This is question begging and really has little to do with the question we are discussing.
If Kim Jong un wants to use physics to create a hydrogen bomb and a missile to carry it to my backyard… is he planning to “pervert science”?
Of course not… the perversion originates in his motives and has nothing to do with science. But the science is “good” science.
Science is a method… people can use it or refuse to use it… You can’t really “pervert” methods…
And if scientists are clear in defining good methodology and enforce that standard, they dont have to worry about the method being perverted.
Not any more than innumerable other forms of social and philosophical beliefs.
By the way, this talking point about evolution and racism seems to be nothing but some stick you pick up to beat evolution with on some occasion here and there. Tell me more about your history of combating racist policies. What parties do you vote for? Where do you live? What politicians do you vote for? What’s your opinion on the black lives matter movement? Please don’t tell me you’re usually voting conservative republicans, and are merely paying lip-service to the idea of anti-racist policies when rhetorically convenient for you, but when it comes down to it at the ballot box your concern for mistreatment of minorities mysteriously disappears.
That says nothing about racism. Incidentally women, being created in the image of God, are told to shut up in church. Created intrinsically worse and for the convenience of men. In the image of God, but apparently less so.
Can’t you? The ID Creationists are certainly trying very hard to do it. I don’t think that when Churchill coined that expression he meant that “perverted science” was good science turned to bad purposes, but that he meant things similar to ID Creationism, like German racial pseudoscience.
Right, and I understand your answer. It remains the case that people like the ID Creationists are constantly trying to pervert science to their own ends. The purity of science from these types of perversions isn’t automatic: it requires eternal vigilance.
Actually a lot of people are following in my footsteps. In Europe, Austrialia, Canada, secularism is predominate. In the US, a third of the population have no religious affiliation and nearly half of those under 45 have no religious affiliation. And during this worldwide COVID pandemic, religions all over the world has shown their total uselessness. It is only through science, human reasoning, empathy and cooperation that this global pandemic will be conquered. Religions have just gotten in the way and added to, and not lessened the human suffering.
It only is weird if what is meant by it is weird. In my case, I am not a scientist myself and am simply concerned that science as we know it today continues to maintain its integrity and is not taken over by political movements run by religious zealots and the like.
In America, this is a close-run bit of business, and if the Kitzmiller decision on Intelligent Design had gone otherwise we’d be having a lively fight here over keeping scientific perversity away from our children. Fortunately, the decision went the right way and the integrity of science against that particular assault is intact. But there will be more such attacks.
Culturally, we’re lagging Western Europe, but we are catching up! I think that Donald Trump may actually be aiding the cause – certainly the McFlightsuit administration was not good for religion’s reputation with young people.
You can make an observation after everything settles down.
I don’t know about the US, but various religious organizations have done their bit in providing essentials for the poor in India. In fact, other than NGO’s (many of them christian), it was mosques, churches,temples and gurudwaras which stepped forward with relief activities.
Reasoning, empathy and cooperation are not things which are exclusive to humanists and absent in religious people.
Doctors,nurses and healthcare workers are at the forefront of the battle against COVID-19. Many of these (the vast majority atleast in India) are religious.
Its this kind of intentional blindness to reality that amazes me.
Not really. Science is, as the postmodernists and the creationists like to remind us, a social activity. While it is true that people will always use scientific findings in such things as engineering because they are useful, it is surely NOT true that people will always maintain the integrity of science in such things as evolutionary biology just because good science generates good results. There are always fundamentalists on the march against science, and there likely always will be.
Yes, it’s politics, and yes, the fundamentalists are in the business of scaring people. And there are good reasons to be scared of the fundamentalists, as the Trump and McFlightsuit administrations have shown us.
These things are usually a double edged sword and there is a political party at each end.
In india this is done through either religious differences such as between Hindus and muslims or through caste differences, pitting high castes against low castes.
One party scares the hindu to get votes, and another scares the muslims… similarly along caste lines also.
This way, people will identify themselves with a particular political party and sell their votes "cheap… fewer questions will be asked as long as the “other” guy is effectively squashed.
Politicians love identity politics. Makes them less accountable for the actual work they do.
Yes, but before you make me out for a fool, as you plainly are suggesting, you might want to consider whether it is just possible that these issues – the preservation of democracy against racist, halfwitted theocrats – might BE the important issue about which people are being distracted from asking questions. The other thing you might want to consider is that I’m not saying I am a single-issue voter on this subject. The reality is that I am very politically and economically conservative in areas that have nothing to do with this war against the halfwits, and those conservative views lead me to vote consistently for the Democratic party, which happily also happens, in addition to being the more politically conservative party of the two, to be the party identified with secular government.