mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-10-07, 20:07   #45
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

5×2,351 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
Have you noticed that no one has "disproved" the Republican War on Science by offering data of equivalently broad Democratic political interference in science? (Again, occasional isolated examples do not match up to the broad concerted anti-science actions by the latest Bush administration.) That's because it's not "disprovable". Such an occurrence did not exist before 2000.
There have been some major anti-science 'movements' from the political left, but mainly on the part of left-wing academia, not the political left. The attacks from the academic left are most often associated with the social-science postmodernist movement, as described in the 1994 bestseller Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. (This book inspired the famous Sokal hoax perpetrated on Social Text, a leading journal of postmodernist-navel-gaze-ological 'studies').

As one amazon.com reviewer puts it:
Quote:
A movement that started as a deconstructionist method of literary criticism, postmodernism is now a way of thinking that is proposed by some proponents as an explanatory method for everything, including science. Briefly, post-modernism proposes that science is nothing more than a cultural construct, and has no more objective validity than any other form of knowledge. While natural sciences have remained untouched by this movement, it is taking over the social sciences, spurred over by the latter's failures at establishing its scientific basis as firmly as the former has done.
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-07, 22:50   #46
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

11110000011002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
That's a plausible explanation. I gave other plausible explanations. My claim is that mine, in total, are more likely. Of course yours is possible as well.
Don't your explanations ("We didn't get around to it", "we didn't have the political capital", "we hadn't thought of it") imply that Republicans care less about integrity in science than Democrats, as evidenced by the imbalance in their actions? How likely do you think that is?

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2010-10-07 at 22:56
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recommended Science Fiction Reading Flatlander Hobbies 79 2022-11-04 15:24
For science! firejuggler Soap Box 11 2013-10-25 06:24
Actuarial Science kakos22 Information & Answers 0 2010-07-22 19:06
Rabies for the Republican Party cheesehead Soap Box 140 2009-09-10 22:29
Science History Link Spherical Cow Science & Technology 1 2006-11-13 10:16

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:03.


Thu Jan 26 22:03:38 UTC 2023 up 161 days, 19:32, 0 users, load averages: 1.13, 1.12, 1.09

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔