Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:50, 22 January 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Politicization of science. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Politicization of science at the Reference desk.

Creationism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Oct 2003-Dec 2007

Legal and economic pressure

Here's an example that only took a few minutes of googling:

• Bob Marks of Baylor University

Surely other contributors are familiar with cases like this. Anyone want to help me dig up the Smithsonian peer-review thing? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

World Net Daily is an extremely partisan and barely reliable source from what I know.-Wafulz (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's one from Misplaced Pages itself:

• Sternberg claims that he was "targeted for retaliation and harassment" and subject to efforts to remove him from the museum in retaliation for his views in support of creationism. (see Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Smithsonian_controversy)

Are we reliable enough for you? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Marks nor Sternberg suffered "legal economic pressure". Sternberg's claims are bogus. He was not employed by the museum (and was doing little research work there at the time), and was not "subject to efforts to remove him" from there. He was simply subject to (private email) discussions as to whether there was a case for his removal, which resulted in a general opinion that there was not. Hrafn_Stalk 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! Are you saying Meyers and Dembski and all them are just making this up? Or exaggerating? There's really no pressure of any kind favoring evolution? What cads they must be to make such bogus claims. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Exaggerating, misrepresenting and occasionally outright lying. The DI is not known for its accuracy, honesty or credibility. See Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Campaigns claiming discrimination for details. There is 'pressure', but it is the pressure of legitimate free speech and competition in the marketplace for ideas. Hrafn_Stalk 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything the Steinberg case highlights the politicisation of science in the opposite direction, when politicians (Sanotorum etc) and other people have tried to punish scientists and scientific institutions for bogus claims made by dubious people because it fits their POV. However since they weren't particularly successful, I don't think we should highlight it as there are bound to be lots of cases when a few silly people have ignored the evidence and tried to punish scientists and scientific institutions because of made oup controversy Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody provide any specific case where an ID advocate suffered a legal or financial setback that can unambiguously be attributed solely or in the majority to that advocacy (and not to failure to publish sufficient legitimate scientific results, failure to follow the curriculum, failure to follow the US Constitution, etc)? Hrafn_Stalk 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Darn good question. Can we expand it to include cases where a specific scientists suffered a similar setback due to the Bush administration?

Both sides have said that "pressure was brought" but where are the specific cases? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that we are talking about "legal and economic pressure" and that we don't restrict it to actions of the Bush Administration, and include Science Educators as well as Scientists: Christine Comer‎. In any case, it was you who was trying to shoehorn "legal and economic pressure" into the article, so it up to you to provided verifiable evidence of its existence, not us. Hrafn_Stalk 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond "legal and economic pressure", the George W. Bush administration section contains a number of specific instances of other forms of pressure already. Hrafn_Stalk 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Both sides may claim it, but the ID side is a tiny minority and highly partisan, making the claim as part of a campaign attacking the scientific community. We won't be helping them with their campaign here by giving them undue weight. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and there is also a very big difference between when a large number of highly reputable scientists and scientific organisation claim something about science and when a small number of people most of who aren't even scientists by most definitions of the word, supported by a small number of people such as politicians and advocacy groups (made up predominantly of non-scientists) claim something about science. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between facts and values (i.e., the limits of science)

WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:MoodyGroove Hrafn_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I draw MoodyGroove's attention to WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." Hrafn_Stalk 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

MoodyGroove: the material you are repeatedly attempting to reintroduce is a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated claims as to the nature of the "Politicization of science", it does not contain any specific recommendations for improvements to the article, let alone any factual basis for them. Here are some excerpts from WP:TALK that might prove helpful:

• "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
• "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)."
• "Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it."

The thread I removed:

1. was a "general conversation about the article's subject";
2. contained no discussion on "how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article", just on your views;
3. contained no verifiable facts.

Hrafn_Stalk 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I could just as easily refer you to WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. Regardless, I've nominated this dispute to be looked at by a third party. MoodyGroove (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Note: The following was added to the WP:3O page; it was removed because it did not comply with project guidelines. — HelloAnnyong 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Disagreement about whether or not User:Hrafn has a right to repeatedly remove my good faith attempts to engage editors in civil discussion on the talk page."

1. WP:TALK clearly states that "Talk pages are ... not for general conversation about the article's subject".
2. The thread under disagreement was such a "general conversation", and contained neither specific recommendations for improvements to the article, nor verifiable information on which such improvements could be based.
3. Also per WP:TALK: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)" is permitted (with the referenced subsection including the prohibition against general conversations).

I therefore don't see that there's much to argue about. Hrafn_Stalk 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to argue? The point you refuse to accept is that the broader subject is "Politics and Science", or what Time magazine calls "The Politics of Science". You deny that science is necessarily political, but that simply isn't true. If a neutral article existed called "The Politics of Science", this article would be an unacceptable POV fork, because it presupposes that science is, and ought to be, free from any government influence (the title itself indicates that to politicize science is necessarily bad and the definition given indicates that scientific consensus is necessarily a greater good than a political or moral consensus). So yes, my comments (all of them) are directly related to improving the article and making it conform more to the Misplaced Pages's most important and least negotiable principle: neutral point of view. Your hostility toward me speaks volumes to your ability to maintain a neutral point of view with regard to the subject of politics and science. Regards, MoodyGroove (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

So, MoodyGroove, what do you plan to contribute to the article?Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how reasonable we're all willing to be. I was hoping to discuss my concerns on the talk page first and develop a game plan with other editors (that's always a good idea, especially on controversial articles). Do you think I've been treated with respect and courtesy? If you'll check my contributions, you'll see that I've made solid contributions to a number of scientific articles, but crawling comes before walking, and with vehement opposition on the talk page, editing the main body of the article would be futile. I'm sure you'd agree. MoodyGroove (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

What statements do you plan to make in the article? What sources do you have ready to verify the statements? Finding and summarizing sources would be the first step toward incorporating them into the article.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Misplaced Pages's editing guidelines. Thank you, Athene. Please re-read my above captioned discussion about why this article is problematic, and why the broader issue is "Politics and Science" of which "manipulating scientific research for political gain" is a relatively small part, and why this article would be an unacceptable POV fork if an appropriately named article called "Politics and Science" or "The Politics of Science" existed. But since no one seems interested in broadening this article to make it more neutral about the intersection of politics and science, why not be honest and rename the article "Manipulation of Science by the Bush Administration"? MoodyGroove (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I agree, and I'm the one who added the US-centric tag. But if you have no content to add to the article, what do you expect other people to do? If you want to discuss changes in the talk section, please by all means submit some content, not just complaints. The way to "broadening this article to make it more neutral about the intersection of politics and science" is to add or introduce new content. So far, you have not.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but you have to admit, it's not as if I've had a warm reception. Since I disagree with some fundamental premises of the article, I was hoping to discuss those issues first. My attempts at civil discussion on the talk page were a courtesy so I could collaborate with other editors. It's not a requirement, and I don't need anyone's permission to edit the article. I always add reliable sources when I make edits to an article, and I strive to maintain a neutral point of view. This article will be no exception should I decide to pursue it (it's a big Misplaced Pages and my time is valuable). Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

If you have content to add, you can always submit it in the talk section for discussion before posting it in the main article, if you're worried about contention.Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is an unsubstantiated "disagree with some fundamental premises of the article" is pure WP:SOAP and not the basis for any proposed changes. Any "fundamental" change in the article would require bullet-proof sources to back it up. You presented no sources/substantiation at all, and were therefore cut off. Hrafn_Stalk 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

• This article has been criticised for only portraying negative aspects of the influence of politics on science: "this article would be an unacceptable POV fork, because it presupposes that science is, and ought to be, free from any government influence".
• To maintain WP:NPOV, an article "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
• We have numerous, often highly prominent (e.g. 49 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients), reliable sources as to the negative impact, but I have yet to see anybody present any reliable sources, no matter how minor, as to a positive impact of politics on science.
• Therefore, to comply with WP:NPOV this article should continue to present only the negative impact, unless and until, it can be verified with reliable sources that a positive impact is a significant viewpoint.
• I would further point out that the claim that "science is necessarily political" is an unverified (and most probably unverifiable) "WP:TRUTH" and as such has no place in the article.

Hrafn_Stalk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record

• "Accepting Politics in Science," The Washington Post: "...politics is unavoidable in the empaneling process. The real question is whether we want to openly confront this reality or allow it to play out in the proverbial backrooms of political decision making science advisory panels never deal purely with science. They are convened to provide guidance either on policy or on scientific information that is directly relevant to policy. And as Arizona State University's Dan Sarewitz has persuasively argued, "When an issue is both politically and scientifically contentious, then one's point of view can usually be supported with an array of legitimate facts that seem no less compelling than the facts assembled by those with a different perspective." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • This is talking about politically-appointed advisory panels, specifically the National Research Council, not science generally. Hrafn_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Science-Politics Tension Dates Back Centuries," by Steve Milloy, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute published at Fox News: "...to the extent there is any uprising by some vocal scientists against President Bush, it's had little to do with science and everything to do with politics Rockefeller University energy expert Jesse Ausbel told Revkin that researchers were angry with the Bush administration because they were excluded from policy circles that were open to them under previous administrations President Bush inherited this inherently political process — he did not invent it." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • A 'Faux News' opinion piece from a notorious partisan corporate hack - hardly a WP:RS. Hrafn_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The Politics of Pure Science," by Daniel S. Greenberg, book review at The University of Chicago Press: "Dispelling the myth of scientific purity and detachment, Daniel S. Greenberg documents in revealing detail the political processes that underpinned government funding of science from the 1940s to the 1970s. While the book's hard-hitting approach earned praise from a broad audience, it drew harsh fire from many scientists, who did not relish their turn under the microscope. The fact that this dispute is so reminiscent of today's acrimonious "Science Wars" demonstrates that although science has changed a great deal since The Politics of Pure Science first appeared, the politics of science has not." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • This is talking about government funding of science, a legitimate subject for this article. It would be interesting to see where the weight of opinion is on the balance between the extra financial benefit versus the distortionary effect of government priorities. Hrafn_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Harmful Politicization of Science," by William Happer of the Hoover Institute: "Politicization is inevitable when governments provide funding for science. The public expects to get something back from the science they support——for example, better health, national security, jobs. This normal politicization does no harm and may even be good for science and society. But politicization taken to the extreme can be very harmful." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • Again, this is talking about government funding of science. And I would point out that this is no reason not to attempt to minimise the political distortion of government-funded science. Hrafn_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Politics and Science - Cheese and Chalk?" by Lord May, former government Chief Scientist, published at BBC News: "The world today really is very different from that of 50 years ago And these advances are still accelerating. But as we head further into the new millennium, we increasingly realise that these well-intentioned uses of science have often had unintended adverse consequences. Witness climate change, environmental degradation and the unsustainable growth in human numbers. No wonder people worry about possible unintended consequences of emerging technologies such as GM crops and about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research Ultimately, as science continues to advance offering more and more possibilities, we must learn to do a better job of asking which doors to open and which to leave closed. We must learn how to conduct democratic debates about political choices on a stage constrained by scientific facts (and made wobbly by scientific uncertainties)." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • This is talking about the impact of scientific research on political choices and debates -- an issue that I've already raised. Hrafn_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Political Science - Why government isn't the best place to look for unbiased science," by Ronald Baily in Reason Online: "oliticization of science, in response to ideological pressure from all directions, is perhaps an inevitable result of government funding of science In a liberal secular society, science is the one standard of truth that most citizens can agree on. Thus everyone tries to show that "science" supports his or her point of view, pet project, or preferred policy. This makes the kind of distortions UCS points out—as well as the kind of distortions it doesn't point out—inevitable when government funds science. The UCS's recommendations are naïve, given the above realities of political science." MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• "George W. Bush, Man of Science," by Ronald Bailey in Reason Online: "Appointments to scientific advisory committees aside—overlooking the irony of a group of scientists endorsing Senator John Kerry for president because President Bush has "politicized" science—has the Bush administration done anything all that different from past administrations?" MoodyGroove 04:51, 21 January 2008

• • I would note that the article doesn't attempt to offer a definitive answer to that question. Hrafn_Stalk 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to maintain that science isn't necessarily political considering the existence of the NIH, CDC, NIST, EPA, NASA, and a host of other federal agencies (and their international equivalents). In the modern age, science and politics are inseparable, and I've supplied references to that effect. There are thousands of other G-hits I could sort through, but what's the point? I didn't come here to engage in destructive conflict, and I see no good coming from my continued involvement in this article or its talk space. Best regards, MoodyGroove (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

It's your loss if you don't want to contribute, MoodyGroove. It just looks like you're more interested in commenting over contributing. Unfortunately, commenting doesn't really do anyone any good. Why not work on a section or paragraph and incorporate it into the article. You claim to be an experienced Misplaced Pages editor. How hard can it be?Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Athene, it's the Misplaced Pages's loss anytime an editor moves on due to another editor's incivility. In my case, I have plenty of areas of interest, and it's a big Misplaced Pages. In any case, the references I just fleshed out are a contribution. I'm sorry it wasn't more to your liking. Have a great day! MoodyGroove (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I'm trying to encourage you to actually contribute something to the article, but you seem to be totally opposed to putting forth any actual effort. You can contribute, or don't, it doesn't matter at all to me. I'm not sure what you want people to do, though. It's not up to other people to do your contributions for you. But if you don't want to actually do any research to make a contribution, then you're right. Copying and pasting a list of Google results isn't really going to be to any reasonable editor's "liking."Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't require your encouragement, and I'm not asking you to make a contribution for me. I was challenged to provide some reliable sources pertaining to my comments on the talk page and I provided them. MoodyGroove (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

You do not wish to contribute to the article, and you do not wish for anyone to contribute for you. I think it's clear that you're here only to express your opinion in the Talk page, then. Feel free to move along, like you said you would.Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No MoodyGroove, it is you who is being "disingenuous". (1) Not all science is government funded. (2) There is nothing stopping governments putting in place safeguards to minimise harmful political distortions of the research they fund. (3) So your grand "WP:TRUTH" that "science is necessarily political" is wholly unfounded. As your involvement in this article seems to be solely aimed at making a WP:POINT, I see little loss in your refusing further involvement. We do however reserve the right to make use of the sources you provided us with though. :) Hrafn_Stalk 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Have at it, but let's be frank. This entire article is to make a point. MoodyGroove (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Oh my! I am mortified by your incisive and original criticism of an article that I am at best loosely associated with. A brilliant paraphrase of that tower of intellect, Bart Simpson's "I know you are, but what am I." You can be Frank, and Norman and Herbert too, for all I care. Hrafn_Stalk 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Globalising modern accusations

The politicisation of science, in its negative sense (which is the only sense which we have WP:RSs on, to date), tends to become of importance when a (major) government develops an Orwellian aspects, and believes that it can remake the truth in its own image. If the "modern accusations" section had been written in the 1950s it would most probably have concentrated on the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the 1930s & 40s, Nazi Germany. That this article concentrates on the US is, I believe, because of the fact that current criticism is concentrated on the Bush Administration, not because of inattention to other countries.Can anybody name another country where this is a major issue (preferably with WP:RSs to back it up)? Hrafn_Stalk 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

First, I would encourage everyone to be cool and polite. Try to avoid edit warring of any sort and also refrain from making disparaging comments about other editors. Regarding the talk page material dispute, I would recommend asking a sysop to review the situation and provide some advice about editing the comments of others. The request should be polite and as neutral as possible. Regarding the general disagreement about content, I would recommend seeking independent assistance in settling the dispute and/or requesting broad outside comment. Vassyana (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Participation

Anyone not restricted by an arb ruling may use an article talk page. Removing or altering comments of others is blockable disruption (unless it's a privacy issue). Don't do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Moody was planning - or trying to tell us - but I'm going to assume good faith (for a moment or two, anyway. ;-)

I gather Moody finds something one-sided about the viewpoint of this article, or that the article is too restricted in scope. I further assume that his comments along these lines are not meant to be a "discussion of the topic" but rather criticisms of Misplaced Pages's presentation of the topic.

Is this correct, Moody?

If so, perhaps I might point out that I also find the topic a bit one-sided. It emphasizes (what I call) the "liberal POV", i.e., that the Bush Administration has frequently and egregiously engaged in the politicization of science, along with other partisans such as Creationists.

I have attempted to dilute this one-sided presentation by offering some neutral background information. Although the "History" section I supplied, with Galileo, Lysenko and tobacco, was initially reverted as "POV" - it was later restored by another editor.

If your intent here is to discuss how further improvements to the article can be made, please address me directly. Making this article better is the only thing on my mind when I come here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I direct Rlevse's attention to WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." I also direct Rlevse's attention to template:notaforum: "This is not a forum for general discussion of

• B-Class Creationism articles
• Mid-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles