SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:21PM
Are you using SN as a testing ground for the next Black Mirror episode?
Scientific facts have no bearing on policy? Scientists should stick to their labs and let the "leaders" steer the country wherever? This tide of anti-intellectualism is incredibly alarming and proponents such as yourself pretend to sit on the moral high ground while accusing your "enemies" of the behaviors typified by your glorious leader. All the proof we need has come from the resignation of Michael Flynn and Vice Admiral Harward declining to take the position.
If anything we need more science involved with policy instead of less. Y'know, making informed decisions and all that.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday February 22 2017, @12:22AM
Scientific facts have no bearing on policy?
That would be stupid, which is why I didn't say anything of the sort. Scientists != science. Scientists are, in general, dweebs who are overly specialized in one or two disciplines, none of which are typically applicable to policy debates. To use a classic example, scientists could inform FDR of the possibility of the atom bomb. But whether to launch the Manhattan Project required inputs from many other areas considering the huge allocation of resources that would be required, during wartime. Then once the thing was built and tested it was again time for the other specialists to grapple with the question of whether to drop the thing; in the end it was one person's call and he was a politician. And I assert that was the correct place for that decision to be made, as scientists are not particularly well equipped to handle a political / moral problem of that complexity.
Even if, for the purpose of debate only, we accept the science on AGW scientists aren't the ones who should be deciding what to do about it. Climatologists most certainly aren't. Do you upend the world's economic and political systems and install a one world socialist dictatorship? That is the solution the scientists prefer, but most of them were already politically naive one world socialists from their college days and, because scientists, never expended the mental effort on political and economic thought to overcome it. But do you mitigate AGW, adapt, etc.? Science can offer input into the feasibility, cost, consequences of proposed plans but is totally ill equipped to handle what in the end must be a political decision.
This tide of anti-intellectualism...
And this is a textbook example of Scientism. Science, not even the actual hard sciences, is not the only outlet of intellectual activity.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:05AM
I never said science is the be-all end-all, but your ilk sure do love to ignore facts when they inconvenience your world view and/or profit margins. So bug off you goose stepper.
~Tilting at windmills~