Is There Really a War on Science?

[C C]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...n-science/

EXCERPT: For several years now the popular media has run headlines about “a war on science.” Reporters note that federal funding for research is down, campaigns to undermine climate science attract hundreds of millions of dollars and politicians routinely reject findings that are uniformly accepted by scientists. But a panel of scholars last weekend argued for the most part against calling these aversive movements a war, with two historians even scolding scientists who embrace the idea as out of touch with public concerns.

Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.

Millstein was the pacifist. “There is no war on science, is what I’m claiming.” Or maybe there is a war on science, she said, but calling it such is “counterproductive.”...

[Yazata]

EXCERPT: For several years now the popular media has run headlines about “a war on science.”

It's part of the never-ending attempts to politicize all aspects of life. Science is being used as the justification for a number of social change schemes and if anyone dares to disagree with any of those schemes, then he or she is labeled a "denier" and "anti-science". It's increasingly reminiscent of medieval accusations of heresy. The goal seems to be for the general public to just accept and believe anything they are told in the holy name of science.  

Reporters note that federal funding for research is down

Just because "reporters" (aka 'activists') "note" it, doesn't mean that it's true.

Here's the National Science Foundation's appropriations since Obama took office. Recall that these were the years of the financial crisis, when (half-hearted and unsuccessful) attempts were being made to reduce government debt loads and deficit spending.

FY 2009 $6.49 billion
FY 2010 $6.926 billion
FY 2011 $6.8 billion
FY 2012 $7.033 billion
FY 2013 $6.9 billion
FY 2014 $7.172 billion
FY 2015 $7.344 billion
FY 2016 $7.465 billion

http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/

It's true that most of these years, the actual appropriation was less than the initial budget request. That always happens. And when Congress ends up appropriating smaller increases than a government department desires, the mainstream media will always label that a "cut", even if actual spending rises year on year!. Then people believe that science funding is being slashed and a "War on Science" is being waged, just as the opinion-leaders intend them to believe.

campaigns to undermine climate science attract hundreds of millions of dollars

Hundreds of millions? Where did that number come from? You would think that if that kind of money was being spent, you would see more sign of it. Somebody would at least create a well-funded climate research institute to employ heretical researchers being forced out of universities. There would be more public outreach. People would get a bigger sense that there's active disagreement out there, as opposed to uniform scientific acceptance.

and politicians routinely reject findings that are uniformly accepted by scientists.

When heretics are black-listed from publishing in leading journals, oftentimes can't get hired in the first place and stand little chance of getting tenure, is it any surprise that there's seeming unanimity in those institutions and in those journals? Scientists' careers depend on their saying the "correct" things. Again, it's reminiscent of theologians in medieval times. Is it any surprise that so many endorsed Christian orthodoxy, when perceived heresy was punished by burning at the stake?

But a panel of scholars last weekend argued for the most part against calling these aversive movements a war, with two historians even scolding scientists who embrace the idea as out of touch with public concerns.

Maybe "scholars" haven't all devolved into idiots.

Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues

Opposition to nuclear power, genetically modified crops, use of animals in medical experiments, the use of insecticides and sometimes against industrial civilization and 'instrumental rationality' as a whole have historically come from the left. So sure, the professors (rightly) don't want to paint all monkey-business involving 'science' with the same brush.

We certainly don't see the feminist critics of scientific objectivity in any danger of losing their jobs on university faculties or being black-listed from publishing in the journals, the way that less politically-correct global warming skeptics are.  

not science as a whole

I am concerned that science as a whole with its perceived authority out on the street is being used as a cudgel, a supposed source of inerrant Biblical-style Truth that all laypeople are required to believe without question. Turning science into an engine of stupidity designed to create a nation of sheep contradicts my ideals of critical thinking. In my opinion, some healthy lay skepticism about what is being said in the name of science is a good thing and something to be encouraged.

[Magical Realist]

There is no war on science itself imo, to the extent that true science itself doesn't recommend any sort of moral path or totalitarian worldview that must be apologetically and rhetorically defended like a political cause. How can there be a war on an extremely reliable and successful enterprise of information acquisition? There IS a war against scientistic atheism and positivism though, which is the frontline where the high-held banner of "objective evidence" clashes with that of "spiritual experience". I see the warriors here as consisting of the fundamentalist literalists who seek only to justify their own dogmas in the face of demonized ignorance and deceptiveness. A hostile and false fanaticism that aspires to speak for spirituality on the one side and science on the other. True spirituality resonates and meshes elegantly with true science, one complimenting the other in a vision that's wide enough to embrace mystery and wonder and cosmic inclusiveness as the enlivening core of our global humanity.

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.

The notion that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."

Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[stryder]

In Reference to "Hundreds of Millions used to debunk Climate Science" it's relatively cheap compared to how much it would cost certain companies (and countries) in regards to "Billions" if they can't meet certain requirements. In those instances, it's not about the science being good or bad, it's just about the money.