Science as politics is dangerous in the long run

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 10, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

You don’t know what political correctness prevents you from knowing

Americans were scandalized by revelations from Flint, Michigan, where citizens have dealt with unsafe, lead-tainted drinking water for two years. When the news broke—of the tainted water itself, the state agencies who initially dismissed the problem, and the bungled federal response—many asked, “How could this happen here?” The fact is, though, that what went wrong in Michigan has happened before and continues to happen in various parts of the United States: Regulators charged with protecting the public interest fail to do so, because they act based on political pressure—real or perceived—rather than science.

When this happens, two things can result. First, actual immediate harm can come to members of the public, as has occurred in Flint. Second, the public can lose trust in the ability of the regulator to perform its job. This loss of trust is dangerous in the long run, because it negatively affects the public’s ability to understand and correctly respond to risks. If we can’t reverse the trend toward political decision-making, and make sure regulators base decisions on clear scientific principles, we are all in trouble.More.

But many people don’t care as long as they can front whatever they believe as “science.”

By the way it’s not just the United States. See Walkerton water crisis. Same story, different country.

See also: Darwinism is a metaphysics (theories about the universe in general). What is it doing in schoolbook science?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

P, science is not just about research, bodies of knowledge relevant to informed praxis are also part of science and the required expertise of relevant practitioners. KFkairosfocus_{June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Flint wasn't about science, and I don't see many people discussing it in terms of science. Water analysis is very old and genuinely settled, and the argument here wasn't about whether the analytical methods were right. This was just simple political cynicism. The governor chose a source that was KNOWN to be corrosive because it was cheaper, and because the governor wasn't going to get Flint votes anyway.polistra_{June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Seversky, pardon but your strawmen and projections are showing. We live in a day when most dangerous or destructive movements arising within our civilisation put on the lab coat, from the days of the eugenicists till now. Next, the debates on moral issues at UD for a couple of months now pivot on the reality of manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law that are accessible to all on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial. Further, it is radical relativism, subjectivism/ sentimentalism and extreme nominalism which are clearly driving very dangerous trends to the point where we see obvious discomfort with simply acknowledging that it actually is wrong to kidnap, torture, sexually abuse and murder a young child. Where the pivot of such seems to be that if we are under binding force of moral law, it points to a source of said law. I should add, that it is not an accident that, consistently, self evident "Big-T" truth no 1 put on the table has been: error exists. Undeniably true with implications for views that undermine truth -- what says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. But also a direct challenge, if error exists we need to be very careful in our views and in warranting. Hence, the pivotal importance of key self evident truths in keeping us on track. So the believer in Absolute Truth bogeyman fails. If you think the SET claims for error exists, or the first principles of right reason or moral SETs are error, why not simply show it? Where also, it is not objective or even self evident moral principles that were the problem in Flint (and Walkerton), but that power tends to intimidate or manipulate or tempt and corrupt, and there obviously was not enough transparency in the process so that sunshine would drive out corruption. More can be said, but this is a start. KFkairosfocus_{June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

It is about political power but how could it be otherwise? There are many groups, including religions, who believe they have exclusive access to The Truth, believe that they should have a monopoly of government and that we would all be better off if we were subordinated to and organized according to their beliefs. The danger is not religion or science but the absolutism to which humans seem to be prone.We would like to forget that we are all fallible, we can always be wrong whether it be political theory, scientific theory or scripture.Seversky_{June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

For some it isn't about whether evolution has occurred, it is about being in control of the civilization's myths. It is about power and control of the agenda. There are 7 billion people or better alive on Earth and some Malthusians don't like it. Sadly they sit in seats of power and education. When one looks at the worldwide belief in this nonsense they shouldn't wonder about the rise of anti-conspiracy groups. I personally know a flat Earther and they believe there has been a conspiracy for centuries. It's all propaganda to them.jimmontg_{June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply