Comments on: War over Science or War on Science

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:11:16 +0000

Discrediting a scientist or a scientific study does NOT discredit science.

Not that Fumento has ever actually done that…

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:45:13 +0000

Michael Fumento writes:

“You just offer up examples of writing or of people that you say represent politically-motivated science”

On the contrary, the last thing I’d accuse Fumento of writing is science of any kind.

On the substantive claim, all the examples he gives have been refuted at length (several in Mooney’s book). Search this blog for links to demolitions of his attacks on the Lancet study.

By: FDB

FDB — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:20:05 +0000

And sophistry? Don’t be throwing stones in that glass house, Fumey ol’ chum. Here’s betting you only know the word from having it thrown at you.

By: FDB

FDB — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:17:38 +0000

Discrediting a scientist or a scientific study does NOT discredit science. Showing that a particular scientist is wrong, or politically motivated or anything else is a wonderful thing to do. The scientific community at large thanks you for it!

Fumento doesn’t want to talk about science that’s done well, because… well… there’s just SO VERY MUCH OF IT The VAST MAJORITY

How much has the Republican Party told us that it enduring and useful and true and original?

By: Darwiniana » RWOS: index

Darwiniana » RWOS: index — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:48:41 +0000

[...] War over Science or War on Science by John Quiggin [...]

By: Michael Fumento

Michael Fumento — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:19:04 +0000

Nice sophistry! You just offer up examples of writing or of people that you say represent politically-motivated science without making the least effort to show that there is anything wrong with that science. It would be all too easy for me to just say, “Chris Mooney is a lefty; don’t trust anything he says.” But I don’t. I present science that shows he is wrong. Only at that point does motivation, political or otherwise, come into play. How convenient for you to simply skip that vital step.

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:48:02 +0000

It’s rather interesting that the Science article about Biscuit salvage logging hasn’t been considered a bit “junky”. Yes, they DID prove what they wanted so dearly to prove; That cutting snags kills some baby trees. DUH! It did NOT, however, prove that salvage logging of snags alone dooms an ecosystem’s recovery. If the study would have been done years from now and included other adverse impacts on the survival of seedlings, it may have had some validity but, the narrow premise of the study makes it value rather dubious. I’m surprised that a publication of Science’s stature would have printed it so garishly.

A more significant and valuable study would be to survey the area at 5 year intervals and gauge how well those little baby trees are doing against brush, wildfires and additional impacts within an unsalvaged area. Indeed, there will be HUGE opportunities to do just that with the 97% of the Biscuit Fire that remains unsalvaged. We also have vast areas of National Parks to look at and see how unmanaged burns recover. For example, the A-Rock fire burned into Yosemite National Park in 1989 and here’s some links to pictures that show what has happened since then, without “man’s hand” in the picture.

http://rogueimc.org/images/2006/02/6134.jpg

http://rogueimc.org/images/2006/02/6135.jpg

Even without seeing the hidden large woody debris under the manzanita, you can see that this area near Foresta is ready for the next inevitable ground searing burn to bring us back to square one, after 17 years of “natural recovery”.

By: agm

agm — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:31:12 +0000

Interestingly, this is precisely the way the first 2/3s or so of the movie Kinsey runs. Funny how it ended a bit differently.

By: Lars

Lars — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:46:44 +0000

A website discussing the libertarian Right’s influence on North American science fiction is http://fascistoar.blogspot.com/, for those who might be interested.

By: msf

msf — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:01:02 +0000

Quiggin makes an astute observation – the focus on individualism or heroic science as good science by righty libertarians like Gingrich. Let’s not forget Ayn Rand’s influence on this kind of thinking – teamwork (as is done in almost all science these days) – is not appreciated by John Galt.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:52:26 +0000

John Quiggin: “The Republicans are now lining up with some of their erstwhile opponents, postmodernist and social constructivists in the humanities and social sciences, who can provide more sophisticated arguments in the War on Science than those derived from Velikovsky and his successors.”

Like Steve Fuller?

The Republicans have a far better combination than any academic dreamed of: right-wing churces, AM radio, lushly funded ‘think tanks’, magazines, etc.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:50:32 +0000

a more politically reliable science that always generated the kinds of results that suit their backers

Which, of course, would not be science.

By: QrazyQat

QrazyQat — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:15:21 +0000

(there may be female versions, but I don’t recall any)

Elaine Morgan, of aquatic ape notoriety, is an example.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:06:20 +0000

There’s all sorts of fascinating stuff in Fort, but as you say, he was too idiosyncratic to be easily imitated in the way Velikovsky has been.

By: Ryan J. Cook

Ryan J. Cook — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:51:17 +0000

I would argue that the archetypal outside castigator of science would be Charles Fort, whose published works predate the Velikovsky affair by several decades. With Fort you first get the image of an ossified scientific priesthood guarding the battlements of their Ivory Tower against inconvenient or ambiguous data by either docta ignorantia or damnation. Despite this lineage, I rather doubt Fort's "intermediatism" (the idea that most phenomena occupy the weird expanse between true existence and complete absence) would be congenial for either faction in the rhetorical combat Mooney surveys.