New at Reason

Ron Bailey debates Seed Magazine's Chris Mooney and the Discovery Institute's Wesley Smith on the politicization of science--in MP3 audio and MOV video.

Comments

Stephen Milloy | February 1, 2006, 2:46pm | #

I'm in Ron Bailey's corner!

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/01/paying_for_jour.html

Dubya | February 1, 2006, 2:48pm | #

I'm backing him too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Michael Fumento | February 1, 2006, 2:52pm | #

Nothing goes better with corporate-funded 'science' than a tasty genetically modified treat from Monsanto.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/01/fumento_and_cash_for_comment.php

| February 1, 2006, 3:46pm | #

Ah, yes, let's just accuse everyone of being in the pay of evil corporations.

Saves us the trouble of actually coming up with any arguments.

John | February 1, 2006, 5:34pm | #

I think it ought to be pointed out that many of the liberals who now profess shock at the thought of teaching things like intelligent design in science classes or not worshiping at the green alter of "global warming" are the very same people who have spent the last 30 years helping to destroy science education in this country by introducing so-called "outcomes-based education", which portrays science as subjective and culturally determined, and encourages students to treat established scientific principles with skepticism and disdain. We have long since stopped teaching science in this country in the name of letting children “discover” the facts on their own, all of course done with the understanding that aspects of scientific knowledge are constructed from a particular gender or cultural perspective. Not that that excuses intelligent design or makes it any more scientific or makes some of the other things the evangelicals are advocating good ideas, but that these clowns could now be claiming to be the defenders science is really rich.

Julian Sanchez | February 1, 2006, 5:57pm | #

OK, wait, when has that view of science ever actually been taught to students outside of university English or philosophy departments? I very much doubt that's what they're getting, or have ever gotten, in science classes at either the high school or university level.

John | February 1, 2006, 6:21pm | #

Jullian,

Go look at any high school of junior high science books and it is appalling. We teach sandbox science in this country. Let the kids go out and play in the sandbox and perhaps "discover" scientific truths. The current fasion among science educators is to go away from directly teaching science or math and go towards a process based system where answers don't matter.

John | February 1, 2006, 6:24pm | #

In addition, Julian, how many people from those English departments, which I think you erroneously beleive to the be the only source of this crap, are now pilling on claiming to be defenders of science? My point is that it is the Left in this country who has been the threat to science, which is one of the many reasons I hate to see the Right sell out to Intelligent Design. If the Right won't defend science, who will? Certainly not the left.

Lowdog | February 1, 2006, 6:30pm | #

I don't know, John, my friend is an anthropology teacher at Arizona State, and his books pretty much mock intelligent design/creationism openly. And my friend is fairly lefty, although I am trying to change some of his opinions (you know how academics can be).

And when I was in school, admittedly I wasn't the best student by the time college rolled around, but I don't remember classes being a lot like you're mentioning. My astronomy class was pretty straight-forward. My anthro classes were fairly straight-forward. The only classes that had the moral relativism bullshit were the religion classes, and actually that was only one of them, and I didn't like the teacher because he was very much an uppity European intellectual (although to be fair, I was a fairly brutish, lazy American lout in his class).

Les | February 1, 2006, 10:32pm | #

If the Right won't defend science, who will? Certainly not the left.

How about people who don't identify themselves as either? There are plenty of them, after all.

dullurd | February 2, 2006, 1:17am | #

Go look at any high school of junior high science books and it is appalling. We teach sandbox science in this country. Let the kids go out and play in the sandbox and perhaps "discover" scientific truths. The current fasion among science educators is to go away from directly teaching science or math and go towards a process based system where answers don't matter.

That's nonsense. I graduated from a good public high school in 2003. I took six science courses and none were at all like that.

Pro Libertate | February 2, 2006, 10:49am | #

It's a good point that both the left and the right harbor a disturbing amount of anti-science (and anti-intellectual) thinking in their politics. Maybe the LP should dump all of the overt libertarian stuff and just become the pro-science, pro-technology party.

Sam Grove | February 2, 2006, 11:48am | #

I wonder what moral classification Wesley Smith would apply to non-human (alien) intelligent beings. Would he consider them morally equivalent to humans? Or would they be disqualified because they are not biologically human?

Jonesy | February 2, 2006, 3:41pm | #

That was a good discussion. I couldnt see the picture though, all I had is sound. It may be because my quicktime player is too old though. Ron Bailey won imo, but you let that Wes guy get away without dealing with the fact that 80% of fertilised eggs end up in the garbage anyhow. I would have liked to hear him deal with that fact.