interesting read - Slate - "The War on Science is a Trap"

[NRaleighLiberal]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/02/the_war_on_science_is_a_trap.html

The science march should step carefully to avoid being ensnared.

By Daniel Engber

An army of advocates for science will march on Washington, D.C. on April 22, according to a press release out last Thursday. The show of force aims to “draw attention to dangerous trends in the politicization of science,” the organizers say, citing “threats to the scientific community” and the need to “safeguard” researchers from a menacing regime. If Donald Trump plans to escalate his apparent assault on scientific values, then let him be on notice: Science will fight back.

We’ve been through this before. Casting opposition to a sitting president as resistance to a “war on science” likely helped progressives 10 or 15 years ago, when George W. Bush alienated voters with his apparent disrespect for climate science and embryonic stem-cell research (among other fields of study). The Bush administration’s meddling in research and disregard for expertise turned out to be a weakness, as the historian Daniel Sarewitz described in an insightful essay from 2009. Who could really argue with the free pursuit of knowledge? Democratic challengers made a weapon of their support for scientific progress: “Americans deserve a president who believes in science,” said John Kerry during the 2004 campaign. “We will end the Bush administration’s war on science, restore scientific integrity and return to evidence-based decision-making,” the Democratic Party platform stated four years later.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign continued with the battle-tested plan. “I believe in science,” she announced to rapturous applause at the Democratic National Convention last July. But if that message played well to her base, it didn’t prove to be persuasive on a broader scale. The problem was, conditions for the combat over science have lately been transformed. Old alliances are shifting, and the science partisans who intend to march on Washington would be wise to understand the implications of this change. Today’s “war on science” could be a trap.

snip - much more, interesting read.

[uppityperson]

1. k&r

from couple inches of snow-land

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. yes, Sara called - their power is out...cold...snow...brrrr

be safe!

[CitizenZero]

3. Mocking Science Deniers

I think it is a winning move to mock science deniers. I think the power to ridicule those who do not respect science is a way of cutting the opposition's legs out from underneath them. Trump mocks his opponents all the time. We need to counter propaganda with the truth. The truth is that anyone that does not view science as real is backwards and frankly stupid.

I think that if we call out anyone that denies science as ignorant and a fool, that could gain traction. Even the stupid do not like to be called stupid. Mocking science deniers is a way of shutting them up by embarrassing them and publicly tagging these sort of people as backwards and ignorant. We need to counter the Trump Regime's propaganda, and mocking them for being scientifically illiterate and ignorant is one way to do that.

[Orrex]

4. The takeaway appears to be: coddle the science-phobes

[cstanleytech]

5. Hmm I would have the Dems grant the Repugnants the varies investigations but

press them again and again to agree that if the science doesnt support their bullshit that the Repugnants will publicly apologize and furthermore agree not to run for another term in office.
Most of them wont agree to those terms and it will hopefully hurt what little credibility they have left and for those that refuse to agree it paints them in a corner if they want to continue with this type of attack as being unwilling to backup their words with real action.

[enough]

6. The problem is this is not just a political issue. It's not only the question of whether

joining this fight might consolidate the political opposition. There are extremely serious real effects at stake.

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. yes - it is not at all simple (but science isn't simple - so it is appropriate).