Monday, November 26, 2012
Asking Alex Berezow: Why has science become so political? Read more: Asking Alex Berezow: Why has science become so political?
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2012/sep/24/alex-berezow-politics-modern-science/ Due 3 December 2012. What do you think? Remember to keep an economics perspective.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with Alex Berezow. Just like economics, science too is vulnerable to the manipulation tactics of politician. Politicians today are using science to gain an extra stride for their particular agenda, and it needs to stop. Science needs to be a non-partisan issue. Science is supposed to be an objective issue, and should me viewed as so by the people leading this nation. If we allow science to become even more politicized than it already is, we as a nation could lose our credulity. Science needs to remain untouched by politics. It is permissible and encourages arguing the ethical issues surrounding science today because in fact that’s how progress is actually made, and that type of a discussion leads to an actual intellectual discourse. But what should not be tolerated is denying proven research on the basis that it goes against your party's belief, or that it would hurt your stock portfolio.
ReplyDeleteThis article was extremely interesting in how it talked about science, and the manipulation politics has on it. This manipulation can be paralleled with economics because it seems the two opposing sides in politics always have different numbers and research that aid their own agendas, but seem to be skewed to convince the public they are the correct party. However, like science, economics is not about taking sides, it’s about right and wrong, fact rather than opinion. In economics and science, it is about the pursuit of knowledge and the study of our society’s inner workings, not changing numbers for a politician. Due to this, they both must be separated from politics, in order for everyone to get unbiased data which can help us make the right decisions. How could we do this if that data being collected is already tainted by the opposing politicians trying to convince the public into believing them? It just doesn’t work when science and politics are fused together as one.
ReplyDeleteThis article was wonderful to read in that it confirmed my personal belief that scientific thought and study is being clouded by politics. The idea that science needs to compensate and extend to both sides of the political spectrum is ludicrous because this is not how science should, or actually does, behave. However, due to the need for science to fit all political arguments, the facts often become misconstrued in political discourse. Of course, this is because politicians know the effect it has on the public. They attempt to morph scientific fact to their own views and use that as a basis for their policies. This is incredibly similar to economics. Both science and economics are, by their own nature, not subject to such changes. They are matters of simple fact, and can not be changed from that. Yet, politicians are notorious for morphing economic occurrences to suit their own political agendas. It seems the same thing is also occurring in the field of science.
ReplyDeleteAlex Berezow has many interesting points on politics and many controversial issues. He argues about the positives and negatives about all of the issues. For example in the article, Berezow talks about how organic food has antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, the public believes organic food is completely flawless and there are no cons to it. In addition, he speaks about science journalism politics and about the Conservative ideas about science. Another political problem he speaks about is the embryonic stem cell research. He has no exact point on the topic he believes the presidents do not put money towards it. However, he believes the embryos in the freezers all over the country could make progress if scientists had the authority to use them.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Alex Berezow has many people that do not agree with him and his points but he does have some very interesting and good points. All the points he talks about have positive and negative points to them but people dont understand that. He also talks about science and stem cell research and how the president does not put any money towards the research. He also says politicians manipulate science and scientific ideas and I agree with that because we as the people dont always get to see everything.
ReplyDeleteAlex Berezow stated many parallels between science and politics. First, he commented that many politicians tend to use science to support their viewpoints, regardless of the credibility, which influences the views of the public. Many important scientific subjects are linked to conflicting beliefs, so politicians recognize this as an opportunity to win votes. Thus, science turns into political arguments, including global warming,stem cell research, organic foods, etc.
ReplyDeleteAlex Berezow has many good points on politics and science. He says that today's politicians use science to back up their claims even though they are completely wrong in their claim. Climate change is one of the worlds main problems right now as Cotto has explained and i believe that yes it would be a good idea to not implement the "cap and trade" policy but instead try to encourage the use of "greener" sources of power to reduce the impact that humans have on the world. Stem cells are another topic that i agree with Berezow on because stem cells were the way we found some of the most revolutionary discoveries in the medical field like bone marrow transplants and etc. To me Berezow makes many good points concerning science and the environment and he also made 1 or 2 controversial ones.
ReplyDeleteI think science has become so political because Everyone likes to get both sides of the story. "science" is the "factual" part or the truth of the story that people like to use to make decisions or to form opinions. Also because politicians like to claim science supports their viewpoints even if they are completely wrong. Science has been used the wrong way by political officials and the result is the loss of knowledge and the manipulation of policies, and money.
ReplyDeleteI think Alex Berezow knows what's up. Science is just like economics. Science is easily manipulated by politicians. Politicians use science to boost their rhetorical strategies. That's completely wrong. Science shouldn't be used in a subjective manner. The people of this nation shouldn't look at it like that, either. We can't continue to use science in that manner. Science should not be approached by the bias of politics. It's especially wrong when you deny the facts of science on the basis of, "that's not what my beliefs are."
ReplyDeletePeople are starting to believe that science is becoming more political; however, in my eyes science has always been political. The word politics means the "science" or conduct of government. Politicians, knowing that meaning, automatically include science in what they "believe", as a back up of what they claim. "Third, politicians like to claim science supports their viewpoints, even if they are completely wrong. Finally, when scientists become political activists, that tends to undermine the credibility of science in the eyes of the public." Especially in today's world with science and technology everywhere. I understand that science and scientists are not evenly divided on a topic, usually there is an answer for everything but the manipulation of politics has its way of starting controversy, ending with science becoming more political.
ReplyDeleteAlex Berezow makes very interesting points especially when comparing politics to science. Many politicians tend to use science when making arguments to make their claim seem more factual because science has always clarified our wonders. Also the fact that many people do not believe in 'science' proves to be a gateway for winning votes and populations because they can mold this into what the audience's ears desire to hear. This relates to economics in the sense that economics are being manipulated to create an effect on the public that politicians want, just like in science.
ReplyDeleteAlex Berezow highlights the role that science plays in politics, including its use by politicians to make their claims more "credible". Science is viewed as an unbiased source of knowledge so, by their logic, basing claim off of it makes their points come across as being more factual. Because many are misinformed or not aware of many scientific facts, they will simply adhere to some manipulations that are proposed by politicians. They do this to back their claims while still having factual proof. This has played a key role in winning votes of the public. This is similar to what is happening with economics, because the public is misinformed, information can be manipulated to make claims more factual and win votes from the uneducated public.
ReplyDeleteScience has been made a political issue over the years with politicians using it to their advantage to gain the upper hand- of course, in my opinion. Many try to manipulate science to better appeal to the public but in doing this, they can be very misleading and only tells the public what it wants to hear. Sometimes, the public can be won over by only providing them with a small number of facts. In this way, science is manipulated and loses its value.
ReplyDeleteThis article provided a lot of insight on a subject that some non-partisan institutions are reluctant to bring up. To answer the question of why science has become majorly partisan, we must look at the American political system today. Each party is looking for a following of people who staunchly agree with their side; mostly due to the fact that scientific evidence and research can be easily skewed and misrepresented albeit is objective nature as a subject. Empirically we can see that the Republicans are very quick to impose the Christian idealology that they stand for into their legislation so they inevitably use pathological rhetoric to skew the results, thus attracting voters (I.E the immorality of stem cell research); whereas the Democrats, arguing for heavy regulation, look to skew the evidence on alternative energy to attract the followers to vote for them. The crux of my argument is that as the world turns and technology becomes more advanced, science becomes more prevalent and the political parties choose to adopt it in their policies and their campaigns to incur more and more voters to support them. The same principle rang true in the 1860s when the entire presidential campaign was center around the topic of slavery and expansion, because it was topical and relevant to the time frame, the civil war. Now looking at this economically, we can immediately notice that the same thing that is happening to science has been happening to economics. Both science and economics are very objective topics and, by the ludicrous nature of politics, are being misused for the benefit of occupying powerful positions in government. So what’s our solution? Well, many of us voters really don’t have much of a say as to how the political parties create legislation and plan their campaigns. All we must do is cast our votes and hope that whoever we vote for will be the candidate that best represents our beliefs. Should science be so partisan? No. However, can it help us develop better as a nation? Of course, just look at what came from the Lincoln-Douglas debates during the Civil War!
ReplyDeleteThis article was an awesome read, I really enjoyed it. Berezow brings up points that need to be discussed and put in the spotlight more often. It is essential that the United
ReplyDeleteStates keep science away from any type of political corruption in order to maintain some type of credibility. Because science is factual and human being's seek to be rational, when scientific "fact" is presented to them they usually do not question it. Due to this many politicians manipulate science to win over votes. Economics is a subject matter very similar to science in this approach. Just as science economics must also be separated from corruption so that facts are not manipulated. When you live in a country in which you can not decipher the facts from the folly, you have hit rock bottom. I believe both science and economics should both be subjects that politicians shouldn't really touch on or have any type of significant influence over.
This article to be extremely interesting, informative, and correct. It tells about the different ways that politics skews scientific research. It lets us know about common misconceptions and how nothing is no longer as it seems. Politicians often claim that science supports their views even when it doesn't, which without anyone actively informing the public that what the politicians say are false, they win elections and votes on false information. The problem with this is that, if scientists take an active role in politics, science is undermined, because science is supposed to be pure and unbiased while politics are clearly biased. It helps us understand the problems facing us with anything we want to learn through science and new discoveries.
ReplyDeleteJaime Caldaro
ReplyDeleteThe use of science has been made a political issue over the years with politicians using it to their advantage to gain the upper hand. Many try to manipulate science to better appeal to the public but in doing this, they can be very misleading and only tells the public what it wants to hear. Sometimes, the public can be won over by only providing them with a small number of facts. In this way, science is manipulated and loses its value.