Re: Why scientists should not set science policy

From: Paul Bramscher (brams006_nospam_at_tc.umn.edu)
Date: 07/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:48:20 -0500

Doug Haxton wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jul 04 15:16:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <n6kre054oe6pjdt6s1u10r92kecloi1oab@4ax.com>,
>> Doug Haxton <hal@oa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:39:19 -0500, Paul Bramscher
>>><brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You're describing the Bush administration or religion more accurately
>>>>than science. Science presents falsifiable theories. The
>>>>religious-right and neocons present unalterable orthodoxy.
>>>
>>>As does the religious left...and environmental activists...and
>>>Marxists...etc.
>>>
>>>Doug
>>>
>>
>>Another science illiterate heard from.
>
>
> You don't think that leftists have orthodoxy from which they feel
> pressure not to deviate?

Sure. This is why science is neither rightist nor leftist. Yet it is
the current Bush administration's extreme-right orthodoxy which is
relevant. None of the branches of US government at the national level
are leftist-driven in policy, dogma or orthodoxy today so to speak of
them is a theoretical issue at this point.

Pick any politically neutral body (for example, the International Red
Cross, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.). Ignore their bi-partisan
composition, and call them left-wing for taking issue with a piece of
policy which ignores their findings (be it either human rights with
regard to detainees or environmental or other policy with regard to
science).

Such an accusation will be somewhat a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Certainly the Bush administration has done with with regard to science,
and such an attitude will cultivate few friends this way. Compared to
extreme right orthodoxy, everything is "left" -- even neutrality appears
biased. I'm curious what a neocon would call a right-tilted slant. Or
are they, indeed, so far to the right today that there is no legitimate
organization, news outlet, or politician which warrants a "hey, he's too
biased to the right" label?

Certainly the center-right democrats have taken issue with liberal
democrats, with the Greens, Nader, etc. But there seems to be no entity
further to the right than present neocons, and no movement within the
Republican Party to return to the center.

Thus, the easy critique of anything left of far-right as being biased.
It's not only self-fulfilling, it's also self-evident.

>
> James Lovelock (author of The Gaia Theory), beloved of Greens,
> recently advocated a massive shift to nuclear power to combat Global
> Warming. He was denounced by environmental groups worldwide.

Lovelock had some interesting ideas, but he wasn't trained formally in
ecology, the environment, etc. Also, his theory on self-maintaining
systems is clearly an over-simplification with regard to the earth's
complex dynamics. We know that complex systems can spiral out of
maintenance mode, ice ages come and go, large meteor impacts occur,
vulcanism, etc. can throw systems out of whack. And, in the end, the
earth will be burnt as the sun goes supernova and there is no recovery
from that. In a nutshell, he's had some interesting ideas but might
consider going back to practicing medicine rather than dabbling in
nuclear physics or ecology.

> Greens, you see, have a pathological fear of nuclear power. It's part
> of their dogma that nuclear power is Evil.

I went to Idaho last month and toured EBR-1, the world's first atomic
reactor, now a national landmark. Nearby Arco, ID, has the dubious
distinction of being the first nuclear-powered city. Since it's half
ghost town now, with its river damned totally dry upstream and many
closed store fronts, I don't think nuclear power is quite what Arco and
cities like it need.

INEEL literally has a nearby city in the desert which is restricted, an
active Naval nuclear reactor on obviously unstable geology, and up until
even the 1980's the DOE and/or other agencies dumped contaminated water
from nuclear plants directly into the underground aquifers.

So -- remote, secret, restricted, unstable geology, military, nuclear
weapons, poisoned aquifer for a few centures.

Calling such activity a "pathological fear" is a gross overstatement.
Indeed, it's pathological fear that creates idiocy as nuclear power and
its underlying motive: to produce weapons grade material. Any energy
source which results in centuries-long custodial work to contain
contamination, waste and byproducts is not the sort of legacy we need to
pass onto our descendants.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PART2. Religious discrimination
    ... because they were wearing crucifixes say they were only wearing ... and nuclear accidents over the last 50 years. ... science invents way to feed people so it can kill them latter with a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: PART2. Religious discrimination
    ... only wearing gifts from their mothers. ... School recently after they refused to put away the crucifixes ... and nuclear accidents over the last 50 years. ... science invents way to feed people so it can kill them latter ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant
    ... It's also about nuclear energy, weaponry, ... Nuclear physics is not the application of science, ... Nuclear energy etc are the application of nuclear physics. ... choices - deep frustration - bigoted views and deep deep ignorance ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Whats New - Friday, June 25, 2004 - Bob Park
    ... POLITICAL SCIENCE: REPUBLICANS INSIST THEY LOVE SCIENCE, ... President Bush believes Iran is attempting to produce a nuclear ... REVEREND SUN MYUNG MOON CROWNED IN U.S. CAPITAL. ...
    (sci.physics)