Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-ignoring-ignorance dept.

From the I've-heard-enough-and-won't-take-it-anymore department, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39024648

The BBC reports that former Congressman Rush Holt, now part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), is the spokesman for a movement "standing up for science".

His remarks reflect growing concern among researchers that science is disregarded by President Trump.

Scientists across the US plan to march in DC on 22 April.

[...] "To see young scientists, older scientists, the general public speaking up for the idea of science. We are going to work with our members and affiliated organisations to see that this march for science is a success."

Mr Holt made his comments at the AAAS annual meting in Boston as President Trump appointed a fierce critic of the Environmental Protection Agency as its head. Scott Pruitt has spent years fighting the role and reach of the EPA.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:16PM (#469707)

    That does not disprove my statement. So people can't run their personal blogs how they see fit? Just the mere fact of his profession makes him guilty? Your overuse of key phrases and vague epithets shows your real colors. Emotionally triggered on common topics laid out by media to make manipulation easy.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by VLM on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:40PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:40PM (#469719)

    That does not disprove my statement.

    Sorry I tried to respond to what I thought it meant as opposed to what was there. Sure, under your extremely specific criteria you're completely correct and I do apologize for not directly responding to the precise wording of your exact comment as it was written. I was... interpreting it, you know, like the constitution LOL. Certainly nothing personal. Turn about being fair play, I can understand the meaning of your off topic comments in response to that.

    Back to your original statement:

    I have yet to hear a new quantum physicist use their scientific degrees to try and impose their will as somehow superior.

    Yes you are correct, the guy making the claim isn't a new quantum physicist at all, he's a washed up ex congressman turned anti-trump political activist. Whereas I was making fun of a a specific example of only one of three groups the washed up has been politician was specifically referencing:

    To see ... older scientists ... speaking up for the idea of science.

    That I only replied to 1/3 of the subject of his rabble of course in no way disproves any of the larger conclusions in my original post. Although by implication going extreme "sophistry police" in an irrelevant detail indicates my analysis was pretty strong if that was the lowest hanging fruit. Wasn't my finest hour but if that was the weakest part of my argument, it must overall be pretty strong.