Sheldon, our physics and physics colour commentator, responds based on his personal experiences to the news from Nature that many scientists “stunned” by the Trump win:
There’s been a lot of hyperventilating by the intelligentsia about the consequences of a Republican sweep of House, Senate and Presidency. Many fear that Republicans in general, and Trump in particular are “anti-science” and will put America back in the stone age. For those of you new to American politics, I’d like to dispel that myth and throw some cold water on the
hysteria.
First, universities and research scientists are by no means neutral politically. I’ve lost 3 jobs at universities both public and private, in part for being a Republican. Sociologists who measure these things had a nice paper in 1996 or thereabouts where registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans on the Stanford faculty by 4:1 (in economics) 8:1 (in physics) and 16:1 in humanities, but 99:1 among untenured faculty. And that was 1996, at a private school known for its conservatism. In the past 20 years things have only gotten worse. My own anecdotal experiences at 6 different universities and colleges only confirm that private Christian colleges are no exception to the general trend. Starting about 10 years ago, I even stopped getting interviews for academic jobs that I am eminently qualified for.
So if “scientists” are feeling threatened, there’s a very good reason for it, and it has nothing to do with being “anti-science”.
Second, science funding under Republican administrations always increases. Why? Because the economy is doing better, and the many social programs like universal healthcare, or minimum wage increases are not sapping the treasury of “discretionary” spending (that is, the shrinking portion of un-mandated spending).
Furthermore, under Republican administrations, agencies like NASA are less likely to be used for political gain, such as this administration’s boast that NASA increased the self-esteem of Muslims. Therefore the claim that Democratic administrations are “pro-science” doesn’t translate into more research dollars, it translates into more PR efforts to manipulate science agencies for political gain, which arguably is anti-science, and undeniably reduces funds for actual research.
Third, many in political establishment see the value of science as a discreet tool for political gain. (How many Republicans in past elections were characterized as unfit for office because they weren’t Darwinists?) As non-conservative scientists such as Richard Lindzen of MIT have pointed out, global warming is not about science, but about political power.
As everyone on this list knows, Darwinism is not about science but about religious ideology and power. The same is true in the arcana of physics modelling: of string theory, of inflationary “dark energy” cosmology, of WIMP dark matter, of planetary origins, of Mars planetary science, of in-space propulsion, to name a few that I know a little bit about. Each field is driven not so much by facts and science, but by turf battles for decreasing federal funding, which justifies the half-truths and unstated modeling adjustments.
In the US, “Science” has hitched its wagon to one particular political party, and declared all other politics “anti-science”, so the real meaning of the “anti-science” epithet is the “anti-politicization” of science.
Therefore, there is no “anti-science” tendency or desire in the Republican party or Trump in particular. There is a desire, however, to separate science from politics, which may nigh well be impossible now.
Tell your European colleagues not to flee America, but instead emigrate here, because there probably will be a lot of job openings available. This is potentially the most pro-science administration since Vannevar Bush wrote President Truman the report entitled “Science — the Endless Frontier”.
Time will tell.
See also: Nature: Scientists “stunned” by Trump win Why? Doesn’t that speak poorly of the powers of the scientific method?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Didn’t Eisenhower start NASA?
The Soviets called their politics “Scientific Socialism” then torpedoed actual science in that country with Lysenkoism. An apt parallel of what has happened with Darwinian and AGW orthodoxy. What these fear mongers are worried about is dissent that may not be so easily stifled.
-George Orwell, 1984
-William F. Buckley
a) I don’t use the word “liberal” to describe these apparent Fascists on the left anymore.
News,
Sheldon’s key point here is grimly telling:
Ironically, just now, I took up in another thread, the anti-science, science stopper talking points addressed at ID. In so doing, I just for fun (and as an experienced curriculum developer in my own right) decided to rewrite US NAS on science:
I ask any reasonable objector to explain to me how the above is anti-science and/or a science stopper. In particular in the context of debates over climate trends and origins sciences.
On medical ethics (note, a relevant guard rail for science), here is my comment: our generation are guilty of the worst holocaust in history, the ongoing (at 1 million abortions per week per Guttmacher Institute/ UN figures) mass slaughter of 800+ million unborn children since the early ’70s. In this war on our own posterity, we have distorted population studies, we have perverted medicine from defending and valuing life, we have warped law under false colour of rights, and therefore have twisted government in destructive ways. The major media and education centres have forgotten their ethical commitment to the truth and the right, and have become halls of indoctrination enabling the worst mass murder in history.
If by “science” you mean further enabling of such mass slaughter, call me antiscience, I will bear that as a badge of honour.
Murder?
Yes, in the moral sense, not some legalistic tomfoolery. Half the time (actually slightly more often) the unborn child is not even the same sex as his mother. S/he may be of very different race. S/he is indisputably alive and a distinct individual, albeit dependent on mother very directly for existence. The species of life is not rat, pig, fish or ape, it is human.
Innocent human life must not be subjected to arbitrary liquidation, that is shedding innocent blood, aka murder, moral sense.
And the right to life is the very first right of all.
I submit, that what has happened is that mass abortion as a holocaust, has tainted our whole civilisation with blood guilt and en-darken-ment, benumbing conscience and corrupting institutions across the board.
We need reformation, and I hope that we can wake up enough from our slumbers to be deeply ashamed.
For, sorrow and shame for wrong are first steps to reform.
Then, we can get back to restoring science, education, law, regulation and public policy to healthy form.
If, our mad march of folly does not head over the cliff first.
KF
I think the main fear is that so many Republicans are straight out Young Earth Creationists.
With this mind set exploration of space, origins, and the limited nature of resources on this earth are areas of investigation that have already been solved; read the Bible!
So, although I am not a US citizen I think it is a perfectly ligitimate fear of scientists to be wary, if not downright petrified of the upcomming four years of gloom.
Still ID should be pleased. The upcomming administration does have your mindset, and if others don’t? Well, as another poster suggested Orwell is apt.
rvb8:
“I think it is a perfectly legitimate fear of scientists to be wary, if not downright petrified of the upcoming four years of gloom.”
Being an Atheistic Materialist with a college degree does not equate to being a ‘scientist’.
In fact, it would be hard to imagine a more anti-scientific worldview than Atheistic Materialism has turned out to be.
Contrary to popular belief, Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, far from being the supposedly ‘scientific’ worldviews, are, in fact, built entirely upon a foundation of quicksand that quickly engulfs our entire conception of reality itself into a quagmire of illusions and fantasy.
You, as an atheistic materialist, gripe that,,
As to exploration of space, it was not an atheistic materialist that spear-headed America’s exploration of space but was a Christian Theist:
Of related note:
rvb8 next you mention ‘origins’ as being an area that will be negatively impacted by belief in God, yet the study of the origin of the universe and the origin of life highlights the unscientific nature of the Atheistic Mindset.
That is to say, although all the scientific evidence we have strongly indicates that the ‘finely-tuned’ universe, contrary to atheistic presuppositions, did have a sudden origin 14 billion years ago, and that the origin of life also requires Intelligence, atheists absolutely refuse to accept this most reasonable of scientific conclusions,, (as if atheists had the free will to be reasonable).
rvb8, you also mention ‘limited nature of resources on this earth’ as an area of concern. Yet, the ‘anthropic inequality’ is actually an argument for Theism.
Thus, like everything else within the atheistic worldview, all of your supposed fears of Theists doing science are in fact based on nothing but imagination. i.e. Your fear that Theists are ‘anti-science’ is devoid of any actual substance. Whereas, on the other hand, the Theist’s belief that atheists are actually the ones who are being ‘anti-science’ is a well founded. A fact which is backed up from numerous examples from the real world in which Atheist staunchly refuse to accept the results of science simply because it clashes with their anti-theistic worldview. As I stated before, it would hard to fathom a more anti-scientific worldview than Atheistic Materialism has turned out to be!
Of supplemental note: Christianity, not Atheism, gave birth to modern science:
It is really telling that the APS (American Physical Society) has already been chastised by the anti-Trump bullies by actually congratulating the President-Elect on his win. How sad that something as non-political as promoting excellence in the teaching of science should be greeted with the tyrannical censorship of the intolerant left.
http://retractionwatch.com/201.....cientists/