The Politicization of Science
by JoySome of you know that despite my strong suspicions that evolution and nature contain teleological aspects, I am also of a liberal/progressive political persuasion. I can maintain this viewpoint dichotomy because of the way I view science, which is not politics or religion. Having been born and raised with science, I was lucky to learn early on what science IS, what it does, and where it's hoping to go. So I was never confused by assertions from teachers or science-groupies that this or that current theoretic represented anything more than the entirely provisional "best we can figure from what we've got," subject to revision by future knowledge gained by future tools. Science is not and was never designed to be absolute, and should not be subverted to political or ideological agendas. By anyone.
Thus I've been able to keep my suspicions about the "appearance of design" that even the staunchest Darwinian Die-hards admit is present, even in the face of absolutist assertions coming from the politically and/or religiously invested. If teleology is present in nature and life, science will eventually revise its theoretics to account for it. All the arguing and grandstanding on either side will in the end prove to be merely interesting history when (and if) evidence tips the scale one way or the other. As it has done over and over again in my lifetime on a number of hotly debated scientific issues.
What I do NOT appreciate or support from either the ID or the NDE 'side' of these interminable debates is the apparent willingness to politicize science in favor of some religious or ideological 'cause'. We see that charge being lodged mostly against ID supporters, but in case anyone still remains ignorant of how the anti-ID 'side' would also politicize science for ideological purposes, I offer yet another true gem from PZ Myers of "Pharyngula" fame…
Start with the opinion piece , The Left's Own Religious Whackjobs by Melinda Barton on the Raw Story site.
Then check out PZ's invitational guest column, We Should All Be Secularists. And for an added treat (just in case that wasn't enough), go on over to his Pharyngula Self-Justification to his personal peanut gallery after apparently stern tongue-lashing from the rank and file of the party he intends to subvert to his personal agenda.
It wasn't enough to brag about subverting the tenure process in his own university or breaking the law. Now he's worried that progressives might consider the beliefs of the many to be more "important" to their position in the political arena than his seriously marginal beliefs could ever be. Hmmm… looks to me like PZ's starting to be confronted by the ramifications of his own public opinions, by people who know a whole lot more about how the political world actually works than he ever will.
Me, I'm just always happy to see haters get their comeuppance, and to have their outsized egos chipped down to more reasonable size. Even when they whine like babies and pretend it's not so. Enjoy! §;o)
May 4th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
[...] I confess: I was secretly hoping that "Joy" would come back for a third strike in her attempts to demonize PZ Myers, just so I could use the "Casey At the Bat" quote. Lo and behold, she did. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » No Joy in Mudville? — May 4, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
May 5th, 2006 at 10:10 am
[...] PZ Myers did such a good job fisking Melissa Barton's rant on RawStory.com that I wasn't going to try and add to it. But after Joy made such a stink about it (as I've said before), I had a detailed read-through of the Barton piece, and I can't resist commenting on some of her arguments. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » “Religious whackjobs” — May 5, 2006 @ 10:10 am
May 5th, 2006 at 11:15 am
LOL!!! Gee, I must at least note for the record that I'm flattered to be mischaracterized by Nutter with a baseball metaphor. God's Own Game, as my grandfather used to say.
Anyway, in Nutter's "strike one" he claims my problem with Myers' boast to violate his university's tenure policy doesn't count because Dembski didn't "file charges" against Dr. Myers"… to which one can only exclaim, ???!!!??? Needless to say, if I ever see PZ brag publicly that he DID violate those policies for a particular candidate, I'll be sure to file formal complaint with the proper officials. I won't wait to see what Dembski might do.
For "strike two," Nutter complains that I pointed out the illegality of discrimination under the law as it now stands on the precedent of Jones' ruling that ID = Religion. That may change if there's ever another legal case, but until it changes, that's the precedent. I am not responsible for the Kitzmiller lawsuit or Jones' ruling. But I - like anyone else - can certainly cite the precedent. Nutter is not required to like it.
Now for "strike three" Nutter doesn't like my characterization of PZ's response to members of his own targeted political machine [a.k.a. "Progressive/Democrat"] who don't want him front and center pretending to speak for the party. Because he's a hater, and because his virulent brand of extremism is… well, so very marginal.
Which is yet another situation I did not engender, since I am not responsible for the original opinion piece from Barton or for PZ's responses - either in Raw Story or on Pharyngula. Do check out PZ's second attempt though, What is their problem?, where he whines -
"Man, the comments on my guest editorial at the Raw Story are nuts. I don't know if the word "secular" brought out a flock of trolls, or if that place is always infested with these uncomprehending goons."
That certainly made me giggle, but I admit I'm easily amused. Here's a junior wannabe who managed to get himself scheduled by his acolyte "Darksyde" (a front-pager at Daily Kos) to participate on the convention science panel next month in Vegas, where the Kossack wing of the party hopes to hammer out some reasonable science planks for the '06-'08 platform (still under construction). He's made absolutely no secret of what his idea of planks in this realm would look like, but the rest of us recognize 'em as paper mache. We aren't likely to wish an instant replay of the Great White fire once the pyrotechnics start.
The Democratic Party will not immolate itself by embracing or formalizing PZ's brand of extremist whackjobbery, and he's fool if he believes it will.
…and since I am obviously not the only Kossack who has come to recognize the danger of PZ's brand of extremism (a.k.a. "religious whackjobbery"), it's too late to claim that attacking me will keep the dugout denizens on the bench - they're already on the field! PZ wasn't content to just attack Barton. Now he's called the entire rank and file - those progressives who are NOT religious whackjobs - a "flock of trolls" and "uncomprehending goons." THAT's certainly politic! …not. This guy should seek solace with the Naderites. They love nut-jobs.
I do expect some fireworks in that particular conference room though (presuming PZ's invite still stands come June), and that should by all proper description and consensus affirmation, hit him all the way Out of the Park.
Comment by Joy — May 5, 2006 @ 11:15 am
May 10th, 2006 at 6:04 am
Voting against incompetents in tenure decisions is neither "subverting the process," and especially it is not illegal. In some disciplines, it would be illegal to do otherwise.
Just one more run to try to get the facts straight.
Comment by edarrell — May 10, 2006 @ 6:04 am
May 10th, 2006 at 10:46 am
??? Ed, this one's not about voting against tenure for reasons that violate law and university policy. It's about using a grotesque corruption of science to promote the ugly politics of hatred.
Comment by Joy — May 10, 2006 @ 10:46 am
May 10th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
The Raw Story Whackjob…
I came upon Melinda Barton's Whackjobbery via Telic Thoughts, where Joy has "Joy" has posted an article targeting PZ Myers. I'm not going to defend Myers, though for the life of me I can't see more depth to "Joy̵…
Trackback by hell's handmaiden — May 10, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
June 4th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Sorry, Joy — I was referring to the comments above by . . . Joy.
And I agree with Jefferson, who appears to be in league with Myers on this point. Religion shouldn't be a litmus test. Those who profess that their faith is a qualification for the political job tend most often to be those least fit for the job.
Better we should talk policy, which in most cases probably gives the fundamentalist the same sort of heebie jeebies that talking science does, and for the same reason: There's little of substance in a religion-based political rant, and what there is of substance usually tends to run counter to the rest of it.
Democrats at least pay attention to science. The Republican war on science would be funny were the victims not Americans like you and me. I don't think there's much influence possible out of the DailyKos meetings, except for the power of good ideas, which still get traction in Democratic circles.
And as for Myers' being "a junior wannabe," you shouldn't let envy bleed out on the screen so.
Comment by edarrell — June 4, 2006 @ 6:36 am