A recent article in Scientific America speaks volumes on the attitude of the publication towards any one that does not see the world the way they do. While the article is as hard on liberal the author sees anti-science as conservatives, article shows a clear liberal bias, It starts out the second paragraph with "We are well aware of the Republican war on science" as though the notion that Republican specifically conservative Republican are anti-science. He goes on site an anti-Republican book and anti-Intelligent Design book to support the claim. So the bias in the article is blatantly obvious right from the start.
The author then sites a A 2012
| || |
God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years'
Earth is getting warmer.
He then attacks opposition to fetal stem cell research as "early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells." While totally ignoring the fact that the same conservatives fully support adult stem cell research, an area of study that has produced more results the fetal stem cell research.
In any case the author of the article uses opposition to evolution and global warm to declare any one who holds those positions to be anti-science. In short he equates disagreement with interpretations of data by a majority of scientists as being anti-science. He totally ignores the fact that there are degreed practicing published scientists that disagree with Global Warming, an old Earth and microbe to man evolution and do so on scientific grounds. There are legitimate scientific reasons to question Global Warming and particular man caused Global Warming such as the warming trend observed on Mar. Further more the politicalization of Global Warming causes legitimate reasons to question the scientific integrity of process.
The point is that the article implies that Global Warming, an old Earth and microbe to man evolution are the only scientific interpretations of available data and declares that disagreeing with those interpretations is anti-science. Since disagreement of interpretation of data is fundamental to legitimate science it is the view of the author and by publishing it the view of Scientific America that is anti-science because it has the net affect of shutting down debate on the interpretation of data. It is clear from the end of the article that he thinks the those who oppose evolution and climate change should be eliminated from the debate altogether.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
|Reply via web post||Reply to sender||Reply to group||Start a New Topic||Messages in this topic (1)|