Scientific American: 'Antiscience' jeopardizes democracy

It is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be antiscience. For some two centuries science was a preeminent force in American politics, and scientific innovation has been the leading driver of U.S. economic growth since World War II. Kids in the 1960s gathered in school cafeterias to watch moon launches and landings on televisions wheeled in on carts. Breakthroughs in the 1970s and 1980s sparked the computer revolution and a new information economy. Advances in biology, based on evolutionary theory, created the biotech industry. New research in genetics is poised to transform the understanding of disease and the practice of medicine, agriculture and other fields.

The Founding Fathers were science enthusiasts. Thomas Jefferson, a lawyer and scientist, built the primary justification for the nation's independence on the thinking of Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon and John Locke—the creators of physics, inductive reasoning and empiricism. He called them his “trinity of three greatest men.” If anyone can discover the truth by using reason and science, Jefferson reasoned, then no one is naturally closer to the truth than anyone else. Consequently, those in positions of authority do not have the right to impose their beliefs on other people. The people themselves retain this inalienable right. Based on this foundation of science—of knowledge gained by systematic study and testing instead of by the assertions of ideology—the argument for a new, democratic form of government was self-evident.

Continue reading at www.scientificamerican.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

petroskhan

Marginally interesting article. I used to have a lot more respect for SciAm than I do now.

By the way, when did "Scientific American" translate into a political forum?
WadeH

Honestly, I think too much politics and money has entered the scientific community and not science. Take global warming for instance and set aside for a moment if the earth is warming and its cause. Look at the controversy of data tampering to prove it and the $$$ people like Al Gore are set to make in proving it is true. And look at stem cell research. Few results have been found using embryonic stem cell research, but many have been found with adult stem cell research. But what approach is pushed? Embryonic stem cell research. And when it comes to evolution, no one really knows for sure. Yes, there are theories for and against and some in between and each has strong points as well as issues. But then as I get to the end of the article I see that this looks like a science VS religion arguement. Then Mr. Otto uses the label "antiscience conservatives" (page 5) making the assumption that those who are antiscience are conservative. Mr. Otto this is a very political and un-scientific assumption. And goes to prove my point about politics in the scientifc community. So how can the general public trust the scientific community when we see how politics and money motivate and influence the findings you present?
- mallen11
  
  Right you are and people forget the following…
  
  The
  Ozone layer is designed to take all of the pollution of the universe even
  volcanoes
  
  Volcanoes fill the earth with
  billions particles and have to go up and be sorted out. These particles are made up of S02
  and C02 and have to be converted into 02 before they
  return to the earth. The ozone layer
  thickens or thins according to the conversion of these particles. They do not pollute the earth and they go up
  thousands of miles into space and change into oxygen.
  
  Then
  if anything gets through that system there is the Van Allen radiation belt which handles the rest of it
  and man benefits from it.
  
  Man
  can’t squirt the earth and destroy it.
  
  Man
  trashes the earth but can’t destroy it or our solar system.
  
  That
  is reserved for Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 3:7 But by His word the present
  heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the Day of Judgment and
  destruction of ungodly men.
  - bighoss
    
    You apparently are in line with the ridiculous concept articulated by the blowhard lardbag, Rush Limbaugh, who has said–and I quote–"The earth is infinitely resilient." Well, it is not infinitely resilient and it can not sustain an unlimited amount of the abuse created by humans.
    - mallen11
      
      Apparently, you are not as smart as I once thought you were and you most certainly don't believe what the Bible teaches. I am disappointed.
John Adams

The US Constitution FORBIDS the federal government to spend any money on science.
- daves
  
  From the very first U.S. state of the union address – given by George Washington.
  
  "The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, by all proper means, will not, I trust, need recommendation. But I cannot forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement [that is, money], as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad, as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home; and of facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country, by a due attention to the post office and post roads."
  
  Now could you please tell us the text of the constitution that prohibits this?
  - John Adams
    
    A state of the union addres is NOT equal to the US Constitution.
    Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the areas the federal government can operate. The 10th Amendment forbids the federal government to do anything else.
    Article 1 Section 8 does allow for the US government to issue patents, but that does not authorize it to spend money on science.
    - Bighoss
      
      Get this, Adams: Science promotes the general welfare. THAT is in the Constitution.
      - John Adams
        
        However, what is meant by "general welfare" is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. The punctuation makes that VERY clear.
      - daves
        
        Clause 1:
        
        The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
        Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
        general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall
        be uniform throughout the United States;
      - John Adams
        
        BUT, then they limit themselves witih Article 1, Section 8 AND the 10th Amendment!
      - daves
        
        This is clause 1 of Article 1 Section 8.
      - John Adams
        
        It's only a portion of it. The portion you quoted ends with a semicolon. That means there is more. That's like taking a verse out of context and trying to build a doctrine with it.
      - daves
        
        So which part negates the authority given in clause 1?
      - John Adams
        
        The remainder of Article 1 Section 8 which defines the authority given. And then, of course, there is the 10th Amendment.
      - daves
        
        I will list a few of them. Why do you think these take away from clause 1?
        
        Clause 2:
        
        To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
        
        Clause 3:
        
        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
        States, and with the Indian Tribes;
        
        Clause 4:
        
        To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
        the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
        
        Clause 5:
        
        To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
        fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
        
        Clause 6:
        
        To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
        current Coin of the United States;
        
        Clause 7:
        
        To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
      - John Adams
        
        They are not "taking away" from clause 1. They are defining the boundaries of clause 1.
      - daves
        
        Why is the authority granted in clause 1 different than the authority granted in clause 2?
      - John Adams
        
        It's not different. Clause 1, as you call it, it merely the introductory phrase to the entire article.
      - daves
        
        As I call it? I am not sure why you call it an introductory phrase. Is clause 1 of section 4 only an introductory phrase?
        
        Section. 4.
        
        Clause 1:
        
        The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
        Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
        but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except
        as to the Places of chusing Senators.
        
        Clause 2:
        
        The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such
        Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,
        (See Note 5)
        
        unless they shall
        by Law appoint a different Day.
      - John Adams
        
        Look at the punctuation. The "clause" you quote ends with a semicolon. That means there is more to the statement!!
      - daves
        
        Every clause in that section ends with a semi-colon
        
        Clause 16:
        
        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
        for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
        States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
        and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed
        by Congress;
      - John Adams
        
        As I see it, you are being willfully ignorant. You are an expantionist, big-government person who doesn't look at the facts. Rather you try to find loop-holes in order to justify what you want to be done. The facts, in this case the US Constitution, is against you. You just won't see it.
      - daves
        
        And as I see it, section 8 clearly defines 18 powers that the U.S. government has, which are not the only powers as clause 18 states:
        
        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
        into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
        Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
        Officer thereof.
      - John Adams
        
        Now, read the 10th Amendment and see if you still have the same expantionist thoughts.
      - daves
        
        What is expansionist about taking the constitution literally?
      - John Adams
        
        You are NOT taking it literally. You are trying to take a partial statement and make it say what you want it to day.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Bailing out failed banks and redistributing wealth does not qualify as "the common Defence and general welfare of the United States". "Welfare" as used here does not refer to the modern definition of "Welfare" which is a term coined later to mean essentially 'wealth redistribution'. Welfare means "Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being." or "Prosperity.". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/welfare
        
        The phrase "general Welfare of the United States" refers to the prosperity and well-being of the nation as a whole, not the preferential singling out of certain individuals to receive payments involuntarily supplied by other individuals. Taxes must be used in a way that benefits the nation as a whole, not certain selected groups of citizens.
      - daves
        
        You see funding science as redistribution of wealth?
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        I see it as a misuse of taxpayer funds. What is being passed off as 'science' these days is not science at all, but simply a way to exert control over the masses or to turn them away from God. That certainly does not contribute to the common defense or general welfare of the nation. Scientific ventures should be privately funded without government intervention, because once government gets their paws on it, it becomes politicized, and phony pseudo-scientific ideas like man-made global warming and atheistic ideas like evolution are propagated upon the population.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Fake science, like man-made global warming or evolution does NOT promote the general welfare. In fact, global warming alarmism will cost the citizens dearly in much higher energy prices, more government control of their lives, and inferior consumer goods. And evolution is often used as a justification for abortion, resulting in the deaths of millions of pre-born babies.
Evermyrtle

GOD does not need to be a scientist, He made it all, HE knows every little wrinkle in it all but many scientist does not know this, will not recognize it.
Mike

Science is merely man's observation of nature/ However, man increasingly assumes the mantle of divinity as though his technical advances will soon usurp the natural order and render it archaic.
. .