Difference between revisions of "Rejection of science"
From Conservapedia
(science as a stalking-horse) |
GregLarson (Talk | contribs) m (categorize) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
In the context of {{link right|embryonic|stem cell research}}, [[Joseph Bottum]] wrote: | 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] | :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] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Deceit]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Pseudoscience]] | ||
Revision as of 03:14, November 29, 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]
