Protesting the incoming Trump administration’s anti-science agenda may not be easy – but it’s vital not just for the US, but the world
THE stamp of jackboots, raps on the door, marches and uniforms; these are what we associate with the emergence of an authoritarian state. The reality is less dramatic: life for most people may carry on much as usual – except they will no longer have any sway over the governing of their nation.
This is fascinating because the political movements that seem to unhinge New Scientist so much (Trump’s win and Brexit) were the result of asking voters what they really thought, and totting up the results within political systems that were agreed to in advance.
Maybe the New Scientist types have only ever seen jackboots in the movies? As noted elsewhere, most of the upsets have actually resulted from not paying attention to large core constituencies who vote. End stop. Those who would change political results need to change that first.
And empiricism is being stripped out of government, with scientists finding themselves on the front line. Climate researchers are squaring up to the potential destruction of their careers and life’s work (see “Resisting Trump: How scientists can fight a climate witch-hunt“), while those in other fields wait to see if they will be deemed “politicised”. New laws mean that Congress can choose to ignore inconvenient truths at will (see US Congress just made it easier to ditch science for politics).
Climate scientists have actually been dishing out that sort of thing for years. If they could bring themselves to have a beer with Judith Curry, they might get some pointers.
Take home point: It is unwise to play offense in the same game where one cannot handle defense.
Oh well, it’s Monday and that’s New Scientist.
See also: Nature: Scientists stunned by Trump victory Really? What does that say about the scientific method?
Tenured professor calls it quits (Barry Arrington on Judith Curry).
Does fake news make a difference in politics?
Follow UD News at Twitter!