Why has Science Become Politicized?

The left side of the political spectrum always paints the right as anti science and anti intellectual. I have found that to be not true and to be incredibly misleading. While it is true that there are people on the right who are fundamental Christians that do reject science, that doesn't make the right anti science anymore than it does the left. I find it fascinating and incredibly hypocritical for someone like Bill Nye to go on TV and disparage people for being skeptical about the 97% consensus on climate change and call those people science deniers, when he goes onto his new show and makes claims and has segments in which the argument is that there is no such thing as biological sex.

Science has become so politicized that it is almost impossible to criticize and disagree with a scientist or a scientific theory when it is discussed without being labeled a science denier. Science however, in certain cases is not set in stone nor is it concrete. There are certain scientific studies that have been proven to be fact, such as gravity and Newton's laws of motion. But, other scientific ideas such as evolution and the big bang theory, even though I think they have merit, are just that, theories. I am not saying that I don't find science to be helpful or not intellectual. We would be centuries behind if it were not for science. But I am sick and tired of people treating science like this new secular religion, where if you disagree with anything science says then you are a heretic and must be destroyed. Last time I checked the whole point of science and intellectualism was to question everything and to be skeptical about everything.

The point I am trying to get at is that science has become so politicized that the ideas of science and the ideas brought out by science sometimes lose their meaning. I am not saying that Scientists can't have opinions, but if you want to give a real unbiased opinion on something then scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye need to stop bringing their political opinions into the mix and be honest with the people they are supposed to be teaching.

 

The Koch Brothers and others in the fossil fuel industry have bought legislators like Pruitt.
They seek to undermine science because it interferes with profits.
They have an "alternate reality" built where black skies are good for you, fish floating belly-up are easier to catch, et cetera.
Campaign "donations" (bribes) are typically aimed at GOP candidates, since as a party, they have denied global warming and mention "Job-killing regulations" that have cleaned the air and streams.

 

The religious right denies climate change and evolution.
The social justice left denies that IQ tests measure intelligence and that intelligence is heritable.
People will pick and choose what they want to believe from the scientific community.

 

I do not deny that there are greedy people out there who will deny things or do things immorally that benefit themselves and their wallets. But that doesn't mean we have to treat science as this new secular religion that must never be questioned, and the scientists as there "priests". The point that I am trying to get at is that science has become this politicized pool of hypocritical people that go around preaching and proselytizing their world view on others and anyone who falls astray from what they view as right or good is a heretic that must be ousted and publically dismissed. I am merely saying that we need to bring skepticism and intellectualism back to science and de politicize it.

 

when the Right denies Evolution, they have politicized science.

 

The point of my argument is that not all science is hard fact and not all of it is set in stone. But yet people will treat science and scientists as being right about everything and if you question them then you are an idiot who must be destroyed. I want to stop this and bring skepticism back.

 

That is true, to some of the religious right. But you do know that evolution is just a theory right. That doesn't make it hard fact that makes it a theory. I am not saying I don't believe in evolution, I am just saying it doesn't mean that it's illogical to question it.

 

Science is so politicized that this number is a made up percentage, there is no list anywhere of every scientist to be able to calculate such a claim, and EVERYONE uses it - even those criticizing science for being politicized.

Seriously. It's that bad.

 

Thanks for telling me I didn't even know that.

 

you don't understand what a Scientific Theory is.

its based on evidence, findings, and replicable analysis.

but, if we follow YOU logic, the following Scientific Theories aren't facts, just "theories"

• cell theory,
• 
  
• modern evolutionary synthesis,
• 
  
• germ theory,
• 
  
• particulate inheritance theory,
• 
  
• dual inheritance theory
• collision theory,
• kinetic theory of gases,
• Lewis theory,
• molecular theory,
• molecular orbital theory,
• transition state theory,
• valence bond theory
• atomic theory,
• Dynamo theory,
• perturbation theory,
• theory of relativity,
• quantum field theory
• plate tectonics theory

 

Not everything is set in stone, sure, but there are many things that are almost universally agreed upon within the scientific community that have little to do with morality and values. Many of the things that are "not set in stone" are at such a high level and require such a high degree of scientific literacy that they are essentially inaccessible to the general public.

There's two groups at play here- charlatans who pose as representatives of "Science!" and the demagogues who promote their subjective values within the cult of "Science!". Both exploit the natural divide between the public and scientists that exists because of how complex and specialized research is. Both are harmful towards public trust in science and the scientific community as a whole.

That doesn't mean that skepticism in the scientific community for the average person is intrinsically healthy.

 

fair enough

 

again, you have NO idea what a Scientific Theory is.

or are you actually gonna tell us that the following Scientific Theories, may just be bunk?

• Biology: cell theory, modern evolutionary synthesis, germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
• Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
• Physics: atomic theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
• Other: plate tectonics theory

 

I mean they are theories. And I could be wrong but last time I checked theories were not set in stone. I believe that when something becomes a fact in science it becomes a law. I could be wrong about this though but that's my understanding.

 

The best example of demagogues using "Science!" to advance their political agenda is in the use of the "97% of scientists agree climate change is man made" statistic. Most often you will see people on the left construe that statistic to mean "97% all scientists believe in climate change". The difference is subtle yet incredibly relevant- scientists are by trade very literal people. Just because a scientist agrees climate change is man-made doesn't mean they agree it's an impending danger to civilization towards which immediate action must be taken. When someone says they "believe in climate change", that's generally what they mean.

I haven't seen anyone poll the scientific community for that question yet, but I suspect it would yield much less politically impressive results.

 

I know. Thank you. Some one reasonable about this finally...lol

 

your understanding is 100% wrong

The Theory of Relativity, is correct.

we know its correct. the atomic bomb proves its correct.

observed time displacement proves its correct.


...and yet its still just a "theory".

 

the·o·ry
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN
theories (plural noun)

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

 

LOL!!!!

that's not the definition of a "Scientific Theory".



try again bro.

 

No one has said that but it is the attitude that a lot of people, especially people on the left have towards people who question science.

 

you're just making things up.

like the definition of a Scientific Theory.

LOL!!!!

 

No one has said that, but it is the attitude that a lot of people will have if you question scientists, especially people on the left.

 

You're fine, dude. Just remember the smugness and vote nationalist.

The left hasn't realized that for most, "appeal to authority" comes off as "the guys responsible bragging".

 

do you admit that Scientific Theory is not the same thing as regular laymen's "theory"?