Lewis Loflin openbox desktop
Webmaster Homepage

Obama's Science Teacher Training Initiative is Politicized Science

by Lewis Loflin

"Obama also called on the 200,000 scientists who work for the federal government to help by speaking at schools and participating in hands-on projects to help stoke a youngster's curiosity in science."

January 6, 2010 AP

What does he mean exactly science or politics cloaked in science? (Climate change.) Democrats constantly try to employ "science" to justify many onerous political positions. This disturbing piece from Salon.com (a far left website) is a case in point:

One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party's war on reality. It's not about politics for scientists (total nonsense yes it is), it's about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to what does and doesn't prevent pregnancy.

Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, 68 Nobel-winning scientists co-signed a strong endorsement of Obama, saying the President "has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making."...

Democrats and the far-left in general hold much of the public in contempt and as inferior. People do believe in climate change, but the left has not made the case based on EMPIRICAL science man is largely responsible. Years of failed computer models, which do not constitute EMPIRICAL proof tends to create skepticism.

The report the above was derived from reads like a virtual blueprint for the takeover of every aspect of our lives and then we are somehow stupid to question it? We are talking increasingly massive levels of wealth and power transferred to government control.

The report is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

What the hell does "faith" have to do with science? This will compromise science as the promise of public funding and personal political power will reflect the science being presented. Too many scientists are also present at American universities virtual Marxist hellholes where dissent and skepticism on anything is crushed like bug.

The other problem is research funding is tied into politics and pure science has little priority. While the military gets a lot of R&D funding pure science is another case. But science to underwrite political agendas gets billions to support the agenda.

Any scientist taking the wrong political or social position will face retaliation - many colleges believe the Constitution doesn't even apply at their institutions.

Skepticism is the basis of science, unless it's politically incorrect. For example evolutionary biology shows idea people do differ by race, ability, IQ, etc. is rejected and even race itself has been redefined as "social construct" was invented by not by empirical science but by social scientists leading to ruthless political suppression of research that disproves their position. And that goes for many other subjects such as so-called "climate change".

Empirical science has been replaced by opinion, data replaced or manufactured by computer modeling. The opinions of scientists is not empirical science. The problem has become is empirical science is being buried by social science much of it Marxist or far left. If scientists prefer playing politics then we have a right and a duty to question their ethics.


Gateway Pages for this website:   » General Subjects
  » Archive 1   » Archive 2   » Archive 3
  » Archive 4   » Archive 5   » Archive 6
  » Archive 7   » Archive 8   » Archive 9