Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + +
Politicized science (view source)
Revision as of 15:14, November 25, 2008
, 15:14, November 25, 20082 examples we all can agree on
'''Politicized science''' is considered a problem by people on all parts of the [[political spectrum]], yet they can rarely agree on whether a particular scientific issue has become politicized. All parties to the dispute agree that when political power, as of a government or church, is used to prevent scientific matters from being investigated or discussed objectively, this constitutes politicization. Even scientific bodies have been known to suppress results or theories which contradict the scientific mainstream.
'''Politicized science''' is considered a problem by people on all parts of the [[political spectrum]], yet they can rarely agree on whether a particular scientific issue has become politicized. All parties to the dispute agree that when political power, as of a government or church, is used to prevent scientific matters from being investigated or discussed objectively, this constitutes politicization. Even scientific bodies have been known to suppress results or theories which contradict the scientific mainstream.
In the English-speaking world, conservatives and liberals agree that the Galileo and Lamarck episodes were both examples of politicization. The church was wrong to suppress Galileo's arguments against the perfect spherical shape of the moon (he saw proof of mountains) or against the idea that all heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth (he discovered the [[Jovian satellites]]). The Soviet Union was wrong to enshrine [[Lamarckism]] as official evolutionary doctrine.
What needs to happen and what happens are often entirely different. It's common for there to be a disconnect between a leading theory and the evidence.
What needs to happen and what happens are often entirely different. It's common for there to be a disconnect between a leading theory and the evidence.