Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

[Think Free]

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.htmlHere's an excellent article written by Michael Crichton on why politicized science is dangerous. (Another lesson to learn from the tale is why blind faith in scientific consensus is dangerous.)

 

The article was published in the back of his book, State of Fear.

[Chad Mitchell]

excellent point, one of my few criticisms of Stef has always been that in some cases (global warming) he will acknowledge how politics has distorted science in a given area, but then turn around and defend vaccines as the end all be all even in today's highly fascist vaccine industry. I'm sure there is good science behind vaccines as a basic level, but efficacy and safety should come into question when you have Government protecting vaccine makers by paying off their victims. It's a moral hazard that is created for the industry, because there is no market accountability.

[mshidden]

It's always a danger, their is no substitute for critical thinking, and skepticism. You have to do the work, and when you are wrong, you need to celebrate the fact you found this big mistake.    We can not be error intolerant.  Mistakes are wonderful things because it means we have learned something new, the only real mistake is not learning from are mistakes.  "My best friends point out my mistakes, my enemies let me wallow in my Illusions, and delusions" Mark Hidden.  

[Livemike]

When exactly was the central idea behind eugenics discredited?  The fact is that many people can survive and breed in the modern world that would not be able to in previous centuries.  That's a good thing.  The fact that people 1 and even 2 standard deviations below average intelligence don't starve by the millions is a positive feature of modernity.  But the fact remains that with practically no selective pressures bad genes don't get weeded out.  In fact those who clearly don't handle their lives well tend to have more children.  Who is more likely to have children, the welfare queen who gets more money from them, or the up-and-coming career women who loses seniority and pay every time she gives birth?

[ribuck]

There's no such thing as "politicized science", which is really just politics. We do science a dis-service by using that term, which implies that it's still science when it has been politicized.

[Think Free]

There's no such thing as "politicized science", which is really just politics. We do science a dis-service by using that term, which implies that it's still science when it has been politicized.

 

This is just semantics. You're not wrong, but I don't see how this will help. Certainly the majority of people perceive what you call "just politics" to be "science."

[Think Free]

When exactly was the central idea behind eugenics discredited?

 

Exactly. The rise and fall of eugenics as "science" was political. But that's not occurring anywhere today... right?