RSSObama: White House will no longer ignore established science
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published March 10, 2009, 11:16 AM
A memorandum published by the White House this morning made good on a campaign promise by President Obama to discontinue the Oval Office practice of disregarding or even suppressing certain scientific and technological information when crafting executive policy.
"Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security," reads the President's memorandum this morning. "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public."
The memorandum goes on to charge the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to draft a set of recommendations within the next four months for how the Executive Branch can ensure the integrity of scientific information and the scientific process, during debates and deliberations over drafting executive policy.
Of course, it would help if there were such a director in place. That director had been expected to be Prof. John Holdren, the former director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and who presently serves as the prestigious Director of Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
But in an ironic twist that could only happen in Washington, as first reported last week by the Washington Post, Prof. Holdren's confirmation process in Congress has been intentionally held up for reasons having zero to do with science or even with Prof. Holdren. In an effort to get the President's attention on legislation related to Cuba, Sen. John Menendez (D - N.J.) has blocked the schedule for confirmation proceedings for Holdren, as well as Mr. Obama's nominee to head the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
The holdup may hamper, but not completely postpone, the White House's effort to re-institute measures that mandate that federal agencies must observe and respect scientific principles when dealing with matters related to science, the environment, and social policy.
The President's order comes in response to years of criticism of the previous administration's policy with regard to observing scientific evidence -- or more specifically, in finding new ways not to do so. After an OSTP report in 2000, during the final months of the Clinton administration, pointed out the near-term dangers of climate change, President Bush in 2002 directed the creation of an inter-agency Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which would produce the climate change survey reports from then on, instead of the OSTP.
But no such report was published -- a fact which the Government Accountability Office noted in a 2005 letter to key senators (PDF available here) was contrary to law. Though the GAO letter did not state so explicitly, the evidence was there that the CCSP had been created with the express purpose of not producing a report. That prompted a group of coalition advocacy groups to file suit against President Bush in late 2008.
As those groups were preparing to file suit last August, however, Mr. Bush instituted a pre-emptive strike of sorts, directing the Interior Dept. not to observe US Fish & Wildlife Service surveys when making decisions about whether public works projects might encumber endangered species.
That directive appeared to be a defensive response to a 2007 discovery by the Interior Dept.'s Inspector-General's office (PDF available here) that a Bush administration appointee to Fish & Wildlife tampered with the findings of endangered species reports. The Bush directive let that appointee off the hook by saying such findings weren't necessary anyway.
That directive was nullified one week ago by President Obama, in a move that was applauded by environmental law firm Earthjustice, which had participated in a suit to get the directive overruled: "President Obama's directive sends a loud and clear signal that the former administration's political manipulation of science will no longer be tolerated." Legislation being considered by Congress, however, could re-instate the Bush order.
But instituting Obama's directive requires there to be a Director of OSTP in place, which may only take place now after some decision is made regarding US policy toward Cuba.
Religion is a search for the truth. So, religious people should have nothing to fear from science. If religion is truth, then a doctrine of following science should not scare them. I applaud Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton for leading us in a scientific direction, and not an idealistic one. I won't say "faith-based" because I personally have faith in truth, however it plays out.
Score: 0
|Cool. So the scientific fact that "global warming" stopped over a decade ago per ground-station measurements along with the scientific fact that there was never =any= warming trend noted in atmospheric measurement along with the scientific fact that increased CO2 concentrations are in fact a lagging indicator for warming trends at least several centuries past rather than a leading indicator of warming to come along with the close-to-established-scientific-fact that ground temperatures vary directly with the level of solar surface activity means that we'll now see the Obama Administration spend its stock of political capital applying the brakes to the ascientific religious fanaticism of the Green movement, right?
...
Right???
...
Score: 0
|perhaps, if the feds made money into a science instead of a philosophy, then this science would no longer be ignored.
deficits would be considered as black holes and greed can be equated to anti matter.
no need to utilize hydrogen bombs on countries anymore. just send those governments a past due bill for a trillion dollars if we want to destroy them.
Score: 0
|I love this guy. I'm so glad I voted Democratic. The right wing nut jobs are still whining like little b****es all day long. Rush Limbaugh will have a stroke before Obama gets re-elected in 2012 when Ms. Dips*** from Alaska goes up against him.
Score: 0
|I'm frankly tired of this entire debate.
The Obama left wing liberals misuse of science in the name of their myopic human caused global warming in an attempt to social engineer is as bad as the Bush social right wing liberals use of their tired 'the earth is 5000 years old' anti-science attempts at social engineering.
You want to 'believe' something, fine;. live your life in accordance with your belief, to the degree that it does not impose on others' rights.You want to believe the world is flat and crawl around on your hands and knees for fear of coming to close to the edge, fine. But don't expect me or others to do share it, nor for the rest of use to take extraordinary measures to erect fences to protect you from your lunacy.
You want to live like you are in the 8th century off berries and roots you find in the forest as you sleep with your 'animals are human too' friends, be my guest. But also don't try to use the rule of law to impose your wacked beliefs on others. But of course, all are welcome to practice their ideas as long as they do not impose them on others.
As far as science, there are a plethora of ways aside from the fetus to harvest viable fetal stem cells, including the placenta. Why this has not been actively done is questionable. Even larger, if there is SO MUCH PROMISE, why has there not been more private research in the private sector where you are free to do just about anything you want. And for those who choose to have abortions of non-viable fetuses (also a personal value AND RESPONSIBILITY that should remain the province of the person and their ministers, doctors, or whatever resources are at their disposal), these could easily be designated as available for research purposes.
The fact is, far too many groups are holding science hostage for their own ends, be it right or left. And its not the proper scope of government to be involved with either side's attempt to manipulate public sentiment or behavior.
Unfortunately, Bush became the religious right liberal voice of the Republicans as this group grew government at a ridiculous rate and attempted to social engineer in the process, to the utter silence of half of the party who were fiscal conservative and NOT religious right. That's the penalty the Republicans are paying for letting Bush's personal beliefs dominate a party much greater than his small worldview.
And likewise we now get to enjoy the worldview of the leftwing liberal elitists who feel that in the name of concern and caring, they will extend their reach and influence by even further extending the scope of government far beyond what the Constitution provides.
But hey, in reality its all about power, as the more folks are promised and led to believe that government is their mommy, the more who are beholden to the party who made it possible.
Of course, as you will note, the irony is that the left wing liberals are actually terrified of the common person, and are elitists at their very core. While they talk of the common man, their entire worldview is one of a benevolently imposed order by a bunch of elite impudent snobs who fancy themselves far about the common rabble for whom they are quick to tell how to live - while never extending their worldview quite far enough to subject themselves to the same scrutiny and control they want for others.
So, we watch the pendulum of belief and the misuse of science in the effort to social engineer continue.
Unfortunately, the underlying problem of social engineering has not been addressed, but simply s***ed. And that is the REAL issue that needs to be addressed at its core.
And maybe now that the Republican have been totally tossed out, perhaps they will find the leverage to toss out the remnants of the old social religious right wing liberals. It will be interesting to see if they have the foresight to resume a course dictated by a strictly and Constitutionally defined activist government of limited scope, a balanced budget where programs are limited to the amount of money available to spend, and the rights of all to be free and responsible in action and thought limited only by their imposition on others will return.In other words, a party of real openness and personal freedom where it is not the government's job to tell folks what they should do in their bedroom or n a Saturday afternoon, provided that one is responsible for their behavior and does not impose or limit others rights.
If so, great. If not, well, we are in for a LONGER road of adults functioning as helpless kids looking to the government and the ruling elite to provide for them as the big mommy in the sky.
I wish I was more optimistic.
Science. Right....Especially in light of how the enlightened masses think that it is simply a matter of choice that we have not implemented electric and hydrogen powered cars as they sit on their collective posteriors waiting for someone else to save their souls as they do little to nothing to minimize the single largest energy usage: their HOMES.
Of course, insulation and more efficient energy use is within OUR control, isn't it? And how passe to talk about something that is OUR responsibility as well as within our means to actually address, when we can oh so conveniently whine about when THEY are going to solve the problems for us as we sit on our @sses complaining...
Score: -5
|Interesting points of view.
Score: 0
|The U.S. federal government is not, has never been, and never will be interested in any kind or type of science that does not help/contribute to making themselves more money and more power. It makes no difference it it's Obama or Bush. When these people start talking about "science", it's really just another way to screw people out of more money.
Score: 0
|Put it in the wrong place - this system is clunky.
Score: 0
|Interesting question. "Spirituality" is so generic as to be useless. Being "spiritual" is not the goal. That term is used by just about everybody, but in the end tells you nothing about the person (except that maybe, since the majority of people who use that term are agnostic at best, they are agnostic.)
Spirituality is not the property of only one religion. In fact, there are some atheists who are "spiritual." I will say this though - we are to worship God in spirit and truth. There is only one true "religion" and I will boldly say that it is Christianity. But the fact still remains - either all religions are wrong or only one of them is right. They all make mutually exclusive truth claims, and since two exclusive truth claims cannot both be true, they both cannot be right.
In our quest for "tolerance" we have thrown logic and truth out the window and have done nobody any favors.
And you are right about the "atheist" comment. But, Buddhism is atheistic, it has no deity. It is really not even a religion, it is more of a philosophy. But, while I would call non-Christian religions "wrong", I would not call them atheistic. The ancient Greek religion was polytheistic, not atheistic. So, maybe "pagan" is a better term.
However, I would give this caution - citing examples of those whose incorrect spirituality was strengthened by science does nothing to advance either science or spirituality. It only serves to show how corrupt mankind is in its reasoning. I heard it said once "you worship God in your way, and I'll worship God in His." Too many people see A god in the mirror instead of THE God on His throne where He belongs, and that is what modern "spirituality" is all about.
Score: 0
|Very well stated. Having studied Middle Eastern culture and religion, I have pondered the mutually exclusive nature of three religions that appear to me to share apparent similarities. I wonder if per chance you are an apologeticist.
Score: 0
|I've never been a big fan of prejudging people's plans and ideas. I'm not prescient,so I don't know where President Obama's scientific policies will lead us.
As to "Toolie", I may disagree with some of his postings, but I would never accuse him of deliberate deception. On this issue his comments are well thought out and on the mark.
Score: 0
|*blushing*
Someone didn't get the memo... :p
Score: -3
|Every time I read something like this...
"Bush has cost many people their lives by delaying stem cell research for 8 years"
...it makes me laugh because nobody who has studied the issue would ever say something like that and mean it. Thanks for the laugh Tom.
We all know that people who make comments like that (seriously, not as a joke like Tom did) should never have graduated from high school. In the first place, embryonic stem cell (ELS) research has NEVER been outlawed, only the public funding of it has. Secondly, ELS research has NEVER had any successful clinical trials EVER, while adult stem cell (ALS) research HAS, and is currently being used in over 1000 clinical trials. ALS research has been used in 70+ treatments for any number of problems.
I sort of hoped that the title of the article would have been more about how since science has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that a human embryo is human, that Obama would have outlawed abortion. Or maybe that since scientists are in doubt over the whole big-environment cash cow called "man made global warming" that Obama would be doing something about all of the misinformation being spread based on the proven faulty weather data and what not.
But sadly, the wacko statement "President Obama's directive sends a loud and clear signal that the former administration's political manipulation of science will no longer be tolerated" only shows rampant ignorance once again. Obama is already politicizing science. If there is one thing I cannot stand it's people who claim to be freethinkers who are actually enslaved to moronic ideologues.
Sorry for my rant, but the USA is becoming more ignorant by the day. When public schools are more concerned with social engineering than education, it's no wonder.
Score: 0
|Cool comments, TheoGeek
Score: 0
|Add to that, if you will, TheoGeek, the apparent ridicule of those who would choose to eschew ignorance for knowledge. At least in a sociological aspect, it becomes more the norm to blend into the environs rather than face ridicule from one's peers for the act of actual... thinking.
I say this in reference to the first sentence of your last paragraph.
Score: 0
|fatty, you are 100% CORRECT about Bush & d***. Bush has cost many people their lives by delaying stem cell research for 8 years, killed countless animals by his brazen environmental policies, and lied over and over about climate change, not to mention going to war on false pretense. The man has NO respect for animals or the environment. he sold his sole to the devil for money.
Score: 0
|"he sold his sole to the devil for money."
He sold the bottom of his shoe to the Devil? For money? Wow..the man must be a genius.
Score: -3
|its not bush's fault but the fault of all the right winged moralist's that voted him into office.
we all knew bush was a recovering alcholic and a so-called born agsin christian, which is an illusionary title. we all knew that his brother in florida manipulated the votes. we all knew that the supreme court justices that rendered in favor of the bush vote were appointed by replubicans.
in the end, bush betrayed his voters. most of those who voted him and the republican congress are now homeless. most others have sacrificed their love ones in war. and you know what? after loosing their homes and love ones, those moralists will tell you that they are proud of bush and would elect him again.
nah, its not bush's fault. we all got what we deserved.
however, we can be assured that the right wing self righteous moralists are not finished paying the piper for their sins.
Score: 0
|LMAO, seriously, the part about W being a genious kills me everytime i read it!
Score: 0
|Good, they can finally quit wasting our hard earned money on this farce called global warming, er climate change, or whatever they're calling this fraud against mankind this week.
The key to any of this actually working should be a requirement that the so-called "scientists" are NOT receiving ANY government funding/grants!
http://epw.senate.gov/pu...-23AD-40ED-ECD53CD3D320
Score: 0
|Bush...worst president ever in the history of the United States. It is going to take decades, if not centuries to undo all the damage Bush and Cheney have done to the United States.
Score: 0
|Which would be sad, if it wasn't in light of the horror we are about to witness under the Obambi administration....
Score: -4
|Obama will lead this country to greatness, he will be around until 2016.
Score: -1
|the presidents power to deny americans information should simply be illegal by an act of congress.
until then, any incoming president can circumvent any post executive order by a variety of methods.
however, the primary goal is to deny technical advances in science and medicine to foreign countries and their citizens.
its time america stop giving away our technology only so that it will ultimately be used against us and the rest of the world.
if our federal government were smart instead of self rightous moralists, the muslim and communist world would still be using stick and stones and swords and guns today, instead of nuclear weapons and bombs.
Score: -4
|[...] muslims and communists [...]
[...] still using sticks and stones instead of [...]
I think you may wish to check twice on this before starting to act foolish :-)
Actually during the cold war (but not limited to) the soviets had (and still have) their own in house very powerful pieces of technology. And if I recall the all-mighty-free-democratic-you-name-it american people was looking over the fence in envy.
Now the chinese, which we all used to think they grow up on a rice-only diet, also have something to say to your smart post. Again, I'm not talking about stolen intel, I'm talking about original ideas and the fact that several interesting american items now belong to the chinese people :-)
Stop thinking that the US is the belly of the world and that you always give something to the rest of us. It may turn out that in many cases you take instead of giving. And in some you even take without permission.
And of course, just think of what America could have become if the nice yet to become american citizens met a native american indian people full of technology. I guess this is a part that you always avoid to mention in the history classes. How the indians, not very bright people, using bows, spears, axes, stones, were peacefully convinced to give up their home land to some very smart guys in order to build the great nation that the US is today. And yes, it's still about technology because these nice peacefull yet to become american citizens had rifles and cannons.
State of the art technology indeed compared to the useless open minded, spirit and nature preserving oriented way of life.
Notice: I'm not russian nor chinese.
Score: 0
|When it comes to funding, "established science" is in the eye of the beholder. Well see. Similar to their definition of a "good" company I'm sure.
Score: 0
|Transparency. Accountability. I'm laughing heartily at those terms right now. This is the most elitist, arrogant and dishonest administration in American history. We thought Bush and Cheny were major tools, but apparently we hadn't seen anything yet. Accountability, eh? Like the parade of tax cheats being put in charge of the federal purse strings? Like the series of "czars" Obama wants to appoint with sweeping powers that sidestep the legislative process, and who answer to no one but him? Or more like his private army of stormtroopers? Transparency like the closed-door restructuring of our entire financial system, with no input from anyone outside his cabinet? The level of self-delusion demonstrated by the unwashed masses of the Left in this nation is staggering. You don't even know a dictator when you see one, because you're so obsessed with your pathetic partisan cheerleading. You think you're morally superior because you voted for a half-black man. Your heroes are actively and openly engineering the death of a nation, gleefully shredding the Constitution, and you're eating it up. I wonder if you'll still be confidently praising their enlightened leadership when you're classed as "non-essential" and loaded onto the trucks bound for the "emergency camps".
Score: -2
|Ok...you just outdid your previous post. by a mile.
I am no fan of Obama, but you're way out in left field.
Want to support the Anti-Obama crowd? Shut it. Now. You make the rest of them look as bats*** crazy as you are.
Score: 1
|Oh, you'd love to silence me, wouldn't you, Toolie? Just like Obama would. I was like you once, blithely secure in the sanctity and security of our system with its blue chip cornerstones. Then I had my eyes opened by people whose feet you aren't worthy to wash. No, Tool, YOU shut it. You're as big of a self-deluded idiot as they come. The only thing you've contributed to this site for two years is boundless smarm and a psychotic devotion to a monopolistic software company. You're assumption of an authoritarian tone is not just pathetic, Mr. I-wish-I-was-Scott-Fulton, it betrays your core inability to realize that bad things can happen to good societies. When the Brownshirts were screaming their hate in the streets of Germany, I bet their detractors were told to shut up, too. Thank God the majority of Americans are smart enough to see whats being perpetrated here, despite the media's utter complicity in the Obama deception.
Score: -7
|Ummm...are you for real?
Regarding PC_Tool, he has been contributing here way longer than two years. He's also had more than a fair amount of criticism towards Microsoft, and I don't know where that Scott Fulton comment comes from.
I may not agree with Tool on everything, but I can tell you that he was right in telling you to shut it if you want to support the anti-Obama crowd. I'm just as pissed off about Obama's policies as you are, but you're just doing Obama favors by ranting about stuff like this. There's room for intelligent debate, but calling people whom you disagree with "self-diluded idiots" doesn't constitute intelligent debate.
Score: 1
|@PC_Tool: He's got you about the smarm ;)
Score: 0
|@psycros:
*laughing*
"The only thing you've contributed to this site for two years is boundless smarm and a psychotic devotion to a monopolistic software company"
Devotion to MSFT? Yeah... OK, sparky.
As for "smarm"...I can only assume that equates to sarcasm, in which case, You bet!
"I was like you once, blithely secure in the sanctity and security of our system with its blue chip cornerstones. "
Really? You were once a die-hard conservative seeking rational and logical support for The Constitution? What's happened since then? Did you suffer a head injury?
"Mr. I-wish-I-was-Scott-Fulton, it betrays your core inability to realize that bad things can happen to good societies."
Few things: Scott and I do not generally see *anything* eye-to-eye. Have you missed my countless comments on his sensationalistic style, or his flair to outright *lie* in headlines? As for bad things in good societies, that pretty much defines the mental condition known as liberalism, and it has been afflicting this country since Reagan.
You really don't know the slightest damned thing about me (or much else for that matter), do you?
Score: -3
|wow, you just described the departed Bush administration to the letter.. :)
Score: 0
|Just like the established science of embryonic stem cell research is near 100% failure rate opposed to the very promising future of umbilical cord stem cell?
But in order to appease a certain sect of scientist of whom helped him obtain the presidency, he will now reward them with the immoral practice of funding their research of which has bore no fruit?
I see.
Score: 0
|Don't know where you heard that. It isn't even remotely true. Most of the successful stem cell research uses the existing stem cell lines (allowed by Bush because they had already been created) which are embryonic, NOT umbilical!
Score: -1
|Please stop repeating this lie, its getting old. Number of successful treatments derived from adult stem cells: over 100. Number of successful treatments derived from embryonic stem cells: zero. This is about one thing and one thing only - the devaluation of the unborn human being. Scientists want to genetically manipulate embryos to eliminate disease and defects pre-birth. They also want to open the door to human cloning. This is not a big secret. There are dozens of high-level life sciences researchers. primarily in Europe and Asia on record about their ambitions. While there is actually a certain level of noble sentiment in the idea of "fixing" people before their born, we all know what this will ultimately lead to: a lot of perfect blue-eyed, blonde haired little babies. You can deny it all you like, but everyone knows it will happen. The anti-fetal rights crowd will be the largest consumer of designer children. But the greatest irony of all is the lack of genetic diversity this will create puts humanity at even greater risk of epidemic diseases.
Score: -3
|@psycros
Wow.
I haven't seen that amount of conspiracy BS since the guy who used to post on here all the time blaming the Jews for all of the ills of society. (I believe he even once said he knew Hitler was still alive)...
For your next trick, pin this on Microsoft. I'm sure if you tried hard enough, you could...
Score: -2
|how is ANY research that may or may not produce results (remember, this is RESEARCH, not a promise that if this is done things WILL happen) that harms NOONE immoral? Get off your christian high horse.... get a life, this post is about science, something that is based on the premise of reproducable results, not on fantasy beliefs in some maybe maybe not fictional god that NOONE will ever be able to produce evidence of.
Score: 0
|I will not begin to pretend to know what other people are thinking.. all I can say is... IF and I said IF, science can eliminate birth defects, genetically engineer out weaker genes that can cause things like downs syndrome, or even -- hell, if they can detect and fix problems with an unborn baby's body such as weak internal organs (hearts, eyes, etc) -- what is so bad about that? if all who have children have more viable children (no more miscarriages, no more children born with incurable diseases, no more birth defects, not only will society as a whole benefit more (less health care costs, less burden to society supporting those who cannot support themselves due to health reasons they have had since birth), but maybe... just maybe.. there will be more people who can look to the future with a brain and not with the stigma of some society shunned appearance or disability to hamper them. No I am not for genetically altering unborn children to be 'perfect" but EVERY unborn child IMO should have the chance at a normal life free of things that could hamper them throughout their life from being just as useful and productive as the next guy or gal.
Score: 0
|No, hitler died about 10 years ago of old age and cancer in south africa...
hmmm.. microsfft.. gimmie a bit and i will come up with something :)
(both the above are posted in good humor at the poster
Score: 0
|Dleffler - You're complaining that this administration is asking for transparency and accountability? You'd prefer if the government appointed someone obscure and deceive the American people? Not only that but you're pre-judging scientific data before you read it, solely because it will come from this administration and not Bush's?
Wow it amazes me that people like you want to be lied to so bad that you actually want our government to appoint people to lie and deceive you. I prefer to have pertinent scientific data made available to elected officials and the public so we can make informed decisions on our future, and your children's future.
If the recommendations made by the OSTP director turn out to be biased towards President Obama's philosophy and political goals I'm sure we will all hear from the scientific community/public.
Score: 0
|saywhat: I think what dleffler is saying is that the money and support will just flow to whichever scientists support the opinions of the current administration, which is really not much of a change from the previous administration. Defending Bush's view of scientific research would be insane of course, but to think Obama's approach will be all that different is probably being overly optimistic. For instance, while most of the noise about climate change is in agreement that humanity is a major cause, not everyone agrees, and there is a lot of evidence backing that up. But since Obama believes it, his administration will support those scientists and scientific evidence that "proves" him right. A real test would be if Obama also funded and supported those scientists who disagree with humanity's involvement in climate change, so perhaps we could truly have a fair and balanced argument.
Score: 2
|Isn't saying the scientific evidence supplied by this administration is biased before it even is made available completely speculative -- and a little asinine? Who are we to say that this administration will make the same mistakes of past administrations? While I am being optimistic I whole heartily believe on giving president Obama the benefit of the doubt.
If the data comes out without dissenting opinions or is obviously biased towards one scientific point of view I'm sure someone in government or the scientific community already has a large pile of stones in queue ready to throw.
The best science doesn't look to place the blame on man or the natural order. The best science will tell you what will happen if we don't make changes and then hypothesizes the best course to ensure our protection. It's easy to divide people on global warming when you turn it into a man-made vs. "that's what god intended" debate, but you completely overlook or ignore the reality of our situation and the steps we can take to help our environment. Even if global warming isn't man made and this is the natural order of things -- reducing emissions, cleaning our environment, using renewable energy and resources are all things that make us better stewards of this earth and shouldn't be opposed.
Score: 1
|People look at how theories change and think they are entirely arbitrary. They are not! Good science is hypothesis - test - prove or disprove - re-hypothesize - test - etc. But it always takes the facts into account. Religion has nothing to say about the facts.
Interestingly, some of the most famous scientists, Einstein among them, think that the complexity of nature is proof of a higher being.
Score: 1
|interestingly, some of the most famous scientists, Einstein among them, think that the complexity of nature is proof of a higher being????
TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!!
That argument has been shot down many times--I suggest doing some research on up to date philosophical debates regarding this topic.
Score: 0
|Why just debate it the way Rush does (make up something that the other guy supposedly said). Here's a few quotes. Decide for yourself about the spirituality of these scientists:
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. - Albert Einstein
The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the
explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself. - Ken Miller (Professor of Biology, Brown University)
The mistake is to think that your personal God is the only God. That isn't spiritual, it is anti-spiritual.
Score: -1
|I refuse to get involved with your obviously WEAK-MINDED rationale., your understanding of the word "GOD" when spoken by scientists is as absurd as your silly belief in the existence of the "super natural being" . But since you insist here's one of the many examples:
..Much unfortunate confusion is caused by by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God(and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own......by 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant......
the factual premise of religion-the GOD Hypothesis-is untenable. GOD almost certainly does not exist!(Richard Dawkins--Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Fellow of New College)
ANY MORE BRIGHT IDEAS???
Score: -1
|"I refuse to get involved with your obviously WEAK-MINDED rationale.,"
then why did you even post? you DID get involved.. do you always lie or contradict yourself so ? :D
Score: 0
|@eunichman
if you can't say something constructive, don't say anything at all.......
Score: 0
|First of all, 'Super Natural Being' is your attempt at a pejorative characterization of other people's spirituality. I never used the phrase.
Secondly, it is clear that what you mean by 'Atheist' is actually 'non-Christian', because the traditional religion of Bhuddism is very close to what Einstein was talking about. You sound like one of the Talib-Christians in your rejection of spirituality because it isn't your spirituality.
Third, I don't claim Einstein "as my own", but cite him and the other scientist quoted as examples of scientists whose spirituality was strengthened by their study of science.
Lastly, your final quote is a horrible case of inductive reasoning. Using just one example, you can 'prove' anything. For Example: The movie star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, therefore all movie stars are Scientologists. Silly.
Your homework, students: Is spirituality the property of only one religion?
Score: 0
|First of all I reject all spirituality regardless of flavor and it is YOU who does not seem to be able to distinguish the so called spirituality from an established religion that is centered around a cult of a "super natural being". You erroneously quote some guys who's defending the very idea of existence of the higher being(GOD)????YOU"RE CONFUSED!!! On top of that, --heheheh next you're telling me that Einstein's philosophy was similar to a Buddhist religion-heheh- YOU ARE INDEED FUNNY!! I hope that he does not come back as a fly--what a waste of great mind would that be huh???hehe
But what else can one expect form a person who's reasoning is skewed because he's a closed-minded, pseudo intellectual loser. I'm sorry but you're spiritual--hmmm a concept that I just don't get, right???-ohh poor me.
Also, the next time you have a nerve to criticize someone who's oblivious MORE QUALIFIED to speak on the subject matter (THEN YOU WILL EVER BE!)please at least read his book--I've only taken out some phrases that to give my argument some perspective....But I see that went right pass your level of comprehension and leaves me no choice but to say.....
shut the hell up with your moronic argument and go pray to the "higher being" or something--NOW THAT"S YOUR HOMEWORK!!!
Score: 0
|It's always about the money! If there was no funding to be considered these would be discussions and nothing more.
Score: 0
|The President who went out of his way to be called a Christian; is doing everything in his power to promote and work against Christianity.
Science over Ideaology. Supporting same sex marriage, abortion,Etc.
Why does he want to try to hide behind the cloak of Christianity? He is a Non-Christian valued Marxist minded politition. He professes to be a Christian, Why? He has the right to be what ever he wants to be, so why profess to be what you are not? And work against, what you profess to be?
Score: -3
|because he's a smart man, besides, if he admitted to be a non-believer(especially "god" forbid a non-christian) he would not stand a chance in winning the presidency--because losers like you would not have voted for him simply because of that fact.
Score: 0
|Well, then thankfully he proved that we can at least trust him...
Score: 0
|Not all Christians hate everyone and everything except other Christians. He may be one of the very few sane ones.
Score: 1
|hmmmmm.. IMO, he CAN be an avid "christian" and still, in his duty of office promote science over religion... how? simple, he is jujst doing his job. this god of yours has NO place in politics or the running of this country. This is a Democracy, not a Theocracy.
Score: 0
|actually, you are wrong... IF you are a true "christian" then you follow the teachings of this christ dude, and follow the words in that bible of yours (nice epic work of fantasy imo.. one of the greatest ever made :) ), then yes, you hate everyone who doesnt believe as you do.. the bible tells you to do that, to "..spit them out.." if they dont believe in the same god and the same teachings as you, to "..shake the dust of that place.." where they live off your sandals and move on :)
Score: 0
|Established science is wrong about many fundamental assumptions regarding space. It is alive with electricity that uses plasma as it's conductor. The sun is an electric plasma reaction and not nuclear. Until they acknowledge these facts they do not deserve funding or their opinions trusted. See http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm for more info.
Score: -1
|Might as well poke some fun. If space was "alive with electricity", then wouldn't everything in it (say, satellites and astronauts) get electrocuted? You must be a troll. Play any WoW?
Score: 0
|Back to Gore science.
Score: 0
|Pretty good spin on reality by continuing to use double-speak. Boils down to which set of scientists or data get preferential treatment. Generally, everyone chooses what caters to their own philosophy or polical goals. After all, a hypothesis by it's very nature collects data to prove itself.
There is no change here, just (public) rationalization to impose a different philosophy (humanistic) on all Americans. e.g., which lobbyists are current leaders taking their perks and future votes from.
Score: 2
|Almost correct. A hypothesis collects data to prove and disprove itself. Before a scientist can publish the results of such an experiment, it is peer reviewed. The peers will reject the paper if any part of it seems half-baked or inadequate. If it does get published, hundreds of other scientists in the same field will attempt to replicate the findings. It isn't arbitrary. It is a process of refinement and discovery. Sometimes it takes a while to find the contradictory evidence that sends the theory all the way back to the beginning. But that is way better than ignoring the facts and just making up a fairy tale.
Score: 1
|That would be nice if it wasn't for the active blacklisting of any scientist who opposes the mainstream. Evidence that clearly questions man-made global warming, for example, is not even examined by the scientific community at large. Hard to have peer review when your peers won't review your data, no?
Score: 0
|The 'blacklisting' comes when the 'scientists' try to use non-science as a countertheory or try to claim that one contradictory piece of evidence invalidates the entire larger theory. In the case of evolution, it would be proposing 'creation-science' which has absolutely no scientific underpinnings. Or it would be claiming that because there is a gap in the fossil record between species X and species Y, the entire theory is invalidated, despite the fact that there are now millions of data points that prove the theory.
In the case of global warming, you will find that many of the blacklisted scientists have chosen to ignore huge amounts of data. In science, you are obligated to explain how ALL of the available data is explained by your theory. If you can't, and if you just decide to ignore the data, then your theory is a non-starter and you become a pariah. It really is a case of being able to defend your theory. It doesn't have to be right in every way, but it has to have a preponderance of factual support.
Score: 1
|(accidental double-post)
Score: 0
|Double-speak or politically based science verses imperically based science. It appears the Republican base prefers politiclly based science which appeases the fundementalists and their ignorance of imperically based processes.
Score: -1
|