Supporting Science Is Hardly Controversial
A friend marvels at the enormous participation in the March for Science, wondering why this is so popular. My belief:
Science is a pretty noncontroversial issue. I know there are hard-line religious zealots who don’t like the contradiction to various tenets of their faith, but these people are way out on the fringe. And I get that Fox News is trying to paint the pro-science people as socialists, but again, few people with any sense are going to buy that.
I love the sign I saw in the march the other day that read: “I can’t believe I have to march for facts.” Nearly everyone can get behind this. It’s not like gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, immigration reform, etc. where there is a vaguely understandable case to be made for both sides. People who never protested anything in their entire lives are pouring onto the streets.
Sure, Trump can take down the government website on climate change and forbid anyone working for the federal government from uttering the phrase, but that’s simply not going to wash among most people, regardless of how poorly educated they happen to be. Most people really like modern healthcare, information and communications technology, auto safety, jobs in the (huge and ever-growing) tech sector and exploring the universe–and they really don’t like poisonous water and air. And importantly, most people understand that science is the driver behind creating the things we like, and getting rid of those that we don’t.
Craig,
I suggest you re-read your own advocacy, for the answer lies within your own mindset.
The concept of a “March for Science” is an inherent contradiction of scientific principles.
What you are really saying is; “March for the Science I support”!
Therein lies the problem. Without realizing you have stopped Marching for “science” but are now activist for a political/faith/ ideology crusade.
Taking some non-controversial scientific information and adding your own interpretation by extrapolating additional philosophic or ideological precepts transforms you into an activist.
Becoming an activist isn’t necessarily detrimental, but it does lessen the level of objectivity required to claim purely scientific credentials.
Science isn’t about moral ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but accuracy and continuous inquiry.
People aren’t “pouring onto the streets”, to defend ‘science’. Science doesn’t need defending. I suspect very few of those demonstrators have the fainest idea of ‘science’ they so ardently support.
Most tellingly, you don’t notice how seamlessly you blend your defence of ‘science’ with a little anti-Fox, anti-Trump fervour, with a dash of political healthcare rhetoric thrown in for good measure !
Fox New’s observation contains a measure of truth. Since a significant percentage of ‘Marches’ demonstration, protests etc, are organized by individuals and organizations with leftist agenda’s, it’s not unrealistic to suspect a deeper and more political agenda behind any march, demonstration etc.
Disguising any political agenda by wrapping it in “the Flag” ” Mom and Apple Pie”, and other popular concepts is a very old trick.
Disguising political agenda as “environmentalism” “Science” etc, is more recent, but exactly the same disingenuous tactic.
But you provide a great example of this tactic. In praising demonstrating for ‘science’, you added a measure of disinformation slipped in unchallenged, but deliberately aimed at becoming accept fact.
1) “Trump can take down the government website on climate change” 2) “forbid anyone working for the federal government from uttering the phrase “.
Now you know perfectly well the above statement isn’t true !
1) It’s been an accepted practice by at least three previous administrations for the websites to be removed during the transition to a new administration.
2) No President could issue such an edict. No such edict exists.
This is what happens when you politicize science by subterfuge.