Re: [asa] Scientists, Religion, and Politics

I would also say that for the USA it is the perception, justified in part, that Republicans have shown themselves to be anti-science.

This is seen with INhofe, the criticisms of so-called junk science and the fact that Republicans tend to be more liable to support ID and creationism than Democrats. Republicans are more likely to AGW and opposed to certain biological programmes. Note that one Republican hopeful Huckabee was YEC. Bush's comments were not always that helpful. It was a Republican governor in Arkansas who passed an anti-evolution bill in 1981 when Clinton was pushed out of office

This was the fear that I picked up at a Geol Soc of America conference last October and Palin's comments did not help matters. Palin was reported over here as a Creationist which may or may not be true

Clearly here is a Brit commenting on American politics, but I do not apologise for it
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Nucacids
  To: Cameron Wybrow ; asa
  Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Scientists, Religion, and Politics

  When it comes to "Partisanship and Ideology" and the respondents are given only two choices, the differences between the general public and scientific community are even more striking:

  Republican/Lean Rep.

  General Public - 35%

  Scientists - 12%

  Democrat/Lean Dem.

  General Public - 52%

  Scientists - 81%

  I don't think Don's or Randy's observations would explain such differences.

  I think it has more to do with this aspect of the survey:

  "Overwhelming percentages of scientists working in basic (91%) and applied research (81%) cite federal government sources as among the most important in their specialty, as do more than eight-in-ten across all scientific disciplines."

  I'm not sure how one ignores the fact that the vast majority of scientists depend on a continual stream of government money.

  This may also explain another difference between scientists and the public:

  "Just 40% of scientists agree that "when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful"; a majority of the public (57%) agrees with this statement."

    Would that Don Winterstein's characterization of the independence of mind were true of most scientists, instead of only a very special few! When one considers the reaction of the scientific community to a variety of challenges from independent-minded scientists, it does not seem that science is particularly inclined to encourage or even tolerate dissent.

    When Duesberg challenged the HIV/AIDS connection (back in the very early days of AIDS research), he was practically lynched by the scientific community. (Whether he was later proved wrong isn't the point; the point is the irrational fury with which his dissent was met.) When anthropogenic global warming scenarios were challenged on the grounds of both theory and data, the majority of climatologists tried to close down the discussion with howls of protest; the science was "settled", they said, and there was no room for dispute; only a few "cranks" disagreed. (Note that the temperature data in recent years has borne out the view of the "cranks", who are steadily increasing in number.) And when ID people challenged Darwinian theory, how many mainstream biologists immediately condemned ID, purely on hearsay, as both bad science and/or as "creationism", without ever having read a line of Behe, Dembski, etc.? (Answer: lots.) These examples just popped into my head; I don't think it would be hard to find more.

    But even if it were entirely true that scientists as a community were exceptionally open to self-criticism and exceptionally encouraging of non-standard ideas and perspectives *within science*, Don's suggestion about how this would spill over into political and religious views does not quite work.

    True, most scientists do not hold to standard or conventional ways of thinking about religion and politics, if by "standard" and "conventional", one means the views of typical Americans of about 1959, i.e., 50 years ago. But then, not just scientists, but academics generally, and the intelligentsia generally, have been predominantly opposed to 1950s notions of politics and religion for at least four decades now. It is therefore no longer avant-garde, or any mark of great independence of thought, for scientists or social scientists or philosophy professors to be left-wing, feminist, against American foreign policy, against "Western values", etc. Indeed, to vote Democrat, to be in favour of affirmative action, to be pro-abortion, to sit very loosely in relation to orthodox Christianity or Judaism, etc. is the reigning orthodoxy at the secular university today. Thus, scientists who would have been shockingly liberal and secular in Eisenhower's day fit right in with the moral and religious universe of a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama.

    In other words, when it comes to religious, social and moral issues, scientists today, like most other university professors, are *not* "questioners of the status quo". Rather, they are enthusiastic supporters of it. A real "questioner of the status quo" in the modern university would be a conservative who questioned the wisdom of the social and religious changes of the last 40-50 years, and who wondered aloud whether America might have been a healthier civilization back in the 1950s. (Or, God forbid, even earlier.) But any junior professor who voiced such a thought in a modern secular university could kiss tenure good-bye. The "liberals", paradoxically, are more intolerant of dissent from their world-view than the "conservatives" ever were.

    Cameron.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Don Winterstein
      To: asa
      Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:26 AM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Scientists, Religion, and Politics

      My two cents' worth:

      The very nature of scientists' work is to challenge authority, the received "truth," and replace it with deductions from carefully measured data. One of a scientist's joys is proving an accepted theory incomplete or wrong.

      The root meaning of conservatism has to do with opposing change and preserving the ways of the past. Religions also impose from on high, declare truth on the basis of "authority."

      Hence a scientist who's immersed in his work and allows its methods to reach into the rest of his life will tend to challenge and oppose both standard versions of religious truth and conventional ways of living and governing.

      The fact that scientists as kids often don't fit in probably contributes to the phenomenon.

      Don

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Randy Isaac
        To: asa@calvin.edu
        Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:01 AM
        Subject: Re: [asa] Scientists, Religion, and Politics

        I recall that when I was in graduate school, oh so long ago, someone on the
        faculty made the comment that scientists tended to be more liberal in
        politics to counter their need to be so conservative in their science. I'm
        not sure if there's any evidence for a human being to need a balance of
        liberalism and conservatism in one's life, but it's an observation that
        stuck with me.

        Randy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.14/2238 - Release Date: 07/14/09 18:03:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 15 11:38:34 2009