Talk:Politicization of science

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MoodyGroove (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 20 January 2008 (→The distinction between facts and values (i.e., the limits of science): reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:50, 20 January 2008 by MoodyGroove (talk | contribs) (→The distinction between facts and values (i.e., the limits of science): reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Untitled section

I'm not clear to me why this article exists. The "politicization" of science ought to be subtopic within some article on the philosophy of science or social science, as it is intimately bound up with debates about the neutrality/objectivity/Truthfulness of science. 70.76.176.205 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)SB

This article has a liberal bias and only points to incidents involving republicans. There have been numerous incidents by the left including the complete falsification of science by environmental groups who believe the ends justify the means. There needs to be a politicization of wikipedia article written.

Why is it that the people who don't believe in global warming are the same people who don't believe in the ozone-hole? The two are different phenomenon. So the fact that the same people disbelieve both tells me that their views are motivated less by science and more by some sort of vague anti-environmentalism... Evercat 22:33, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ah why Green peace believe that both ozone hole and global warming to be both scientifically true when each are unrelated phenomenon. The fact that they do believe so tells me that their views are motivated less by science and more by some sort of vague green ideologies. Just an example of false argument. :) FWBOarticle

(William M. Connolley 22:03, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I've noticed the same thing, but sadly it runs in reverse: those that *do* believe in GW belive in OD and reverse... I can be made into a useful argument with more care, though, since OD is essentially done: there is no real argument except for the wackos: whereas with GW there is still some room for reasonable doubt, perhaps.

The politicisation of science happen on the both side of the debate. I will try to make the article bit more comprehensive. FWBOarticle

Should we redo this article under four headding. Allegation of , (1)Politicisation of science by scientist, (2) politicisation of science by politician, (3) politicisation fo science by NGO and Lobbying group. Afterall, everyone accused of politicisation would refuse such allegation. It's not a criminal offence afterall. FWBOarticle

FWBOarticle, could you sign with four tildes (~~~~), please? Knowing when people made remarks is handy. Cheers, Daniel Collins 18:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I tend to revise my Engrish edit often. For this reason, sigining with four tildes would be inappropriate. If the talk page is long, I utlise (=) or (:) so people can follow the debate. Cheers. FWBOarticle

Rubbish

The article in its current state is rubbish William M. Connolley 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; and no improvement since your evaluation.

Politicization is not "making science an issue" but rather misusing science to advance one view of a political issue. --Uncle Ed 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, do you have a citation for that? It can be either depending on the circumstances and how you define your terms. JoshuaZ 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the first version is rather amusing. — Dunc|☺ 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed's got this thing about global warming, in case you haven't noticed. Dollars to donut holes in the ozone, were global warming not mentioned Ed wouldn't be so hot on this article. Jim62sch 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Jim, there's been a lot of junk science ever since Science came into being. From the Catholic Church exalting Aristotle's writings over actual observations; to the European medical establishment refusing to examine the statistics on childbed fever reduction (see Ignaz_Semmelweis#Rejection_by_the_medical_establishment); and tobacco companies claiming no health risks from smoking. These, of course, have all been overturned, after much time and effort.

There are also health scares and other types of politicization, by environmentalists (see DDT ban, not to mention arsenic in drinking water, Alar on apples, asbestos in wall insulation; the list is seemingly endless. Someone takes a political stance on an issue (often with economic or ideological motives) and screams holy hell if anyone dares to question them. Results? Tests? Methods? We don't have to show you that. Trust us, we're experts and we care (not like those nasty corporations).

Anything other than Here's our hypothesis, fellas, see if you can reproduce our results or not is not science: it's politicized junk. If that's a POV, so be it. The article should include that POV, if it comes from published sources.

The idea that it's chiefly Bush & crew who politicize science is merely one point of view. The opposite POV, i.e., that it's also liberals & environmentalists must be included in the article. Otherwise it's slanted to favor one POV. --Uncle Ed 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you that's the minority point of view and there's this thing here called WP:NPOV#Undue weight. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm.. I read WP:NPOV#Undue weight just now. Uncle Ed is NOT disagreeing with the statement that there is substantial politicization of science. But if the article restricts itself to politicization of science by Bush, Republicans, Catholics, Conservatives, or whatever the favorite whipping boys of the Left are, it is just a Liberal screed. The fact is that there is a very long history of politicization of science. Lots of people are guilty of it, including Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who are absurdly omitted from the article. Modern politicizers include non-expert Al Gore, and those who should be experts, such as David Parnas and Paul Ehrlich, just to name a few darlings of the Liberals. Here's a challenge for those of you who want to remove any reference to these: if your thesis is that it's all Republicans/Conservatives who are doing it, your argument is severely weakened by you trying to remove evidence to the contrary, because it indicates that you yourself are worried that your thesis might not withstand fair scrutiny. Vegasprof 11:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Thank you for preserving the Frederick Seitz example in a footnote, FeloniousMonk.

By the way, I re-read NPOV on 'undue weight' and it said:

...the 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.

Wouldn't you say that a retired official of a major scientific organization (president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962 until 1969) is 'prominent'? --Uncle Ed 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seitz is a confirmed global warming skeptic. Global warming skeptics are in the minority within the scientific community. NPOV: Undue weight says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." FeloniousMonk 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Youn left out have been published by a reliable source - has Seitz? Not that I'm aware William M. Connolley 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical politicization of science

The article covers current event pretty well, but has no historical background leading up to them or historical examples. This is a blank that needs to be filled in. FeloniousMonk 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An historical treatment of science politicization should include a definition of junk science, which is scientific reporting which is flawed by procedure, conduct, analysis, or conclusion. As computing power has increased, and political bias has become easier to detect, the methods of junking the science have become increasingly weighted toward statistical corruption as compared with bias/subjectivity.

An incomplete list of junk science flaws:

1. Unrepresentative study sampling or population 2. Biased conductors or subjects 3. Subjective or unquantifiable influence on conductors or subjects which is later quantified as objectively conclusive 4. Excluding data from the experiment under study and/or relevant studies which do not support the desired conclusion 5. Representing data as conclusively linking results to causes without meeting common standards of statistical significance/correlation/confidence 6. Deriving desired scientific conclusions from other scientific works purely by statistical methods (epidemiology) by adding another layer of unsound analysis (as described in #5) Jpanto 11:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

One-sided

Article has a distinct pro-environmentalist, anti-Bush administration slant. --Uncle Ed 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And your objection, like most of your contributions to the project as of late, has a distinct anti-mainstream science, pro-Bush administration slant.

Your objection is noted Ed, but you're hardly the one to determine what is and isn't NPOV on topics which you admittedly hold strong ideological views on. The article presents the most notable instances of the topic, which the mainstream media has repeatedly shown to be the Bush administration's activities. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I'm saying: the article takes the POV the Bush administration is primarily to blame for politicization of various science issues. Is this your POV, as well?

Please help me to fix the POV/NPOV problems with this article, before removing the Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute tag. --Uncle Ed 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, stop playing silly buggers here. You know as well as I do that there is no POV issue with this and most of the stories in the mainstream media on the topic of the politicization of science are about the Bush administration. Please find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the article does appear to be overly anti-Bush, but he is so eminently bashable. Doesn't seem to be a POV problem, just that's where the action currently is. Any sourced material supportive of Bush's excesses? Also the article is totally US centric, surely other governments have their excesses. I'm for removing the two ugly tags - which would improve the looks of the article while Ed & others find some reasonable balancing info (please not the same old worn out and/or discredited skeptics ) and some historical/international background. Vsmith 22:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He's overly bashable, so it's okay that this particular article is overly anti-Bush? That seems like a POV to me. Littleman TAMU 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is one-sided if for no other reason than it only mentions the GWBush administration. Surely there are other examples of this. The article itself says other U.S. administrations have done this, just not to this degree. Regardless, there have to be examples of this in other countries. I recommend renaming the article to something like "The Politicization of Science by the George W. Bush Administration". Either that, or someone adds "historical/international background". Littleman TAMU 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is too narrow in its descriptions and examples. There's been politicized science ever since there's been politics and science. The article has no mention of Galileo's trial of heresy for his heliocentric theory, one of earliest and most famous cases of politicized science. Other examples might include the human experimentations by the Nazis, the Communist suppression of Darwin's "Bourgeois" theory of evolution, the downplaying of the AIDS threat by the Reagan administration, Clinton's refusal to fund embryonic cell lines despite approval by the NIH ethics panel, the EPA's fudging with statistics to connect secondhand smoke to lung cancer.

Suppression of dissent

Seitz and Lindzen make some implausible and unreferenced/unsupported claims about funding for dissenters being cut off (given the state of the current Bush govt, this seems to me quite implausibly the wrong-way-round). But... that isn't why I removed them, but because, as PoS is currently defined, they are irrelevant to the article William M. Connolley 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Smacks of suppressing complaints of suppression. Better we put their views back in. Otherwise, the article will go from mostly to completely one-sided. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't put their views in just for balance, they have to actually be *relevant*. As PoS is currently defined, their crit is just not relevant. You could redefine the article meaning so they became relevant, I suppose William M. Connolley 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

William is right about relevance here. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How could "pressure to influence the findings the way the research is disseminated" be construed to exclude supression? 75.35.113.208 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seitz's views were relevant in October 2003. Why have they lost their relevance? See your version of the article. --Uncle Ed 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Seitz's views were irrelevant then too, I was too timid then William M. Connolley 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to explain why they're 'irrelevant' I'll just put back them in. Misplaced Pages's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. --Uncle Ed 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they are irrelevant for the reasons I've already expounded. You're welcome to say why you think they are relevant, since I've just decided I'm a bit less sure of myself :-) William M. Connolley 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read them, my opinion is that they are indeed irrelevant. Jim62sch 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics

If this article needs a section on eugenics (and I cannot say that it does not deserve one), it must be written properly. Not be a malformed quote of some science fiction author.

Chrichton is not an expert on eugenics, nor on the politics of science. Comparing eugenics to global warming is unfair since on the global warming is well accepted science, whereas eugenics never was, atleast not to the same degree. Michael Crichton (and the section author) has the rather transparent aim of casting doubt on global warming through innuendo, ironically an act of politicising science.

Scientific fact is unaffacted by politics. — Dunc|☺ 17:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But Dunc, don't you realise that Crichton is a reliable source on everything under the moon? Jim62sch 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crichton is not an expert on the topics of Eugenics, Global Warming, or the Politicization of science . Period. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed material

I've removed this newly placed bloat of material on a very specific subject that should take no more than one or two brief paragraphs, even assuming it can be properly cited. One citation was to a blog, and is thus in violation of WP:VER and WP:OR. The Crighton perspective, if it's to be included, should summarize Crighton's assertion briefly and cite to him with appropriate weight. Obviously he's making an important assertion. Phrenology, incidentally, is another famous example of a "science" that got highly politicized in the mid-19th Century, as its "methods" were used as excuses to attack already disempowered classes (no cites available to me at the moment). No doubt there are other examples as well. ... Kenosis 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be summarized. I was about to do that, when Dunc and you reverted me three times. Fearing I might run afoul of 3RR, I self-reverted at the end of my series of edits and "reported myself at" Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

Would his account of the Eugenics movement be better if we took out the part where he links it to global warming? (Unsigned comment left by Ed Poor 12:26, 5 August 2006)

And would you like my help adding the politicization of Phrenology?

My opinion is that his lack of cred in the area means he shouldn't be quoted at all. Additionally, whether Crichton gave site for all those people and institutions named, we'd damned-well better if we're even going to consider including it. In other words, meat is needed to go with all that greasy gravy. Jim62sch 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the material I removed. ... Kenosis 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

- ===Eugenics===

- Physician Michael Crichton included a fact-based section in his novel State of Fear entitled, "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous", explaining:

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
- - This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
-
- I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago. -
- Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. -
- These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. -
- All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. -
- Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people. -
- The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
— Michael Crichton, State of Fear

- - Some environmentalstis say that what Crichton wrote about eugenics is merely an attempt to cast doubt on global environment change by using innuendo suggesting guilt by association.<rev>"Somehow Hitler keeps popping into the discussion. Gore draws a parallel between fighting global warming and fighting the Nazis. Novelist Michael Crichton, in State of Fear, ends with an appendix comparing the theory of global warming to the theory of eugenics. Making an analogy of Gore’s beliefs to Hitler’s beliefs about the Jews is so outrages as to be a smear, through guilt-by-association, on his character. It is more than disingenuous so let’s please stop defending using terms so loaded and poisonous." Democrats and Liberals (blog)</rev> ... 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Crichton is a novelist. Calling him a Physician is bizarre, as is SoF William M. Connolley 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, William, he did "go" to med school and plagiarise George Orwell...certainly that means something. ;) Jim62sch 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Creighton's novel bit. Eugenics would possibly be a good example, but not by using a novel as a source. Absurd. Vsmith 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Why is the second paragraph an example, when there is already an example section. That should be a summary. 75.35.113.208 07:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article bloated and biased.

I have tried to pare it down to reasonable lengths and will continue to do so later.--Rotten 11:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So all politicizations of science come from the Bush administration?

No politizations at all from environmentalists ever? Or did WMC forbid that?--Rotten 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact arch-liberal Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), an habitual Bush-basher, is, himself, guilty of politicizing science, much more so than the people he tends to criticize. It has gotten so bad that JunkScience.com complained:

"The assault on free speech continues: See Brad Miller's attempt to intimidate potential supporters of genuine scientific enquiry." http://www.junkscience.com/miller_exxon_5.17.07.pdf

"We have to wonder why the AGW cheer squad are so terrified of independent examination and discussion of the science. Is it because they know what they're shoveling?"

Unfortunately, nobody is as good at (and practiced at) politicizing science as the "green" Left. NCdave 08:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read the article after a substantial hiatus. The current title is misleading, as it gives the impression that is an article about the general topic of politicization of science, but the article only discusses politicization of science that (allegedly) has occurred since 1991, and only by Republicans, or "Big Oil," and only when a President Bush was in office. Given the narrow focus of the article, the title should be, "Politicization of Science by both Presidents Bush" We can then have other articles about politicization of science by others, such as Al Gore, the Union of Concerned Scientists (a left-wing advocacy group, not a professional society), and so forth (the list is long). Seriously, since I don't want to start an edit war, I don't plan on doing anything right away. But if the focus of the article is not broadened, the article should be deleted. What do others think? Vegasprof 20:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be that the article simply reflects the fact that those are the most notable and frequent perpetrators... A fact that appears to be supported by most reliable sources. FeloniousMonk 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I.e., appears to you. If you always close your left eye, it will appear that every danger comes from the right. Non-conservatives, as a group, have a tendency to claim that sources that lack liberal bias, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, writings by the Heritage Foundation, or any other sources that say politically incorrect things, are unreliable. That attitude makes the argument circular: (A) No reliable sources say X. (B) Y says X. (C) Y is unreliable. Your circular proof goes like this: (C) follows from (A) and (B). Since (C) holds, then (B) can be ignored, supporting (A). Do you see, now, that that logic is circular? Vegasprof 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Without delving into the topic or page content at all - i'd say that the wording "without liberal bias" seem to indicate a bias in and of itself. There is a rather simple solution to the one-sidedness of this article: Add the cases that you believe are missing, if the sources are reliable and the cases notable enough - they should be in the article, no matter the political side. Nb: perhaps the focus should be a bit more international as well - i doubt that politicization of science is a purely American issue. --Kim D. Petersen 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me, Kim (i.e., with respect to what to do about the article). Of course people should add other examples, as well as RS refutations (if any) of the current claims of politicization of science. I plan to do that, and encourage others to do so. If someone deletes them because of they don't like them, perhaps using false claims that the sources are unreliable, we will be back to where we are now. Vegasprof 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Be aware of weight though. --Kim D. Petersen 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oregon climatologist

I added this:

In 2007, the Democratic Governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, and state Sen. Brad Avakian, worked to remove the title of State Climatologist from George Taylor due to his belief that human activities are not the main cause of global climate change. Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change. Tucker Carlson of MSNBC reported "The Democratic governor of that state has announced that he will trip George Taylor of his title for daring to question the causes of global warming. Keep in mind that the governor is not a scientist. He hasn‘t cited any dishonesty in Taylor‘s scholarship. He just doesn‘t think he ought to be allowed to disagree with the conventional wisdom on global warming."

Which clearly fits the definition: "The politicization of science occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted."

They are attempting to pass laws to influence the way the state climatologist reports and disseminates his research, they want a state climatologist who agrees with their views. Please tell me how you believe this does not fit the definition as presented. --Theblog 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Which clearly fits the definition" Only if one overlooks the glaring fact that Taylor is completely out of step with the scientific community on the topic. This is the Politicization of science article, not Politicization of pseudoscience. Your example is a counter example. FeloniousMonk 06:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a counterexample, it fits the definition (which is correct IMO), it should be included or the definition changed to something different. Would you switch the definition to: "The politicization of science occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research with findings outside of scientific consensus view, or influence the way the research with findings outside of consensus view is disseminated, reported or interpreted." ?? --Theblog 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a valid example at all, and I think FM presents the exact reason it isn't. Additionally, we don't redefine topics to include pet examples. Odd nature 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an invalid example because it's "out of step" but rather because he fails to present "the findings of scientific research." At least he fails to present any significant findings. Mrobfire 22:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point as well. Odd nature 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the state climatologist would present research now and then, but I changed the definition to fit the above comments by FM and ON and I am satisfied with it. --Theblog 23:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Snow

Original research removed from article:

In February 2007, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made the claim that the United States was doing better at reducing greenhouse gases than the European Union -- a claim that turned out to be based on a subset of a complete data set -- in this case from 2000 to 2004 alone. When the complete record from 1990 (the index year for the Kyoto Protocol) is used, emissions from the European Union dropped 15% while US emissions rose.

This is an argument that the White House politicized a research finding, right?

If we are to use this as an objective or neutral "example" of what politicization is, then we need to either:

Make it clear that the White House really did politicize the science (i.e., that it's not just some other partisan calling the kettle black; or,
Simply list it as an accusation of wrong-doing.

If we refrain from endorsing the accusation - which I think we have to do anyway, to be NPOV about it - then we should probably also include any rebuttals from the accused party. Unless of course Snow turned around and admitted he was guilty as charged. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Two people in a row have reverted my edits without giving an adequate explanation. Maybe if I explain my own edits in more detail, they will explain theirs?

The theme of the article is the politicization of science, which is the distortion of science and/or research results to promote a political or ideological theme. There weren't any clear examples of this which the majority of modern readers could understand.

Perhaps a reference to Galileo's problems with the ruling class in Italy 400 years ago? Their insistence on Aristotle and their refusal to look through a telescope?

Or how about the Soviets and Lysenkoism? A thoroughly discredited and clearly politically motivated example.

We can't just supply controversial claims made by one political side in the liberal-conservative battle as "examples", unless both sides are going to agree that "Yes, the science was distorted or disregarded here."

Misplaced Pages is not a place for liberal activism (or conservative activism).

Okay, I have explained the motivation for my edits at some length. Please, would the other two contributors do the same? (And preferably instead of "revert with a 6-word cryptic comment"? :-) --Uncle Ed 12:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I started fixing the global warming section, but that's going to open a whole can of worms. Marc Shepared accuses Gore and one other person of a specific instance of politicization in the American Thinker, but:

That's an entire article in itself: maybe we could call that the Singer-Revelle dispute.
Global warming is the worst possible example of politicization because (at least in America) our readers are split 50-50 on which side is doing the politicizing. Ellen Goodman reported that only 25% of Republicans think the science supports the environmental position, while 75% of Democrats think it does.

So I repeat my suggestion that we concentrate on historical examples where the dust has settled, i.e., it's not a topic of ongoing discussion or a plank in anyone's election platform or proposed legislation. --Uncle Ed 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply by one of the two ... in a row: your suggestion re: historical examples are fine, but that's not what you've done (OK - I see you're now doing that). The glaring change that caught my attention was your removal of mention of the section on intellegent design while leaving the references "hanging" (as mentioned in my edit summary) and with your recent reversion they are still "hanging". Also, your strong pov on these issues and your tendency to create pov spin-off articles such as the suggested Singer-Revelle dispute article above are problematic. So, let's discuss one edit at a time starting with your unexplained deletion of the intelligent design section and the "hanging refs" problem: explain please. Vsmith 14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's a way to mention current scientific controversies as "examples of politicization" without asserting that one side is "right" in the controversy, then ID and GW are okay. But there is so much accusation on each side that "we are right, THEY are politicizing" that I thought it would be better to take some unambiguous examples from history. I left the reference "hanging" (now I understand what that term means! :-) because I hoped someone like you would come along and want to find them. Leaving stuff 'in article history' makes it too hard to find. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that's nice of you - because I hoped someone like you would come along and want to find them. - such a kind gesture:) to leave unused references after deleting the content they were cited to support... your logic escapes me.

Yes, historical examples are always less controversial and should be included. But, deleting sourced content that you disagree with looks rather odd - especially when you leave the sources?? Vsmith 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Dennis Happer wrote:

The proponents of cold fusion in the United States used all those means in their quest for money and fame and standing. In the end, they failed because their claims were shown to be based on corrupt or misinterpreted experiments. While the debate was going on, at least one politician testified that scientists who expressed skepticism about cold fusion were unpatriotically inhibiting pursuit of the most important scientific breakthrough since the invention of fire. Worse, those who stood in the way of cold fusion were delaying development of a scientific breakthrough that would reverse many of the world’s environmental problems because it would provide pollution-free energy.

But before I go off half cocked, can anyone check me on whether cold fusion is a good example of politicization of science? I think we all know that it didn't pan out, but was it pseudoscience, junk science, or politicized science in any way? --Uncle Ed 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Happer's essay was an interesting read - and does provide insight into the historical politicization of Lysenkoism as well as an interesting take on the cold fusion bit. He does build a case for attempted politicization. Don't know if it is a good example, but worth considering. Happer's main point (I assume) of comparing Lysekoism and other evils with the global warming controversy seems a bit of a stretch - perhaps could be a bit of sour grapism? But, I'm wandering a bit here and perhaps misreading your point. In general, anytime money and politicians are involved - watch closely :-) Vsmith 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not touching the global warming controversy with a ten foot pole, other than to note that both sides accuse the other of politicizing the issue. I doubt the controversy will go away any time soon. Maybe in a couple of decades?

And I sadly predict if it ever "cools off" it will be due to some other political issue taking on greater prominence. I don't think science and politics will get untangled for a long time.

We need a renaissance of "objectivity" and intellectual honesty. We need a "climate" in which people willingly abandon their cherished POSITIONS on issues the moment they realize that the facts contradict their theories. That won't happen until people exalt logic, and kids start really liking math. --Uncle Ed 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Intellegent design tags

Why is this an id wikiproject article? Why the big tags at the top of this discussion page? Vsmith 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to global warming alarmism

They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism. NY Times
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Richard Lindzen

How many more refs do we need to support the sentence about "decrying alarmism"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and put them in!Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your citations don't seem to support the point. One is an editorial of one skeptic who seems to be claiming alarmism in climate science. The other is in regards to how Al Gore's scientific audience was alarmed by his alarmism. Perhaps you should include a note about how climate scientists who subscribe to AGW are put-off by Al Gore's alarmism. johnpseudo 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the links could be useful, but if they are to be used, they should be worked into the article in a specific context.Athene cunicularia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as these references all come from the same limited group of sceptics - that have been vocal about this again and again - the credibility of their views as being more than a fringe minority is seriously in doubt. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute

A bunch of us are reverting each others changes wholesale, on the ground that the other guy's edits are POV.

Perhaps some of us could list these POV edits here. For example, the use of a definition by a Hoover Institution author in the intro? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just reworked this entire article—and it sorely needed it—to make it more concise and focused. If anyone as a problem with the first line of the article, please work on that line—don't revert the entire thing. It reflects bad faith and laziness on your part.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And personally, I don't see a problem using Hoover. It seems to me that using Hoover helps, since virtually every modern instance cited involves a criticism of the Bush admin. There is no reason why this article can't be neutral, and the definition provided by Hoover sums up Politicization accurately. It seems like this is a weird point of contention.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what. I removed the link to Hoover. I think that there are enough other articles cited in this page that the definition does not actually need its own source. Everyone okay with that?Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The recent changes by Ed Poor and Athena were highly not neutral not only beacuse they rely on a partisan source, the deeply conservative Hoover Institute, to define the topic that conservatives have had many problems with, they removed notable conservative examples policization of science like ID. That's promoting a conservative view if there ever was one.

On a related note Ed Poor is on arbcomm probation for POV promotion and disruption, I suggest reading Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2. There it documents his method of appearing reasonable while relentlessly promoting a particular POV. If that turns out to be the case here I have no qualms at all about taking the recent actions by Ed and his friend here back to the arbcomm for clarification. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the edits I made and please try to incorporate them onto this page? I did a lot to improve the article. I don't care at all about Hoover. I'm just trying to make a better article. It pisses me off that I'm somehow being caught up in a personality conflict between two people. The only reason I'm involved here is because 64.237.4.140 (talk) keeps reverting the ENTIRE text of my edit because he or she disagrees with ONE thing.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed's version vs Athene's. Exact same definition, using the same source, and removing the same bits. I don't know what else to call it other than supporting his original version. This is a content dispute started when someone sanctioned for biased editing and disruption attempted a not neutral major rewrite of the article without first discussing it rather than a personality dispute insofar as one can separate Ed's problematic editing from his personality. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version that I want to use.

Can you point out where your problems are? I really think it is better than the article in its current state.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed deleted mention of intelligent design, which is an important recent/current example of religious/political interference with science, without comment, but for some reason left the references for that deleted section "hanging". This was a bit of odd POV pushing by deletion. When I questioned him about it, he responded that he left the refs for "someone to find"??? and sidestepped the ID issue. Athene's edits supported this odd deletion. Ed then brought in the Hoover.org essay which looks basically like an attempt to connect the global warming issue (and the climatologists involved) with the Stalinist Lysenko debacle. I view this as an attempted smear tactic in support of his (Ed Poor) POV. Athene supported this tactic.

The historical section promoted by Ed and Athene in itself is not problematic and should be included in some form - but not in place of the ID section as Ed seems intent on doing. So, keep the emphasis on current or recent examples with a short section on historical examples perhaps at the end, linked to their respective articles. Vsmith (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If I deleted the ID section, I did so accidentally, or it was not present in the article when I began to edit. Reverting all of my changes didn't help me to realize this at all, though. Instead, it made me think that I was being slighted. I have no problem including ID in this article.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I was not following this article before 14:07, 5 December 2007, when I made my first edit, so I was unaware of the disputes that were going on. I made my edits in good faith, Ed and I did not communicate on how the article should be written. Not at all. You can see the details of any communication between Ed and me on my Talk page.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do see what's happening, though. It looks like a combination of 64.237.4.140 stalking Ed Poor and intentionally reverting his edits, and Ed using me to further his ambitions. I will continue to watch this article, though, because I want to improve it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith, perhaps you did not notice my edit comment when I deleted the ID section:

ID is not a good example - at best, it's not even typical. Try environmental or safety issues diff from Nov. 22

In any case, I have no objection to restoring the section. I perhaps ought to have been more clear about why I was leaving in the references: I didn't want to delete ALL of the ID section, and was hoping to find some way to work it back into the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing: I don't want to "use" anyone, so if the locking admin will kindly unlock the article, I will refrain from further reverts. Moreover, I will discuss each edit before making it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of this one. I feel like I may have been tricked. Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't recall seeing that edit summary. Would likely have taken issue with it had I noticed - as the ID bit is a vaild example, though maybe not typical as it involves religeon as well as politics. More in line with the church vs Galileo bit maybe.

I didn't want to delete ALL of the ID section, and was hoping to find some way to work it back into the article. Er... excuse me, but I see no evidence of that. Vsmith (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Far too early to be unlocking the article given the shenanigans I've seen here. No, better let things cool down. Ed, I suggest you find another, less controversial article to edit. You've disrupted this one enough, I'm far too many complaints about your edits and method of participating here. I'm going to have to keep an eye on this page and article it seems. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You ought to recuse yourself, because you have edited this article in the past, taking out stuff which doesn't accord with your own POV.

For example, you removed the Taylor example. How was this not political? Does your personal definition of politicized science exclude using political pressure to silence scientists who are skeptical of the prevailing scientific view? If so, that would invalidate the Galileo example, because he was the only one in Italy defending the mobility of the earth. It would also invalidate the Lysonkoism example, for the same reason.

Or is it only politicization if a church or government ever opposed what is currently the scientific consensus?

Anyway, the current intro defines it as follows:

... use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted.

California stripped Taylor of his state climatologist title, because (in your words):

"taylor did not represent the scientific majority view ... it's a counter example, taylor's view is the opposite of the scientific community's on the topic"

I don't know what it was a counterexample of, back in July. But it is clearly a prime example of influencing the reporting of "the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view". --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have other plans. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

Both versions seem to have good elements. The version that is currently not on the page has what look like to me to be important historical examples that should likely receive mention. Is it possible to include both sets of examples in a consensus version? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just adding the new examples of Galileo and the Catholic Church and Wheat production and the Soviet Union to the existing examples without making changes to the section names or structure seen in the version of Ed and Athene is fine with me. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I only picked the Hoover Institute / Marshall Institute quote because (1) it seemed scholarly and objective; and (2) it showed up in the first 10 Google hits when I was looking for a general definition.

If there is a reason you disagree with Michael Gough's definition of "manipulating science for political gain" please say what it is. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem Ed, the Hoover Institute, given their political leanings is far from objective. In fact, a point no doubt you already know, the Hoover Institute is wholly partisan. I wish you wouldn't try rewriting articles relying on partisan sources, it's very disruptive for me, you, and the community. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? How is adding a sourced definition which agrees with the unsourced definition an instance of "rewriting articles relying on partisan sources"?

Is the problem that "manipulating science for political gain" is too short a definition to cover all the cases mentioned in the article? Or are you just upset to discover that there is agreement on both sides of the political fence on what politicization is - even if the two sides disagree about recent issues?

I had planned (before the article was protected) to make a list of various definitions, with a view to letting readers determine whether the liberals and anti-Bush sources you seem to prefer agree in principle with the other sources you claim I am "pushing".

All I want is a neutral article. If the two sides agree, we should point this out or at least give the reader enough information to figure this out for himself. If the two sides disagree, we really ought to describe both sides of the controversy fairly.

Oh, but is it your POV that their is an aspect of artificial controversy to this? Is it the POV of the side you're pushing that "there is no controversy among scientists" on various topics? And are you afraid that if you allow information into Misplaced Pages which contradicts this POV, that people won't support your side?

Despite what you have claimed about me, I have never pushed for any particular POV at Misplaced Pages. I have abided by a very unfair probation for an entire year. All I want to do is point out consensus when all significant sources agree, and describe disputes and controversies where there is anywhere from a 50-50 split to a significant minority vs. a mainstream.

I'm not using Misplaced Pages to assert that the minority is true, like those original research advocates at cold fusion. Why don't you go and straighten those guys out instead of mischaracterizing my NPOV efforts as "disruption"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Go back and take a look at your edits from 1 Dec. to 3 Dec. (some 21 edits in a row) You not only used the Hoover Inst for a def, but included a large Happer quote (Hoover Inst essay) in the intro and another as your Lysekoism section. In addition during that time and before you deleted sourced info about the ID controversy (do you have a pov there?) and suggested the global warming section should be eliminated as: "not a clear example" (surely you have no pov there...) Also you renewed an old tactic by making a red link to ] an article you knew very well didn't exist - reminds me of old POV fork problems, I know - AGF, of course you weren't planning that. Then there is the ] spin-off or POV fork suggested by you above on this page. Of course you have never pushed for any particular POV at Misplaced Pages, and wouldn't think of that now. That final diversionary tactic of pointing to problems elsewhere is irrelevant here. Vsmith (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with putting back ID and global warming, if you think these are good examples. I like history better than current events, because Galileo and Lysenkoism aren't controversial any more. (Both sides of the global warming controversy use Galileo as an example, and I think conservatives and environmentalists agree that Lysenkoism was an example of "manipulating science for political gain."

Anyway, I'm not planning any future edits on this page without discussing them first.

Why don't we unfreeze the article now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DDT

Let's not forget the US ban on DDT. It was political, according to the EPA administrator who banned it:

In his 40-page Final Opinion, handed down on June 2, 1972, he omitted most scientific data, misnamed the major chemicals involved, and proposed that farmers should use organophosphates, like carbaryl, instead. (Carbaryl is not an organophosphate). He also recommended substituting parathion, a very deadly chemical, for DDT. He later wrote that in such decisions the ultimate judgement remains political (W. Ruckelshaus, letter to American Farm Bureau President Allan Grant, April 26, 1979).

Either that, or this source simply made it up. How can we track this down?

If this source is correct, this would be a good example of the politicization of science by Republicans (Nixon was in office then). --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's a particular point of view, one not benefiting from much consensus in the scientific community. We need to be circumspect here about the source. I see you've been active on the DDT article about this as, which bears some looking in to. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What does WP:WEIGHT say about minority points of view? That they should be excluded in all cases, or that if they are held by a significant minority with prominent adherents they can be added without violating any WP rules?

You tell me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change

We can use this link to support the section on climate change: Study Finds White House Manipulation on Climate Science - Christian Science Monitor Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a decent secondary source. We'll add it once the article is unprotected. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed simplification of definition

Current lead sentence:

The politicization of science occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted.

Proposed lead sentence:

Politicization of science is the use of pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. It most often occurs when government, business or interest groups apply legal or economic pressure.

The reason I prefer this rewording is that it (1) provides a general definition of "politicization" which all sides can agree with, while it (2) distinguishes the types of pressure from the act of using pressure to get influence.

Now, where am I going with this? I would like to provide examples of governments in history, beginning with the Catholic Church as a sort of government (they had the power to summon, to try, to sentence, so they pass the "quacks like a duck test"); plus the USSR.

Then I would like to invite other writers to chime in with other examples, from history or current events.

In case of subjects which are hotly debated (especially those in the last decade or two), I wonder if we might call these "controversies" rather "examples". We could present both sides of each controversy in summary with a {{main}} link to existing "spin-off" articles on topics like Intelligent Design and the global warming controversy.

Since some contributors to this article have insisted that I make no edits without prior discussion, I invite discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Current issus like stem cell research

Should we present only one viewpoint on the Bush administration? Or maybe include at least a pro forma denial?

The Bush administration was quick to dispute Carmona. "It has always been this administration's position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science," Bill Hall, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told the Times.

The surgeon general "is the leading voice for the health of all Americans," Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, told the newspaper. "It's disappointing to us," Lawrimore said, "if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation."

I'm not going to insert this, unless it is clarified whether we are using Bush as (1) an example of politicization or (2) a case where there is a dispute over whether Bush is politicizing.

The historical examples are clear cut and undisputed. Is the case of Bush equally clear cut? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and ID

Anticipating a possible revert - instead of cooperation on a balanced section - I have a few comments.

I think we'll all agree that either (A) Only one side is "politicizing" the issue or that (B) Both sides are politicizing the issue. The agreed-upon definition involves "using legal power" to influence the "presentation" of scientific knowledge.

So either:

Evolution proponents and/or ID opponents have used legal power to influence presentation of scientific knowledge about evolution; or,
The opposite side has done this, i.e., evolution opponents and ID proponents; or,
Both sides have done this.

I'm not sure whether having an administrator read out a statement, saying a particular theory is "not a fact" and that students are free to make up their minds, constitutes using legal power. But taking a school district to court certainly is.

So #1 has to be true, at least. And if #2 is true, then it's both sides and thus #3 is true.

Comments, anybody? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you're engaging in original research. We're just going stick to what the best sources say on the matter, and they say supporters of ID and other forms of creationism have tried to politiicize science. This was a highly biased and unsupportable edit based on your original research, I support reverting it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would do two things. (1) Stop accusing me of breaking rules, and just show me WHY you disagree with my edits. That will save time all around. (2) Follow the rules about assuming good faith.

Clearly, both sides are saying that the other side is politicizing science about creationism, ID and evolution.

... many scientists ... have been harassed and denied tenure by their colleagues, despite overwhelming scientific credentials, because they either dissent from Darwinism or the larger worldview of materialism.
These include scientists like evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg—formerly a staff scientist at the National Institutes of Health and a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History—who according to a Congressional staff report had his office access denied, his political and religious beliefs questioned, and false rumors spread about him by government scientists and bureaucrats all in an effort to discredit him and force his resignation. They thought he might even be a Republican! His crime: Merely allowing a peer-reviewed article favorable to intelligent design to be published in a biology journal he edited.

Would you agree that the Sterberg case was an instance of using power (legal or economic) to influence a scientific finding or its presentation? If you don't agree, then what sort of reference is needed then? A direct quote from someone saying, "I think the Sternberg case shows that supporters of evolution have tried to politicize science"?

Is that all it takes? A bald assertion? Or must the assertion be backed up with an example? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly, both sides are saying that the other side is politicizing science" Yes, but both sides are not equal as sources both fact and experience has borne out, Ed. It's an obvious distinction which you time and again fail to make either intentionally or unintentionally. Intentionally, in my opinion, considering you are repeating the very same problems here that caused the community so much disrupition in the past and earned you probation for tendentious editing and disruption. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I get it: you're saying that you agree with one side and disagree with the other side because the other side is not a reliable source. And you think that this is so obvious that to disagree with you amounts to disrupting the consensus.

I simply see it as you using your endorsement of one side as an excuse to demonize the other side. And I guess we'll have to leave it at that, unless the Misplaced Pages community decides to support me in dispute resolution.

Unless I see that happening, I'll just have to chalk it up to the triumph of a "truth in numbers" mentality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you think the viewpoint of the ID/creationist community is on par with that of the scientific community, in the process ignoring the 'undue weight' and 'Giving "equal validity"' clauses of WP:NPOV. Therein lies your problem, and in turn ours with the sum of your participation here, Ed. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

References for scientists squelched with legal or economic power

Stephen C. Meyer ... protested a professor's being punished for criticizing Darwin in class. New York Times - August 21, 2005

Please read the reference and tell me if I have quoted the New York Times in context about whether a professor was punished for criticizing Darwin in class.

If I have the story correct, then is this an instance of "government ... using ... legal pressure to influence the way is ... reported or interpreted"?

Or is this original research on my part? Sometimes a conclusion is obvious, but other times Wikipedians are not allowed to say that 2+2=4. If I've overreached here, maybe someone can help me find an outside authority who calls firing a professor "politicization". --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, both you and I already know that Meyer is a highly partisan source for a tiny minority point of view, and as such your intended use of it violates WP:UNDUE. Please stop wasting the community's time here with tendentious arguments, you are falling into the same pattern of WP:POINT disruption ("Anticipating a possible revert...") outlined in your arbitration probation. Testing the limits here is not contributing positively to the community. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was using the New York Times as a source. Once again, I ask you if I have quoted the news story correctly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a misleading statement. You're actually using Meyer being cited by the NYT as the source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank for pointing that out. I may have misread it. Somehow I thought NYT said that "a professor" was "punished for criticizing Darwin in class". You have pointed out that NYT was merely quoting Meyers about that alleged act.

Maybe there are other sources than the NYT who say that "a professor was punished"; I'll dig into it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that Meyer helped form the DI and founded its anti-evolution Center for Science and Culture, and was working at the evangelical Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University at the time, I take his claim that he was "recruited by Discovery after he protested a professor's being punished for criticizing Darwin in class" with more than a pinch of salt. The fact that this "professor" is unnamed, reduces its credibility even further. Hrafn_Stalk 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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:

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

Categories: