure where you're going with that. But, anyway, I'm far from rich...

That comic is dumb. Natural selection is not a product of mutation. The genes required to resist anti-biotics already existed in the population. When anti-biotics are introduced, the non-resistant members of the population die off...leaving the resistant members to dominate. No new species was created. No mutation was necessary. This is not at all the same as saying that men evolved from common ancestors with apes.

Again, can someone please point to just one example of a new species springing forth from another? This is what evolutionary theroy claims...yet they can produce not even one example.

Umm...yes they can my friend. Here is one example I found that might be readable for the lay person: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

And, evolution doesn't say people came from apes. Evolution states we had a common ancestor. Based on morphology and genetic evidence, many scientists think the apes, and humans, have an ancestor in common.
Furthermore, have you ever gotten sick and needed to take antibiotics? If so, then you have enjoyed direct benefits from evolutionary biology.

Umm...yes they can my friend. Here is one example I found that might be readable for the lay person: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
Again, the genes needed to produce "variation" existed within the population. I don't think it can be proved otherwise. Anyway, Darwin's Finches, by some accounts, are intermixing and thus probably not seperate species.

And, evolution doesn't say people came from apes. Evolution states we had a common ancestor.Yes, that's exactly what I said. Please read it again.

That comic is dumb. Natural selection is not a product of mutation. The genes required to resist anti-biotics already existed in the population. When anti-biotics are introduced, the non-resistant members of the population die off...leaving the resistant members to dominate. No new species was created. No mutation was necessary. This is not at all the same as saying that men evolved from common ancestors with apes.
The REASON those genes exist in the population is mutation. If they existed in the population originally, the antibiotic wouldn't kill it off in the first place.

Because of faulty RNA copying, exposure to radiation, harsh chemicals, etc., new genes are randomly inserted in the population, which leads to natural selection they way you described it above.

I can cite all the same "hot button issues" (stem cells, global warming, abortion, etc.) as being areas where liberals do the same thing, misinform and cast doubt, such as that recent case claiming that fetuses do not feel pain until X date.

However, I can add even more:

"Gender differences"
"Race differences"
"IQ"
"Genetics-- about a dozen separate issues in this one"


So, it looks like demoncraps are the anti-science idiots you are looking for.

Again, the genes needed to produce "variation" existed within the population. I don't think it can be proved otherwise. Anyway, Darwin's Finches, by some accounts, are intermixing and thus probably not seperate species.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Please read it again.

Variation is the result of genetic mutation. Isolated populations have different mutations. Populations close together, have similar mutations.
Also, if two animals breed together, and the offspring is a different species or a variation on a species, then evolution has been observed.
In reading your previous posts, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. I was just responding to specific points you made that I perceive as being uninformed.

But, a more general point I would like to make, is that evolution is not controversial among scientists. It is only groups outside of the scientific establishment that want to make it so.
This same process has been at work since the days of Copernicus and Galileo. At least now, you can't get away with burning scientists at the stake for disagreeing with religious dogma.
And, if somebody feels better by saying evolution is wrong and doesn't make sense with their view of the world, that's fine. It's a right that person has, which is being exercised. But, it is foolish to expect scientists to give this mindset any credibility when the theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of peer review.

I have no need or desire to "escape" applying the same principle across the board of political and industrial elites, so I don't know what your point is.

The article is right, period. When scientists discover something that might be bad for industry, the industry pays some other scientists- who are often in the strong minority- to contradict the theories on which the vast majority of scientists concur. This minority of contrarian scientists (for example, those who claim global warming is not occurring) then receive a disproportionate amount of media coverage relative to the overall acceptance of their ideas within the general scientific community. The intended- and achieved- effect is that people stop believing that scientists know anything about how the world works. People already want to believ this anyways, because we have discovered a few distrubing things over the years.

It's strange that anyone could even doubt that this happens. You're really surprised that corporations pay a lot of money and go to great (sometimes unscrupulous) lengths to silence ideas which would be financially damaging to their industry?


I agree that it happens. Anyone who stands to lose money from a scientific discovery will do whatever they can to prevent losing money, including drummng up publicity for anyone who disagrees with said discovery. So we have to view any such claims with a degree of scepticism.

But on the other hand, we can't just assume that every bit of information that supports a large corporation must be false simply because it benefits a large corporation.

I agree that it happens. Anyone who stands to lose money from a scientific discovery will do whatever they can to prevent losing money, including drummng up publicity for anyone who disagrees with said discovery. So we have to view any such claims with a degree of scepticism.

But on the other hand, we can't just assume that every bit of information that supports a large corporation must be false simply because it benefits a large corporation.

And in the case of global warming, we are doubly dubious because of the enormous price tag associated with doing something that most scientists agree will have little to no effect on the ultimate outcome. So it may not be so much a war on science as the practical view "why should we bankrupt ourselves and still have the problem"?

And in the case of global warming, we are doubly dubious because of the enormous price tag associated with doing something that most scientists agree will have little to no effect on the ultimate outcome. So it may not be so much a war on science as the practical view "why should we bankrupt ourselves and still have the problem"?

In the case of global warming though, we need to pay special attention instead of being overly dismissive.
If the global warming predictions are right, we'll see more category 5 hurricanes, more soil erosion, and in general, more rapid climate change. This will effectively be equivalent to being bankrupt if we don't plan for it in advance.
To say there is no problem, and ignore evidence, will potentially be more damaging then trying to do something about it.
At the very least, being able to predict the climate changes before they occur may allow us to modify our economic systems to deal with it.

But on the other hand, we can't just assume that every bit of information that supports a large corporation must be false simply because it benefits a large corporation.

Nobody is assuming anything- the author wrote a lengthy, well-researched and well-documented book explaining who does it and why. The fact that you dismissed it after reading (and misinterpreting) three paragraphs of a positive book review doesn't really prove anything. Well actually it does, but probably not what you think.

Again, can someone please point to just one example of a new species springing forth from another? This is what evolutionary theroy claims...yet they can produce not even one example.

There are more examples than you could shake a stick at. Its called speciation: a species migrates into a new area, and under the influence of a new environment, evolves differently from its cousins left behind... until eventually the differences are great enough for the two to no longer reproduce with each other.

M.

Nobody is assuming anything- the author wrote a lengthy, well-researched and well-documented book explaining who does it and why. The fact that you dismissed it after reading (and misinterpreting) three paragraphs of a positive book review doesn't really prove anything. Well actually it does, but probably not what you think.

No, I didn't. Stop trying to be a jerk.

No, I didn't. Stop trying to be a jerk.

Excuse me? This was the last sentence written in your first post to this thread, given without any explanation or argument:

I don't really know why you posted this

If that's not dismissing an argument then I don't know what is. Maybe if you had offered some reason for your statement- other than your fallacious assertion that the author claimed there is no such thing as junk science- you could claim not to have been being dismissive, but you didn't and still haven't.

Excuse me? This was the last sentence written in your first post to this thread, given without any explanation or argument:



If that's not dismissing an argument then I don't know what is. Maybe if you had offered some reason for your statement- other than your fallacious assertion that the author claimed there is no such thing as junk science- you could claim not to have been being dismissive, but you didn't and still haven't.

i see words posted on the screen, but all i can read is "blah blah blah"....

i see words posted on the screen, but all i can read is "blah blah blah"....

Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think there's more truth to this statement than you'd care to admit.

Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think there's more truth to this statement than you'd care to admit.

:rolleyes:

don't you ever get tired of being pissed off all the time?

yeah, feenix, I'm really foaming at the mouth over this as I clean my house and occasionally stop to respond to you. I suppose because I'm not making sarcastic statements of indifference then I must be pissed off.

:rolleyes:

don't you ever get tired of being pissed off all the time?

cool - someone else notices too. :nice:

LOL you two should start a club about me. I've got some pretty big nuts, plenty of room for everybody.

Will it help your perception of my on-line temperment if I use more smilies to prove how "not mad" I am? :rolleyes: :nice:

hey it works!