Science turns up the heat on Bush

[Nambe]

ninemsn Pty Ltd (AP)

Last November, President George W Bush gave physicist Richard Garwin a medal for his "valuable scientific advice on important questions of national security." Just three months later, Garwin signed a statement condemning the Bush administration for misusing, suppressing and distorting scientific advice.

So far more than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel prize winners, have put their names to the declaration. ..

Scientists' feud with the Bush administration, building for almost four years, has intensified this election year. The White House has sacked prominent scientists from presidential advisory committees, science advocacy groups have released lengthy catalogues of alleged scientific abuses by the administration and both sides have traded accusations at meetings and in the pages of research journals. ..

Scientists collect evidence and conduct experiments to arrive at an objective description of reality - to describe the world as it is rather than as we might want it to be.

Government, on the other hand, is about anything but objective truth. It deals with grey areas, competing values, the allocation of limited resources. It is conducted by debate and negotiation. Far from striving for ultimate truths, it seeks compromises that a majority can live with.

[whistle]

1. The same thing happened during the rise of Adolph Hilter...

...in Nazi Germany.

[yellowcanine]

5. Soviets also twisted science to fit a political agenda - Lysenko genetics

is a good example. Basically it was Lamarkian evolutionary theory which everyone else thought had been debunked by Darwin and Mendel.

[sonias]

2. I'm pro-science and I vote!

I'm also signed up on UCS web site actions. bu$hco is bad for science. I applaud all these brave intelligent scientists standing up for science and reality.

One of my favorite Kerry lines in his acceptance speech, was that he would be a President that supported science.

Let's restore all the basics to the White House - English, Science, Math, Reading ... Vote Kerry/Edwards '04!!

Sonia

[goclark]

6. Yes! Yes! Yes!

[KT2000]

3. This needs TV ads

The scientists need to have TV ads explaining this.

Between the constraints of religion and corporations, science in the US is heading into the dark ages.

We are turning more and more to Europe and Canada for chemical safety studies - this is becoming don't ask don't tell - and throw the ones who do get sick off the insured rolls!

Our representatives to the WHO are hand picked administration corporate hacks!

The lead experts were thrown off the federal commission that studies health issues surrounding lead - they were replaced by more corporate hacks.

And these people consider themselves pro-life? Ha!

[Nordic]

7. and we're gonna be left in the dust on stem-cell research

which, you would think, pro-business repubs would have a prlblem with

[sandraj]

4. Slightly OT, but

there is a classic movie worth a viewing, if you haven't seen it, or a re-viewing - called "Inherit the Wind," (Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, Frederic March). It's about a teacher on trial for teaching evolution instead of creationism, set in a small southern Illinois town.

The battle between reason (self-determination, freedom of thought) and religious zealotry in this story is strikingly parallel to our political climate now.

[Nordic]

8. who needs science when you've got the Bible?

It's the only book I'll ever need!

[CHIMO]

9. So Much For

Scientific news from this site.

"Scientists collect evidence and conduct experiments to arrive at an objective description of reality - to describe the world as it is rather than as we might want it to be."

This is drawing a conclusion. It is not part of the news.

"Government, on the other hand, is about anything but objective truth. It deals with grey areas, competing values, the allocation of limited resources. It is conducted by debate and negotiation. Far from striving for ultimate truths, it seeks compromises that a majority can live with."

Another conclusion. Who said that they are incompatible?

How did we go from an "objective description" to "ultimate truth"?
Metaphysics was never mentioned.

Before one talks about science they have to have a language and an understanding of logic.

[rman]

10. it's relevant to the discussion

"Scientists collect evidence and conduct experiments to arrive at an objective description of reality - to describe the world as it is rather than as we might want it to be."

This is not a conclusion, rather it is fact; it's pretty much the definition of science.

Metaphysics is not science.

"Before one talks about science they have to have a language and an understanding of logic."

Who are "they" and why do you think they don't have a language and an understanding of logic?

Do you think Bush* has an understanding of logic?

[CHIMO]

11. The Actions Of

The scientists are relevant to what the Bush administration has been doing.

Science does not say anything about how we may want the world to be. This is a comment and speculation.

The last part of the sentence is a conclusion, not a definition.
Metaphysics is the ultimate science. It is the study of being and of first principles. That is why it is necessary to understand the language that one is using.

Bush logic seems to me to be dumming down to the lowest common denominator.

"They" are the ones who read/listen/watch and believe that it is possible to drive a car on water or whatever the politicians say can be done.