Group Fights Politicizing Science and Engineering 653
smooth wombat writes, "Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians 'who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.' The group will be a 527 organization and will focus its efforts on races in which science plays a part." From the article: "In what it described as a Bill of Rights for scientists and engineers, the group said that researchers who receive federal funds should be free to discuss their work publicly, and that appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should be based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs. It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."
The Sad Fact of the Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
This group is asking politicians to make decisions based on logic and scientific evidence when the voters aren't even using these processes. I remember the 2004 election and I remember plotzing when I heard someone was voting for Bush. Often times, I got a canned response of something crazy like, "John Kerry is for abortion. Bush is against it. If my mother had had me aborted, I wouldn't be here and that's why I'm voting for Bush." Now, whether any of that is true or not can be debated forever, that's not the point of this post. The point is that someone or something had gotten to them the message that if Kerry was president, all fetuses would be aborted. They didn't pay attention to any other issues except that one and they made a very emotional decision based on it.
What's even more exasperating about this situation is that Kerry wouldn't have had the power to change the abortion laws and Bush hasn't done a damn thing about them either. This makes the "my body my right" crowd just as idiotic. Abortion is always a steaming political debate right around an election and then subsides to nothing during the term because the trimester laws aren't budging.
The logical step is to not even base your vote on the abortion stance. Of course, none of the voters are logical.
What's the first aim of SEFORA? To push one candidate based on a single issue -- stem cells.
Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations. This 527 will most likely end up supporting the Democratic candidate 9 times out of 10 simply because of the "party stances" the Republican will most certainly take. The million dollar question is, "Would they support a third party candidate running on the Science platform before the bi-partisan idiots?" And the answer is 'probably not.' Which is really too bad because sometimes the third party candidate has good ideas and stances -- just lacks major funds to get the word out.
I see this group as doing an overall good thing but I'm not a big fan of their methods. What ever happened to just trying to educate the voters? At the end of the day, the people voting are not scientifically founded. If they were, I wouldn't have to put up with commercials for The War at Home on TV. The politicians are supposed to represent the people and, since most people aren't experts using science and engineering, they shouldn't make decisions based on this.
Rove (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad fact of the current political state of the United States is simply that politicians are relying on voters to vote based on emotion, not logic.
Which, when you think about it, is a brilliant way to manipulate people into getting them to vote against their own best interests. Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault. I refer to some of those issues as Sucker Bait and you can certainly see how quickly people polarize on them. The trick is figuring which issues are going to get you the numbers you need and then you can go and do whatever you want. Which they have. Perhaps it will be a good thing when low-lying parts of the US capitol are among the first to flood if sea levels do rise 40 or more feet.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution hasn't exclusively been to polarize them on the issues, but to say "if you vote for the other guy, wolves will attack you"
http://www.archive.org/details/gwb_wolves [archive.org]
"I'm George Bush and I approve this message"
Really, wolves will attack.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which they're doing their level best to lose in the most spectacular way possible.
Ah! That explains why so many Democrats were in favor of going into Afghanistan. (Check the congressional vote record if you don't believe me.)
I could
Re:Wolves (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if by killing those 4000 we gain them 5000 new recruits. Which according to the President's own intelligence analysis is exactly what's happening. [csmonitor.com]
Your hornet's nest analogy assumes that there is some fixed pool of terrorists out there, and our job is to hunt them down until they are all dead, after which we'll be done and there will be no more terrorists. Trouble is, terrorism is not a cause or a movement or a group that can be stamped out. It is a tactic employed in the service of a cause. As long as there are causes people are willing to die for, people will die for their causes.
Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end? Where hunting down and killing fervent believers in a cause, people who were willing to die for their beliefs, has ultimately killed a movement, and the hunters have been able to wash their hands and declare victory?
What the "kill 'em all!" crowd doesn't get is that just about anyone can become a terrorist if they're given a good enough reason. We are over there giving a lot of people exactly that reason -- people who would not otherwise have become terrorists. We are worsening the very problem we're allegedly trying to solve, and the government's own experts on the matter have now said so in writing. I realize there are a lot of talk show hosts and bloggers who are quite certain they know more about strategic analysis than the combined staffs of the 16 intelligence agencies that contributed to the report, but I know who I'm more inclined to believe.
Suppose China suddenly invaded the US. If they started rounding up freedom fighters and shooting them in the head, would you shrug and say, "Good show guys, you win, what would you like from me?" I'm guessing not. I'm guessing for every one of your countrymen you saw turned into a "traitors eliminated!" statistic on the official state-run TV, you'd get angrier and angrier until you decided you'd had enough, those bastards were going to pay for destroying your way of life. Well, guess what, from the point of view of Al Qaeda's new recruits, that's exactly what we're doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
World War II
The Allies deliberately and indiscriminately killed both solidiers and civilians until both the Germans and the Japanese were forced to surrender. Through gruesome attack
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WWII. The Nazis and Japanese were every bit as fervent as the the muslim terrorists of today. And there was the American civil war too. The South was fighting for their very way of life
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the Civil war WAS nothing more than a large insurgency. Every conventional war has had insurgents as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two primary shooting wars going on. One is a game of terrorist whack-a-mole that is a sad necessity. The other is a war we started. We went in under false pretences, overthrew a government that while bad was NEVER a real threat to us personally, and now must clean up the mess left behind. The Republicans like to tie this war to the War on Terror but they are in fact completely seperate. Iraq had a habit of killing off its dissidants. All of the dangerous terrorists were coming from places li
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's one born every minute... (Score:4, Interesting)
Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault.
I blame God. God made people dumb AND he forbid them from eating the fruit of knowledge. It's not the devil's fault, he's just as god made him.
Theological notions aside, once you know about the depressing truths of human nature, it would be in everyone's best interest to shape their government in such a way that reason weighs more than emotions in the policy-making process.
Like, with laws.
It sure beats the back and forth.
Re: (Score:2)
And while I do then to think the average voter doesn't think things through to any great extent, the failure of the Dover school board to get re-elected actually gives me hope that sometimes, when things reach a certain threshold, the voters will start paying attention and kick the bums out.
Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. I don't vote for either party at it irks me when I hear Dems say "Keep your morals off my body!" when referring to abortion or drugs and then demand universal healthcare or public smoking bans because it's the moral/humane thing for the government to do.
Sorry, you have to choose whether it's ok to legislate morality. I'd prefer to avoid it myself, but unfortunately I guess that's just another set of morals, right?
Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Right on! The Republicans tend to be comprised by people who view themselves as the moral elite. They want to control how we think. On the other hand, the Democrats tend to be comprised of people who view themselves as the intellectual elite. They want to control how we think.
Notice anything in common? What the hell happened to freedom, or was that lost as a result of litigation and/or legislature taking advangate of a popular fear of terra?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that technically the Congress can do little else besides legislate morality. Every law that they put into effect is theoretically a approximation of some kind of objective and universal moral law. If not, then there's nothing to complain about except when "your side" doesn't get to make the laws. If so, then we can debate the laws and w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all of them!
Seriously, we are only interested in banning those beach campfires and park barbecues that occur indoors or on airplanes.
Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I see neither as being relevant to the discussion ("class & race resentment" versus "faith and morals"), please explain why either one is "scientific" or "nonscientific" at all. The economic basis of current conservative fiscal policy seems to be looting of the public sector by a privileged set of private interests.
Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories.
The "sob stories" I hear nowadays are on behalf of large telecommunications companies who have to maintain their "tubes", and dead billionaires whose inheritors have to pay their taxes. Nobody is even talking about social program expansion anymore. With habeus corpus about to be legislated out of existence we have more pressing issues to worry about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When a compassionate conservative serves up the latest flagburning/gay marriage amendment in the midst of a sermon about our national religious heritage, she is relying on warm fuzzy emotions to win people over, rather than an analysis of the rights of the involved parties.
When a compassionate liberal accuses Bush & FEMA of
Postmodernism and the Academic Left (Score:3, Insightful)
Postmodernism (depending on the flavour) has a distinctly relativistic and anti-scientific bent. Some postmodernist sincerely posit that there is no such thing as objective truth, that all knowldege is "situated", and that science is no more valid than any other belief structure.
For many postmodernists, science is claimed to be just another tool of oppres
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This tends to be the attitude of a few very outspoken people in some humanities. It is actually a very very small minority.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That is the best arguement yet in favour of Kerry.
also the (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter (Score:5, Informative)
What's even more exasperating about this situation is that Kerry wouldn't have had the power to change the abortion laws and Bush hasn't done a damn thing about them either.
I agree that voting based on a single issue is generally silly. But I don't think that you're thinking about this statement in the right way. You're thinking in a very short-term manner. Long-term, Bush has done quite a bit about abortion laws, by putting conservative people on the Supreme Court. That's where the battle ground is on that issue, and it's not a battle to be won overnight. The Republicans definitely understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
He hasn't done much about it in the U.S. because he doesn't have that power. Not personally, but if you look at the whole political machine of which he is the figurehead, they've done quite a bit with cutting government funding, passign anti-abortion laws, and shutting down clinics on a regional basis.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Sad Fact of the Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
You're confusing the issues here, and generalizing far too much. Republicans are not founded in conservative Christian belief -- it just so happened that the fundamentalist Christian bloc has been able to dominate the politics of the Republican Party. Also, conservative Christian != fundamentalist Christian (which is why I used the different term). Fundies want to change the law to reflect their beliefs -- by definition, conservatives are more interested in preserving the status quo. There is some overlap, of course.
The US is not a direct democracy -- it was not intended to be one, and our elective system represents that. We, the people, are responsible for electing those we trust to lead us, to make good decisions on our behalf, and to represent our interests -- which is not the same as reflecting our will on specific issues. Never will 100% of the population be educated enough on any single issue that the government should do exactly as a majority of the people want. I vote for the person who I think will make the best-reasoned, best-educated decisions based on shared values. Of course, I have limited choice, but that's a rant for a different thread.
At any rate, I find this new 527 to be right up my alley, and I'll have to take a look at them when I decide what PACs my money is going to next year.
Plotzing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean 'current'? Emotion has been a very critical part of election campaigns since Ancient Athens.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And at the end of the day, if you were more technically founded you wouldn't have to put up with commercials at all...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hardly. Many on the Democratic side of the aisle are firmly founded in liberal and/or greenie belief - two beliefs hardly more conducive to science than Christian beliefs. (That is, if you want to base your ideas mostly on biases and stereotypes.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...or if you want to base your ideas mostly on the intellectual basis of the Enlightenment, from which liberalism is nominally derived.
As far as Christian beliefs are concerned, there is no need to resort to "biases and stereotypes" when history will do just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
What planet did you come from where the voters had ever actually voted logically? I don't think that we've ever made any attempt for educated voters in our entire history. We've always used the emotional voter to get politicans into office. The only thing that came slightly to educating voters was Ross Perot's attempt to educate the voters on the national budget. I'd be happy if o
Re: (Score:2)
What an emotionally derived conclustion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush may not be doing a good job of LEADING the country, like a President is supposed to do; but he's doing bang up job of running the *government* the way the far right wing wants him to, which is why they voted for him. Leading the country isn't his priority; pleasing his party base is.
The problem with the Democrats is just what was wrong with the Republicans in the 90's. You are so blinded by hatred for Bush that you get so extreme with the rhetoric that it turns off the regu
Decisions, Decisions (Score:5, Insightful)
In this day and age, if I'm running for office, which am I going to do:
- Say and Do the right things for the integrity of office and country?
ORI think it's fair to say, we can see how we got where we are. Fixing it by electing good, intelligent and wise candidates means finding them and grooming them so the voter, who cares more about Paris Hilton getting a DUI, keeping gays from marrying, teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution than whether there's about to be a rise in sea levels, mass extinction and famine is a truly gargantuan undertaking. First they have to get the average clod on the street to understand how clean science will impact their lives. Considering the head start stupidity has and the powerful allies of ignorance, it's daunting.
First Past the Post (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, proportional voting had voters voting for a party and not an individual. I think most people would rather vote for an individual rather than a party. A
Re: (Score:2)
I'll preface my comments by saying that I'm Canadian, so I couldn't really care less about R vs. D horse-shite.
However, the choice of political candidates has always seemed, to me at least, something that should be about political ideas and ideals. I've seen it happen where people (especially in Northern Ontario, where I'm originally from) would vote for the Conservative member (right wingers... leftists compared to US right wingers, but I digress) when all of their beliefs were espoused by the platforms o
Re: (Score:2)
Sea levels may rise, but it will take 100+ years for it to have a major impact. Mass extinction could happen, but making it a major topic for debate would be a waste of time. Famine doesn't seem to be a problem for US voters anytime soon eith
Tsunami with a shower curtain... (Score:2)
They want us to use facts? Based in reality? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(Yes I sometimes watch Colbert too, and btw WOZ is the guest tonite!)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I love about global warming doomsday predictions: the consistency.
Re:They want us to use facts? Based in reality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for trying though.
There is no substance to this argument since one could just as easily state the converse:
"The conservative bias comes in when ALL of the facts aren't presented; picking and choosing facts to make your point while ignoring the facts that don't is the hallmark of conservative argument. That, and instantly blaming conspiracies and calling your opponent names."
To anyone who has been paying attention to the political debate in this country, this statement rings much truer than the one you made. You cite no facts or evidence to support your baseless assertion, you have really added nothing to the conversation, and on top of that, you post as an anonymous coward even as you sarcastically thank someone smarter and funnier than you for "trying". I've never seen a post ending with "thanks for trying though" where the poster had a f8cking clue.
Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is so true that this country is so starkly divided between "religious freaks" and "frothy eggheads," then why is that you are a religious person who believes in science, I am a religious person who believes in science, the vast majority of my friends are religious people who believe in science (and even those who aren't religious don't have anything against those who are), and the vast majority of random people I have talked to all around the country are religious people who believe in science? Could it be *GASP* that the vocal minorities of frothy eggheads and religious freaks are actually not at all representative of mainstream Americans? Could media sensationalism (even right here on our beloved
I am tired of this "line in the sand" BS that we all appear to have fallen into. The overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable people who are nothing like the extremist nutjobs portrayed on TV, and our biggest downfall will be ignoring that fact.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. If there were some viable 3rd party candidate that could 'pander' to the moderates out there....he'd clean up!!!
Hell, at the very least, if a moderate 3rd party got enough attention and potential/real votes, it might at least finally force the Reps to quit going so far to the right and the Dems from going so far to the left that neither of them has views palpable to the majority of how the country really thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
The plural of anecdote is not data.
"Could it be *GASP* that the" majority of "religious freaks" and "frothy eggheads" haven't talked to you yet? Or that they don't want to talk to you
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to be an asshole and imply that I just don't hang out with a diverse enough crowd, unless, of course, you need to say things like that to try and feel better about whatever it is that has your panties in such a bun
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but how are we going to fix that, if the moderates won't vote?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the bible-thumpers get to you. They're making a big show, insisting that, if you don't take the Bible literally, word for word, you must be an atheist. It's a fairly smart plan, since most recent polls show that atheists are the least-trusted group in the country, right now. If that's true, and the average person has a choice between siding with a Christian who's a little too conservative for them and an atheist, who are they goin
Re: (Score:2)
here I am, stuck in the middle with you...
Re: (Score:2)
Contact person? (Score:2)
All I have to say is: Brownie, I hope this time you do a heckuva job.
Re: (Score:2)
*ouch* (Score:5, Funny)
Supported by Yoda? (Score:2)
http://www.sefora.org/pages.php?submitted=1&id=93 [sefora.org]
What's up with this? Was it run through bablefish?
Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending karma (Score:3, Funny)
What! No more feminist mathematics? (Score:2)
How far has America fallen (Score:5, Insightful)
We used to be the most technologically advanced country in the world. Now American fundamentalist extremists, enormously well funded fundamentalists, want to keep biology out of the classroom. Oil companies want to supress climate science. And both are the principal campaign financiers of the presidential administration and both houses of congress. And a majority position on the supreme court.
And the powers that be want to frame it as a "you're either with science or with the Lord" kind of insane debate that went out of fashion in the 18th century.
This is the kind of thinking that will relagate us to "has-been" status quicker than you can say "empire where the sun never sets"
How far has Slashdot fallen... (Score:2, Flamebait)
And the powers that be want to frame it as a "you're either with science or with the Lord" kind of insane debate that went out of fashion in the 18th century.
The new version is: "You're with the Lord? We hate you. You are now a second-class citizen."
One way to solve the problem... (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't it ironic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And actually a dangerous venture, potentially.
What happens when bias in the group leans outside of their current stated position? It's a fact of human nature that this will happen at some point. That's a problem with political organizations and parties; on paper they look fine and easy to support but when it comes down to the members, that's a whole different story. There is an endless migration from one political party to another be
Now we're talking! (Score:2)
Great idea!
So, what would happen if all the rational people in the US ran for all of the available offices? Given that so many people in the US just vote randomly instead of using relevant information couldn't damn near every incumbent be pushed out in about 10 years?
Independents, heck, they could call it the Independence Party and pool resources but not policy. Anyone running independently could basic support.
Anyone know how many public offices there are in the US? Where's a good place for political data?
They will, of course, be branded liberal. (Score:2)
Science is naturally polarized. It's a threat to anyone who depends upon the public perception that authority is always right. In the era of Karl Rove, science is anti-Republican.
Researchers are political (Score:2)
Politicians do have a place in the plan.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki/2006/09
I don't want to suggest that researchers are unethical (most people, even scientists and lawyers are quite ethical IMO) but it isn't reasonable to assume someone will respond neutrally and unbiased about their own field of work.
Much of our technology is due to the passion of the researchers, which clearly involves
What about other offensive material? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people find that such discussions would terribly offensive and harmful to the social order. It's also easy to find scientific data which will prove just about anything. It could be because of small sample size or faulty data, but if you pick and choose the information you'll get what you want. If someone has a grudge against blacks/homosexuals/women/men/heterosexuals/whites
Some people have gone to jail for arguing that the Holocaust never happened. In Muslim countries, people have faced the death penalty for alleged slurs against religious doctrine.
My point is that everybody has some beliefs that they feel should go unchallenged. Whether it is their faith in God, their belief in racial equality, their rejection of the supernatural, opposition/support of abortion rights, etc. Regardless of the facts.
Where would you draw the line about debate? Are there discussions which should not take place?
So they will support Intelligent Design? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since intelligent design is an ideology, then opposition to ID is also an ideology and the government should take care to avoid that as well? Don't they see the trap this falls into?
All they are essentially saying "We want to make sure the government doesn't fund ideologies.... except ours 'cuz ours is right!"
I disagree with ID, but there has got to be a better way.
Re:So they will support Intelligent Design? (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect.
Intelligent design is an anti-scientific ideology. The opposite of anti-science is science. The only "ideology" of science, if you want to call it that, is to go where the evidence leads you, no matter how unsettling, disruptive or embarrasing the truth may turn out to be.
It's sad that something like this is necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
What does that mean? Well, what it will mean in the long run is, that scientists who don't want to endure the hassle to fight past the clerical bullshit will emigrate. There are quite a few secular countries that won't limit you in your research, and they will gladly scoop up anyone who wants to come and do their research there. If anything, it will be bad for the US economy in the long run if this isn't put to a halt.
I'm not saying that religion doesn't have its place. But keep it out of matters that matter.
Check the Title (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't what they are doing exactly what the title says they are fighting against? Don't get me wrong, I'm for what they are doing, but shouldn't the title read more like "Group Fights Ignorance/Misuse of Science and Engineering in Politics"?
The Science of Politics (Score:2, Interesting)
Statements.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a moderate (try to stick to the middle)... but that just isn't true. I have some conservative aspects to me, but that doesn't mean that I don't hold science as the premier authority on what is and what is not.
In fact, I am much less religious than most that are quite liberal. Everybody has beliefs, even when they try to convince society that they don't really. That said, when I approach any situation I true to determine the truth in it and what is accurate. Many people that I know that are quite far left are just as guilty of believing without thinking. If I took evolution or ID and believed either without thoroughly disecting them, then I've just followed my belief instead of something that I know to be a fact.
People do it every day... whether to the right or to the left. Lets start a new party. The party that uses their brains to accurately determine the truth of what is and what is not.
we already have one: moveon.org (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you don't often hear things like, "Man, that new quarterback who nobody has ever heard of is so freaking overrated" because that wouldn't make any damn sense, would it?
Sorry, feel free to moderate this one overrated and off-topic as you wish, oh intelligent moderators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is- but like most religions, it has its fundamentalists and its moderates.
and you don't have to be an Objectivist to subscribe to the scientific method.
You also don't have to be a Roman Catholic to believe in the Virgin Birth (Islamics do as well), or a Buddhist to follow the eightfold path. What is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If, on the other hand, you're a theist who believes that the laws of physics
Re: (Score:2)
"religious ideology of objectivism."
It made me laugh.
Where do you get that being objective, or wanting people to be objective, is a religious ideology?
All these crazy religious ideologies running around with their preaching of the word "THINK"
And people running around saying "I REFUSE TO THINK and BE OBJECTIVE!"
I just see this kind of funny war between objective thinkers and subjective thinkers. The objective thinkers are measurably winning, but the subjective thinkers THIN
Re: (Score:2)
It has believers. It has a codeified set of ideological rules. It has stupid traditions that are so accepted that nobody questions them. Looks like a religious ideology to me.
All these crazy religious ideologies running around with their preaching of the word "THINK"
Well, that's what the Pope said recently- and in response the religion of peace killed nuns and rioted. But that's not my point. My poin
Re: (Score:2)
"religion
2 entries found for religion.
To select an entry, click on it.
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to r
Re: (Score:2)
Mind revealing where, so that we know the bias of the dictionary used?
Doesnt fit anything there, you would have to be religious to stretch a skepticism (which is what science is) into a religion, and the codified way of reducing skepticism as an ideological code similar to faith.
And yet, Ayn Rand did, and so have several atheists since then, so there's no problem there.
Also, science doesnt require you have actual faith in anything, but you can have
Re: (Score:2)
You make an interesting point, but which do you prefer - Government using Reason or Government using Religion? A period where Faith overrules Reason is known as a "Dark Age", whereas a time where Reason overrules Faith is known as an "Enlightened Age" or a "Renaissance".
I'll choose SEFORA as friends. I prefer Technocrats over Talibans.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any real difference between the two- Reason without Faith becomes inhuman rather quickly (after all, the obvious answer to global warming would be nuclear war- allowing the evolutionary process to start over with better, radia
Re:The meaning of Irony- With Friends Like These (Score:5, Insightful)
You might need Faith to balance reason. I just need some human understanding. Faith not only does not have a monopoly on that, and I would argue that for the common practitioner, it is an obstacle to real understanding by short circuiting the critical thinking process. Those who take their faith very serious AND use reason can of course take it to a much higher level of understanding than most. But it's not a necessary component, just one possible route to understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice oxymoron, if its an objective ideology then it can't be religious, can it. (that's a rhetorical question the faithful will likely answer incorrectly, the answer is no its no religious)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A +religion [google.com]
-a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
-sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system
-A system of ideas and rules for behavior based on supernatural explanations
http://w [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Human beings are incapable of separating themselves from bias- so it doesn't matter if you are faithfull or unfaithful, "objective ideology" will always be religious because human beings are incapable of being objective, as you have proven with the rest of your post.
The reason these scientists are banding together is
Re: (Score:2)
All of life is merely hallucination and fevre-dreams, and words like "valid evidence" I've read before from trials presided over by Bishops and Mullahs. So excuse me for being somewhat skeptical that a human being can be unbiased.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you suggest? If you want to have a say, you have to get involved in the process.
For a long time, many sensible people have scorned politics, laughed at the Christian right and stayed home on election day. Well, guess what? They control everything now. The process can be ugly at times, but you ignore it at your own peril.
Re: (Score:2)
Too true AC, but maybe more investigation [cens.com] is called for: