23-05-2012, 04:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-05-2012, 11:04 PM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Lemkin,
Just because science is used by nasty corporations doesn't mean that science can't be and isn't used in a non political sort of objective analytical manner.
I suppose astronomers are into deep politics when they describe stars, galaxies, black holes, quasars and so forth?
That comment was silly.
Scientists are political just as barbers and bakers are. Science itself is not... and Charles pointed out that it is a tool in a sense to describe the world. That doesn't mean that anyone who uses those tools... or any time science is used to map/describe a phenomena that it is political. That is pure rubbish. It could be, but it needn't be.
There is no doubt that science AND scientist are being used in very nasty ways... nuke bombs., nuke power, gm food, many many things. But it's the USER's agenda not the tool that is political. And some scientists such as Salk or Goodall are doing good work for mankind. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I have for a year here on DP simply asked for a scientific approach to the observations/evidence and not an anecdotal political analysis driven explanation backed into based on the outcome and policies... which we agree were a crime in themselves!
The Lauren and Charles and now you claim everything has a deep political analysis. While many things might and many things might have some aspects of deep pol... it's just plain silly to insist that everything does.
If you can't leave your bias behind... or try to... and refuse to... your analysis is tainted and in my opinion useless.
Just because science is used by nasty corporations doesn't mean that science can't be and isn't used in a non political sort of objective analytical manner.
I suppose astronomers are into deep politics when they describe stars, galaxies, black holes, quasars and so forth?
That comment was silly.
Scientists are political just as barbers and bakers are. Science itself is not... and Charles pointed out that it is a tool in a sense to describe the world. That doesn't mean that anyone who uses those tools... or any time science is used to map/describe a phenomena that it is political. That is pure rubbish. It could be, but it needn't be.
There is no doubt that science AND scientist are being used in very nasty ways... nuke bombs., nuke power, gm food, many many things. But it's the USER's agenda not the tool that is political. And some scientists such as Salk or Goodall are doing good work for mankind. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I have for a year here on DP simply asked for a scientific approach to the observations/evidence and not an anecdotal political analysis driven explanation backed into based on the outcome and policies... which we agree were a crime in themselves!
The Lauren and Charles and now you claim everything has a deep political analysis. While many things might and many things might have some aspects of deep pol... it's just plain silly to insist that everything does.
If you can't leave your bias behind... or try to... and refuse to... your analysis is tainted and in my opinion useless.