When astronomers tackle politics
Posted by Moonage on 16 Jun 2006 | Tagged as: Opinions
A couple of weeks ago I did a post on the perceived Republican war on science. Today I see two articles directly related to that same logic ( one even citing the book I ridiculed ).
First, I read Bad Astronomy Blog’s article where he steps outside what he does best and offers political comment. What floored me most was he cited Daily Kos as a “source”. Now, this is the guy that openly declares all Republicans suck. So, to say the least, it kind of bothered me that someone who lives by the scientific code would rely on a purely partisan source for their input. He also touts Chris Mooney’s book, which as I pointed out, interspersed the religious right and Republicans with reckless abandon. I am Republican, I am not a member of the Religious Right. I totally support science in every way. I don’t appreciate people like Chris Mooney lumping me in with people who don’t support science. Additionally, Phil lumps a legal debate into the stuff Kos and Mooney cite as evidence that it is ONLY Republicans who don’t support science. You want suppression? Try this exchange:
World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.
Best I can recall, Pope John Paul II was not a Republican. As Hawking notes, there has been a constant struggle between religion and science since at LEAST Galileo’s day. Trying to spin that as a purely partisan issue is disingenuous at best.
Secondly, Phil ignores what has been accomplished since 2001.
Thirdly, the evidence Phil cites is a legal debate that has been debated in other arenas outside of science. Most notably, it was debated within the federal government itself in which a SUPREME COURT RULING set the standards on whistleblowers, not Republicans. This legislation that Phil cites would have run flat in the face of the recent Supreme Court ruling. In other words, the first legal challenge it faced if it had been passed would have seen it struck down.
Fourthly, Phil ignores the fact that cost cuts are across the board, affecting every budget as much or more so than scientific research.
Fifthly, stem cell research was something Bush morally opposed. He was, however, the first President to ever fund it in ANY way. So, the evidence is clear that it is possible to be morally opposed to something and still see the value it presents to society.
And lastly, being Republican means, in the truest sense, you believe in smaller government. That means less intrusive laws as well as putting the tools into the private sector to allow them the ability to develop products and new industry. How many spaceports were there before 2001? So, although funding was limited to certain strains of already existing DNA in regards to stem cell research, it DID NOT BAN private research in the other areas. Research the Howard Hughes Foundation for more on that.
So, once again, I completely dismiss the “Republican War on Science” as purely political rhetoric that panders to people like Phil.
12 Comments »
on 16 Jun 2006 at 11:57 am 1.mw
said …
“And lastly, being Republican means, in the truest sense, you believe in smaller government.” - moon
Nope. Not these guys. Not this administration. Not this Congress.
You can say that about the Reagan Republicans.
You can say that about the Gingrich Republicans.
But today’s Republican Party has surrendered the right to make any claim on the Reagan legacy or to pretend to stand on the Libertarian foundation of limited government advocacy. This is a new kind of Republican: Big Spending, Big Deficit, Big Government Republicans. The only question is whether “Today’s Republican” single party control of the federal government over the last five plus years will unambiguously lay claim to being the Biggest Government, Biggest Federal Growth, Biggest Spending and Biggest Deficit party of all time, bar none.
http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/05/i-was-wrong-gwb-vs-lbj.html
on 16 Jun 2006 at 12:36 pm 2.Mike B. said …
“Secondly, Phil ignores what has been accomplished since 2001.”
Accomplishments with regard to what? Can you be more specific here?
on 16 Jun 2006 at 2:43 pm 3.Moonage
said …
For MW, you’re making the same mistake Phil does. You’re assuming ALL Republicans agree with the direction the national party has taken. That’s just not the case. As you noted, Republicans in the past have seen huge scientific advancements. So, to summarily state that “Republicans have declared war on science” is a general bias I don’t agree with. The Democrats have been able to scuttle a LOT of Bush’s efforts by way of threatening filibusters and procedural process. The fact they have said nothing makes them as culpible as any Republican. Second, my Congressman is a moderate conservative Republican. He is a Republican in the truest sense of the word, and so moderate Tom Delay attacked him on more than one occasion, and most recelntly William F. Buckley chose to attack him rather viciously, calling him a disgrace. His “disgrace” was bringing jobs to his local community. His true sin was not waving the religious right flag to Buckley’s approval. He voted for the cuts as well. The reason? Government’s gotten too big and NASA particularly has gotten bloating and too bogged down with red tape. They are a dinosaur being devoured by the private seector at this time. Congress recently approved the H-Prize, which I wrote about earlier. This rewards ANY organization that comes up with creative and useful ways of using hydrogen. That’s a true Republican philosophy. Rewarding bloated and unproductive government is not. Although NASA has suffered some cuts, so has all segments of federal government, so, this is NOT an attack on science, it’s a Republican philosophy of scaling down government and encouraging private sector. Mooney cites the cuts and such, Phil cites the whistleblower issue. That was driven by the Supreme Court, not a Republican Congress or President. If someone can tell me what the point in passing legislation you KNOW is going to struck down is then I might change my mind. Of course, they could have just pandered to the Phils, but, that’s lying. I prefer to just understand what’s REALLY happening. Relying on Kos and Chris Mooney just floors me coming from a scientist.
Amd Mike B., this very day an announcement was made possibly finding a real treatment for alzheimers. Watch Fox and you’ll hear the story. The Rovers have been circling Mars about as long as Bush has been in office. It’s funding was due to end a year or so ago. It wasn’t. And, I’m not sure how many times I have to repeat it, even in this one post, but Bush was the first ever president to fund stem cell research of any kind. Just because he didn’t open that research wide open for abortion clinics and anyone else who happened to have a dead baby laying around it’s been totally spun as a ban. Google breakthroughs in stem cell research 2001-2006, there’s a LOT more than anyone’s willing to admit. Then do the same Google for 1993-2001. How many extra-solar planets have been discovered in the last five years? How many had been discovered before 2001? I mean, come on, there’s stuff in the news every day. I blog on stuff every day. So, to sit here and try to tell me science has had war declared on it by Republicans ONLY in the last five years is just pure BS.
on 17 Jun 2006 at 12:22 am 4.American Phoenix
said …
1. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that the alleged comments of Pope John Paul II were either not made or were taken seriously out of context. This was not a Pope who was against science. He was very much in favor of it. He just wanted it to be in its proper context, which is to say that science can’t be making authoritative statements about the existence or non-existence of God.
2 That the NRO attacked your Congressman had nothing to do with religion one way or the other. It had to do with a political position on which the NRO was, quite simply, misinformed. Religion had nothing to do with it.
I agree with pretty much everything else you’ve written, especially the part about not all Republicans agreeing with the National party. I certainly don’t, particularly on spending and immigration issues.
on 17 Jun 2006 at 7:29 am 5.American Phoenix
said …
The actual quote of John Paul II (as opposed to the Stephen Hawking and media distorted version of it) has apparently now come to light:
“Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question….’ The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying, ‘We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma.”
This is not exactly what Stephen Hawking claimed the Pope said, is it? Further, In 1988, John Paul said that “Science can purify religion from error and superstition….” So Pope John Paul II wasn’t exactly the anti-science guy Hawking’s is making him out to be.
Stephen Hawking’s real beef is that he has posited a theory that space-time has no beginning and no end, i.e., no boundaries. Hawking doesn’t think there was a beginning of the universe. So he’s not operating on the same assumptions as the classic Big Bang model that most scientists accept. There’s no point in going into the physics of it here, because that would be too long a dissertation. The point is that Hawking has a fundamental disagreement with the Big Bang theorists, who do posit a beginning of the universe, and he wasn’t being honest about that when he misquoted the Pope.
on 17 Jun 2006 at 10:32 am 6.Moonage
said …
Regarding the NRO, I’m aware of comments made by the NRO that are not in print that supports my statement. They’ve got the favorites, and if you’re not on their in list, you’re subject to their wrath. The article I’m referring to, of which I know you’re aware of, was purely a hit piece. It offered no constructive criticism, relied purely on second-hand information that was not fact-checked, and went after someone who has never aligned themself with the religious right. So, I stand by my statements 100%. There is no other logical explanation for a “conservative” magazine attacking a conservative politician so recklessly and without any concern for what the facts were.
Regarding Hawking, I didn’t concern myself too much with the entire circumstances of his comment, I simply noted that on the same day Bad Astronomy attacked all Republicans, a physicist was illustrating the conflicts between religion and science. That struggle between religious conservatism and science has existed and is well documented. Some religious sects still shun most technological advances to this day. For Phil to summarily lump that historical struggle into a purely partisian issue is what bothered me.
on 17 Jun 2006 at 2:35 pm 7.StormWarning
said …
Speaking of Stephen Hawking, did you see this one?
Man must conquer other planets to survive, says Hawking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=390524&in_page_id=1770
on 18 Jun 2006 at 12:39 am 8.American Phoenix
said …
Moon wrote:
“Regarding Hawking, I didn’t concern myself too much with the entire circumstances of his comment, I simply noted that on the same day Bad Astronomy attacked all Republicans, a physicist was illustrating the conflicts between religion and science. That struggle between religious conservatism and science has existed and is well documented. Some religious sects still shun most technological advances to this day. For Phil to summarily lump that historical struggle into a purely partisian issue is what bothered me.”
Bad Astronomy attacked Republicans for their connection with the so-called Religious Right, as if people who have faith don’t believe in or advance science. This is as big a canard as any I’ve ever heard. For example, the man who founded my son’s Catholic school holds several patents for optical network switches relative to the Internet, was one of the original founders of Cisco Systems and is now CEO and founder of his own company. He is a devout Catholic and I often see him at daily Mass in the morning. I guess no one’s ever told him that his faith is supposed to be incompatible with his scientific and engineering degrees. I’m sure he would laugh at the thought.
Hawking wasn’t illustrating the conflicts between religion and science. He was dissing the Roman Catholic Church by misrepresenting what was actually said. Part of the reason for this is that Hawking carries a lot of baggage from his mother, to whome he was very close, and who was a member of the Communist party in England. Hawking himself does not believe in God either.
So often the Catholic Church takes a hit for being anti-science which is nearly always utter and complete bull crap. Galileo is nearly always mentioned, when the historical record doesn’t support the assertion. If you look at history, if you look at what was actually said vs. what was reported, you find that the Catholic Church is not anti-science.
A case in point: It is widely reported in the media that the Catholic Church is against all stem cell research. This is flatly untrue. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe that it’s right to destroy embryos (human life) in order to obtain stem cells. BUT there are NO objections to research regarding adult stem cells, placental stem cells and the one other of the four different kinds of stem cells that can be used for medical research. What’s more, there are real scientific problems with using embryonic stem cells (rapid and uncontrollable cell division leading to cancer).
Storm, yes I saw Hawking’s comments about “conquering” other planets. That’s going to be a bit difficult unless we can figure out a way to shield our bodies from solar radiation during space travel (let alone finding the appropriate atmosphere when we arrive). There was an article about this recently in one of the science magazines, can’t remember which one. Even going to Mars would be quite difficult. Our bodies are highly adapted to Earth.
on 18 Jun 2006 at 11:30 am 9.Moonage
said …
I personally am not advocating that it’s a purely Catholic issue. Hawking’s example and Galileo just happened to involve them. Right now the main culprits have obviously been Baptist. My point has also not been that it’s purely a Republican issue. Democrats are just as religious as Republicans, obviously. My point has been that Chris Mooney, and now the noted astronomer, have taken a historical issue and turned it into a purely partisan issue. The news flash for those two is that kicking the Republicans out won’t eliminate that struggle. Best I recall, Prohibition and McCarthyism were both initiated under Democrat control. Their argument is so flawed it’s pathetic.
As far as settling other worlds, that’s a given. The sun itself will not last forever. However, many prognosticators who were considered the top minds of their era predicted the demise of mankind a long, long time ago. I think the Earth will still be a decent place to live in 1,000 years. Whether or not man has advanced again or gone back to caves will be the only issue.
on 26 Apr 2007 at 12:21 am 10.Moonage Political Webdream » Democrats are stifling science said …
[...] A while back I got into a little to-do with a Bad Astronomer who got political.? He fully felt, along with a lot of academic science folks, that Republicans were bad on science.? He noted a couple of reasons why.? I noted a couple of reasons why not.? Immediately after the election and the Democrats took over, I made a prediction on what NASA could expect for the next two years. [...]
on 05 May 2007 at 11:16 pm 11.Republican war on Shuttles? at Moonage SpaceDream said …
[...] while back someone was pointing to budget cuts at NASA as a sure sign that Republicans were waging a war on science.? One of my rebuttals was that it is Republican to encourage the private sector to do what it can, [...]
on 29 Dec 2008 at 11:15 am 12.Moonage SpaceDream » Blog Archive » » The Obama war on science said …
[...] I had a pretty good flap with some fairly influential astronomers and the like who fully believed th…. So, it gives me a little bit of a chuckle when I read this, weeks before Obama is even sworn in: President-Elect Obama’s transition team is planning to scrap NASA’s Ares program, the successor to the Space Shuttle, say NASA advisors. The transition team is demanding deep cuts from the agency, and is investigating whether old military rockets such as the Delta IV and Atlas V could be used in place of Ares. [...]