From Shawn Otto at Scientific American:
Four years ago in Scientific American, I warned readers of a growing problem in American democracy. The article, entitled “Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy,” charted how it had not only become acceptable, but often required, for politicians to embrace antiscience positions, and how those positions flew in the face of the core principles that the U.S. was founded on: That if anyone could discover the truth of something for him or herself using the tools of science, then no king, no pope and no wealthy lord was more entitled to govern the people than they were themselves. It was self-evident.
In the years since, the situation has gotten worse. We’ve seen the emergence of a “post-fact” politics, which has normalized the denial of scientific evidence that conflicts with the political, religious or economic agendas of authority. Much of this denial centers, now somewhat predictably, around climate change—but not all. If there is a single factor to consider as a barometer that evokes all others in this election, it is the candidates’ attitudes toward science. More.
Do people really believe this stunned stuff? Today, science’s biggest enemy is itself. Look at the world around us.
Huge scandals around science in China and Iran, Retraction Watch here, the editor of Nature weighing in on peer review as “unscientific.”
And Otto thinks that the main problem is a disbelieving public? Amazing. But then again, maybe not. It’s called “avoidance.”
Thought experiment: What if the climate a-crock-a-lypse people are right? In the current environment, how would anyone know? Why on earth should scientists who doubt go to jail?
See also: Bunk science: The problem with peer review
Follow UD News at Twitter!