Difference between revisions of "Rejection of science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(science as a stalking-horse) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
When [[science]] and [[ideology]] collide, many advocates simply discard science altogether or engage in [[deception]] campaigns which obscure what science actually says; see [[junk science]]. | When [[science]] and [[ideology]] collide, many advocates simply discard science altogether or engage in [[deception]] campaigns which obscure what science actually says; see [[junk science]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the context of {{link right|embryonic|stem cell research}}, [[Joseph Bottum]] wrote: | ||
| + | :I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America's religious believers, and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010915] | ||
Revision as of 17:28, November 28, 2007
When science and ideology collide, many advocates simply discard science altogether or engage in deception campaigns which obscure what science actually says; see junk science.
In the context of embryonic stem cell research, Joseph Bottum wrote:
- I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America's religious believers, and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion. [1]