Image: Doug Chayka
Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there's a liberal war on science. Say what?
We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women's bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.
The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.
There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”
Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.
Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change. Pace Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty may not be a vice, but it is in defense of science, where facts matter more than faith—whether it comes in a religious or secular form—and where moderation in the pursuit of truth is a virtue.
This article was originally published with the title The Left's War on Science.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
185 Comments
Add CommentThere's a difference between questioning the scale of conclusions (e.g. global warming), and questioning the very methodology of science itself (creationism). The 2 are not remotely comparable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism would inject religion into science, with disastrous results. Of course it's the far left, not liberals, who are anti-everything such as vaccines, sustainable farming, etc. There's quite a difference there as well.
In your comment on GMOs you mention Monsanto and profit. This is anti-corporatism, not anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue with Monsanto isn't GMO, agriculture has been doing that by cross-breeding for centuries. The issue is their corporate behavior: forcing farmers to license seeds, legal arrangements and loan terms that are more like indentured servitude, suing farmers for natural processes (e.g. winds/insects pollinating and spreading their patented crops) the farmer has minimal control over, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm all for alternate energy. Some of it requires big spending for infrastructure and for figuring out how to deal with waste (which I'm all for as well).
Michael Schermer confuses science with technology. The religious right is anti-science, attacking the fact of evolution and the fact of human-caused global warming, both of which have been proved far beyond a reasonable doubt. Skepticism about the use of technology, on the other hand, is fact-based, which the Great Skeptic ought to understand. Disposal of nuclear waste is a problem, burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor to global arming, hydroelectric dams do disrupt ecosystems and wind turbines do kill birds. The question is how much damage is done as compared to benefits. The bottom line is finding ways to provide energy and food to our teeming billions while minimizing damage. Being skeptical about the effects of technology is a far cry from a war on science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, Monsanto is evil. I was a reporter covering the debate in the Wisconsin legislature over the use of bovine growth hormone. I don't have the background to critique the science, but I have developed a good internal lie detector. I remember that a lobbyist for Monsanto looked me in the eye and said, with a straight face, "Wisconsin is the only place there has been any controversy over BGH." This was before the Internet offered immediate checking of such claims. After I learned that BGH (as Monsanto liked to call it) is highly controversial in other dairy states and in Europe, I started referring to that lobbyist, privately, as "Larry the Liar." We need some additions to the great I.F. Stone's dictum that "All governments lie." We should add, "All corporations lie" and "All large organizations lie."
"By the way, Monsanto is evil." --- Anyone who doubts that the "progressive" Left is not animated by a quasi-religious fervor ought to ponder the implications of such a statement. (It's a variant of the "Monsatan" theme that is omnipresent on the internet.) Of course, "all corporations lie," so perhaps our only hope is a Cuban-style economy --- blissfully devoid of corporations, ruggedly devoted to "the people." (I'm being facetious.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a veteran of many debates with Leftist anti-GMO activists, I can assure you that Michael Schermer is justified in equating the anti-science attitudes of the Right and the Left. Mention GMOs to a leftist and you'll be treated to a litany of cliches about "untested" food, about "tampering" with Nature, about farmers being sued when GMO pollen drifts onto their fields (although not one case of this happening in this country has ever been documented, and the Canadian Percy Schmeiser case is sui generis, as a recent piece by NPR reporter Dan Charles makes clear), etc.
GMOs are to the Left what global warming is to the Right. Logic and evidence fly out the window, and I thank Michael Schermer for daring to attack a progressive sacred cow. I wish he had included a short reading list so that anyone still undecided on the issue could study what some of our leading scientists have to say. I recommend Nina Fedoroff's book 'Mendel in the Kitchen: a scientist's view of genetically modified foods' and James Watson's chapter on "Tempest in a Cereal Box" in his book 'DNA: the Secret of Life.' Unfortunately, my experience tells me that the loudest voices in this "debate" are the least likely to take my advice and read what the experts have to say.
I applaud the even-handedness of this article in exposing the quasi-religious fervor of some of the far left. However the scale of the attacks on science seems to be much greater from the right and therefore it deserves the greater attention it typically gets in SA. Also people can be conservative politically and support science, and can be liberal yet creationist – so the labeling here is a bit simplistic/stereotypical - but then again it is only a one-page article. Over-all a great article, with good blog comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr Shermer writes "science journalists" Berezow and Campbell "contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem". How picky can a "progressive liberal" be! A paragraph down, Shermer warns of the futility of attempted conversation a "liberal progressive" on GMOs. So which is more unreasonable, I would like to know, the progressive liberal or the liberal progressive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(signed) Radical Socialist
This column contains a serious and disturbing error in the discussion of GMO's (genetically modified organisms).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main error is to treat genetic modification as though it were a single thing, and as being as identical to the way we've been “genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection.” If GM techniques were being used exclusively to increase the weight or sugar content of an ear of corn, I might agree with the point.
However, there is a second type of genetic modification that is considerably more problematic. GM is used to introduce toxins into the organism, particularly Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This is totally different from any kind of classical breeding and selection. And even if it were possible to prove absolutely that BT is perfectly harmless to all humans (whose sensitivity to the toxin presumably varies among individuals), can we trust agribusinesses not to introduce other toxins that might be more harmful? Recall that some of these agribusinesses once advertised that cigarettes are good for you. Can we even rely on them to be perfectly open and transparent about what genes they are introducing? And lastly, even if humans are not harmed directly, can we be certain that these toxins will not have adverse effects on other organisms and their ecosystems, for example birds and wildlife, especially insectivores?
Introducing toxins into crops is something completely different from classical breeding, and should not be described as identical to it, nor should it be described as perfectly harmless.
Doug Robertson's post alerts us to be wary of the sorts of oversimplification that is characteristic of Shermer's article, which attempts to deal with concerns about technological threats to our environment as if they are part of the noisy squabbles of the political left and right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the point of this article's effort to show that the left as well as the right have "extremists"? Are profits not the driving force of corporate policies? Is it wrong to remind citizens that major corporations have no moral constraints, except what is imposed on them by law; that they control our media, elections, and write our laws? The time for moderation was twenty-five years ago, when the effects of greenhouse gases were first reported by a few scientists. Now is the time for extremism, Mr Schermer. Hundreds of millions of lives, possibly billions in the coming decades, are at stake. The corporate rats have come ashore carrying their fleas. Floods, drought, famine, hurricanes, as well as disease are the plagues they carry!
Dear Mr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom your article I take that I as a more liberal-minded person who is a skeptic about GMOs, especially when considering them in light of a company like Monsanto, should blindly take your comment as true, that just because we have selected organisms for over 10,000 years the new and completely different technology of genetically modifying organisms is without risks.
Unfortunately, that would be extremely unscientific, as there is currently not enough unbiased (from both sides) research to agree with your reasoning!
The very essence of science and research is, to remain skeptical and to not make assumptions based on unproven comparisons. That has nothing to do with declaring Armageddon, but with generating questions that need to be answered!
I'm glad to see an article addressing this growing issue in the liberal community. As a scientist I run into this science phobia all the time and it's incredibly frustrating. This insistence that nature is good and science is evil is popping up in more and more conversations. The "Vaccines cause Autism" debate is a perfect example and whooping cough deaths are on the rise as a result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is anti-science when the liberals in question say that the science MUST be wrong because PROFIT is involved. When they question the entire scientific community consensus because of their "anti-corporate" views, they are anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The issue with Monsanto isn't GMO"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is simply not true. The left takes issue with the safety of GMOs, opposing the consensus and espousing wackjob conspiracy theories.
"Monsanto is evil" because one lobbyist made an inaccurate statement. I sincerely hope that comment was satire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCry me a river. If it hadn't been for "corporations" half of us wouldn't be alive. All those "billions" of people who could be killed by your imaginary hurricanes are only there because of fossil-fuel burning technology. Do corporations have "moral constraints?" WTF does that even mean? Do you have moral constraints? Not all environmentalists are communists but when you make statements like that you don't help the cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ duestrek, the climate deniers make similar arguments. Both question the scientific consensus and make conspiratorial arguments about "bias." Where you say the science is funded by corporations, they say it is funded by governments, both are true. But thinking that there is some great conspiracy in the scientific establishment is clearly an anti-science view that needs to be questioned. Especially when its coming from non-scientists who know in their hearts that bogeyman X is evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article, I was particularly impressed with your description of "cognitive creationists." For too long the scientific establishment has stood on the sidelines while left-wing thugs bullied any researcher who looked into questions of intelligence and heretability. I find that on the issue of human biology, more than any other, liberals display a stunning intolerance of viewpoints they determine to be "bigoted." Even when they are willing to argue economics, if you say once that maybe perhaps the greatly differing evolutionary roles that men and women evolved in might be a cause of differing behaviors, you could find yourself on a "hate" list. While the scientific establishment has rightly attacked the religious conservatives who say that sexual orientation is a choice, they have seemed to frightened to go after the people who say that gender is a social construct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather dubious to support GMO by saying "It's the only way to feed billions of people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps we should be applying some science or social psychology, economics, politics, education, etc. to encourage the planet to have fewer than those billions of people, so they can be fed without GMOs.
I agree with Doug. GM engineering is not classical plant breeding, and it is puzzling that someone who is writing an article on anti-science would have been better informed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSay what? Yes, Mr S., Americans of varied political thought do not readily embrace science when it conflicts with their dearly held beliefs. Even well educated scientist may balk when new data challenges "settled science". But really, a liberal/left war on science? If I object to polluted water and air, declining numbers of birds and fish, strip mines and oil spills, and inadequate storage of nuclear waste I'm at war with science? That's just goofy. Equally insulting is reading, in the pages of Scientific American now, another friend of Monsanto telling me man has been genetically modifying for 10,000 years. Gosh, who knew? No worries then; it's all OK. I'll just cheer Monsanto on so the can feed the billions more people that are planet is dying for. Then we can have a real war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTowards what end are you arguing genetic gender behavior differences? Sexual orientation is a spectrum and so are traits associated with gender. What is the practical application of acknowledging gender specific behavioral traits? I suspect that is where the push back comes from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKaren employs the two most common liberal arguments. First, the anecdote argument, then the "practical application" argument. In the first, the liberal argues that because there are people of group X who do not behave in Y way, membership in group X does not affect behavior in Y. She says that traits associated with gender exist in a "spectrum." I assume this is calling the anecdote argument otherwise I'm not sure what it means. She then used the "practical applications" model. This is based on subjugating scientific discovery to someone's one ideology. The Pope would have asked the same question to Galileo. Since believing that the earth revolves around the sun is offensive to our ideology, and it provides us with no practical use, why believe it? To those of us who value science and truth, understanding the human brain is as important, maybe more so, than understanding the solar system. And there are many practical applications to evolutionary psychology, chief among them psychology itself, the billion dollar industry that it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis book sounds like the Obama 2016 movie in that it is long on drama and short on substance. The Republican War on Science book outlined how Republican LEADERS rejected science and shaped pubic opinion about it and diverted tax money to their pet projects. This book seems to claim that some liberal citizens do not like pollution and are concerned about nuclear waste. It just doesn't seem equivalent to me. I am a chemist and I am concerned about nuclear waste (and all chemical hazards--I like to have a safe lab) and feel that pesticides have not been studied enough. I feel that way because of what I read and know about chemicals. As for GMOs, "liberals" are concerned that GMO crops pollinate others and there has not been any study of what happens when an organism is modified by a chemical process. It could cause allergies by making new proteins or weaken the organism in ways that have not been studied yet. It sounds as if liberals share my concerns. They haven't declared war on science, they have declared war on irresponsible science. Irresponsible science diminishes us all. I imagine one of your advertisers forced you to publish this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for pointing this out. Interesting that conservatives rarely accuse liberals of being "anti-science", yet many of their positions very much are. GMO is a perfect example. In fact, a leader of the anti-GMO movement has recently flipped on this issue (see http://www.npr.org/2013/01/20/169847199/former-anti-gmo-activist-says-science-changed-his-mind?ft=1&f=1007) due to actually looking at the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn some cases, I see differing views on science related issues as more of differing priorities rather than being anti-science. Conservatives, often crtiticized as not caring for people, priortize the economy and abundance of food supply over a pristine environment because, ironically, they care about people in the here and now. Liberals on the other hand prioritize the natural state over people and their hardships on issues like GMO and DDT, both of which can save millions of people. Not saying one set of priorities is right and the other is wrong - just calling it as I see it.
Monsanto might be evil or at least careless. I know someone who works for them and days they crop dusted their own workers who were in the field. I also vaguely know an organic farmer who claims that they dusted his farm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree, the left side of the spectrum suffers from the Naturalist fallacy. They are no better than deniers when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry or GMO. So the issue is a lack of education in critical thought and the scientific method. I have mentioned before my idea of the ALL curriculum as opposed to the 3Rs. By basing the core of education on Arithmetic, Logic and Literacy, and then using subjects such as Science, History, Health and Social Studies as implementations of those core subjects we help to structure people's thinking. In a technologically advanced society we can't afford to have ignorant masses voting based on ideology in the face of hard facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA self described democrat and a liberal are not the same thing. I would say only 40% of democrats are liberals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference that Shermer fails to recognize is that the GOP leadership is openly anti-science. We just had republican presidential candidates on record with anti-vaccine, anti-evolution and global warming denialism talking points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the liberal side you can find groups of people that self-identify as liberal with incorrect scientific ideas but you will not find the democratic leadership, specially at the presidential level, to express anti-scientific ideas with the religious zealotry of the right.
Pauli,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not clear what you mean by gender
Defining a whole class of people in a narrow category like liberal or conservative, and then assigning them to an emotionally charged concept of something like, war is in and of itself unscientific. There are a great many biases and beliefs from every group or classification of people that are unscientific. I think perhaps the worst enemy of science are those who blindly try to defend it. Science is about skepticism, reason, critical thinking and evidence, not belief; not even in science itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- This has to be the most stupid thing Michael has ever said. Lets just take this apart:
Firstly I think Michael is basing this on the fact that some people opposed the use of embrionic tissue for stem cell research. The oponents of this said - "Guys you can get stem cells from other sources!" - and they were right, these are now widely used - no need to use emrionic tissue at all.
Secondly what a bizzare and false comparison: Opposition to killing someone is the same as opposing an unethical treatment process - huh? In one case someone is saying "Don't kill this person simply out of convenience" and this is granting them a higher moral standing than suggesting that a treatment route for another patient is unethical? Does not compute.
All this anti-GMO fervor has made it almost impossible for academic institutions to get funding for GMO research. As a result corporate giants like Monsanto have the field all to themselves. That's why there's a shortage of "unbiased" research. All the protesting is stifling our ability to make any informed conclusions about the safety of GMO products. Personally, I'd like to see a study done about how much of the anti-GMO activism is being funded by the organic foods industry, which is itself a multi-billion dollar business and one of the fastest growing segments of US agriculture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe paranoia of the far-left anti-corporatists towards Big Business is a mirror image to that of the far-right NRA gun nuts towards government. On the left it's "Big Business can't be trusted to do anything ethically" and "Monsatan is evil & nothing good can come out of that place". On the right it's "The government is a bunch of tyrants who want to take away our guns". It's absurd! If you don't like the way a company conducts its business, don't give them yours. That's your right & your decision. But DON'T try to make my decision for me. I can't stand Wal-Mart's business "ethics" and refues to shop there, but I'd never try to prevent them from selling to those who do want their products. That'd be no better that the bible thumpers who try to outlaw gay marriage or teaching evolution just because it conflicts with their beliefs.
"41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me quote Galileo from his 1632 classic, The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, for all those ignorant Creationists.
"It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put Lord at every turn"
How does Shermer justify his critique of people who don't like GMO's by saying it's been done for 10,000 years but ignores the fact that GMO's allow for more and stronger pesticides which are poisoning our fields and waters? That's what disturbs us. And now the pesticides aren't working as they were and as it was predicted back in the 1990's. So is he just ignorant or what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as disposal of nuclear waste ... how about putting research money into safer sources of energy? That's been stymied because many of those energy sources don't have renewable profits.
So he's a shill (nice word, rather than others I could think of) for the industries he accuses liberals of criticizing. He's certainly not scientific.
Perhaps,"war" is an overstatement of most liberals' positions. "Selective disagreements" may be closer to their position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf scientists are at war with liberals (and conservatives), they have initiated assaults against a huge majority.
But "war" is probably not the best word to use in the context of the article.
Extremists are not the only ones with closed minds. 40 years ago give or take I read a newspaper article on psi. They had a quote from a member of a Skeptic organization (hopefully not yourself). Went something like: If someone used statistics and proved the existence of psi abilities I would consider statistics incorrect before I would believe in psi.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the premise that anyone, anywhere, was going to get an abortion so they could produce some stem cells was always a straw man at best. The fact is that the products of miscarriage, still birth, and abortion, whether induced or spontaneous, are buried or disposed of as medical waste. There was never any more of a moral argument against using those tissues, than there is against organ donation. Just more religiously inspired political posturing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere we go with the false equivalence. Did you get an angry letter from an conservative group? Equating concern over GM crops (which I don't share, but know some liberals do) or a distaste for (the very real, if rare) risks of nuclear energy with the wholesale abandonment of the scientific method and the validity of scientific experimentation that defines the right wing is just outrageously irresponsible journalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article could have intelligently addressed areas where liberals should take more nuanced positions, but instead to just reads like someone overly eager to stake out "centrist" credentials.
And these days, centrist is just a polite way of saying "scared that someone will disagree with my opinion, so I'll hold all opinions!"
The true origins of human life, as we know it, will prove the popular beliefs of both liberals and conservatives wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiberals have a strong tendency to be easily manipulated and grasp onto misinformation with a fervor. That tendency is a genetic predisposition.
No one, with any intelligence at all, argues the fact that the earth is warming. The argument is over the cause of that warming. Since the earth has been gradually warming for thousands of years, as its temperatures normalize following the great ice age, its highly illogical that the "Global Warming" theory has any realistic substance. However, those who are easily manipulated have grasped onto that theory with typical fervor.
The liberal brain does not deal well with scientific methodology because its time consuming and, for them, boring. The liberal brain needs instant input just as liberals, in general, need instant gratification. That need for instant gratification has lead to excessive drug use, video game addiction, sexual abnormalities, careless random breeding practices and the proliferation of sexually transmitted disease.
The liberal brain is clearly the cause of the moral and ethical decay which will ultimately cost humanity its very existence just as its currently destroying this nation.
People on any part of the political spectrum can easily convince themselves of the correctness of their conclusions when they either lack, or are unwilling to use critical thinking skills in evaluating scientific positions. Examples of this behavior are widespread. As an example, look at the issue of potential climate change. Many people apply the term “denier” to those who do not accept their beliefs regarding what needs to be done in terms of policy implementation in the USA. The actual science leaves many alternatives equally valid, but people frequently lack critical thinking skills in evaluating science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislittleredtop
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUpon reflection, doesn't your comment seem highly prejudiced regarding how "liberials" think?
What a poorly written article and skewed argument. I would have to say if I didn't know better that this article was written by a Tea Party politician. I am very disappointed that "Scientific" American would publish a twisted political view point "editorial" presenting itself as a reasonable analysis of some questionable statistical data and authorship. Very pro-Monsanto corporate doctrine as we have not been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years, rather we have been enhancing pre-existing naturally occuring genetic information through natural processes and true "genetic modification" is altering naturally occuring genetic codes by human insertion of and thereby the restructuring / altering genetic molecular information...unless you're on the payroll of Monsanto et. al. and choose to political skew its' definition.. As a "lay" person even I can smell out a politically driven myopic statistical "analysis".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjosephcraig-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUpon reflection, doesn't your comment seem highly prejudiced regarding how "Tea Party supporters" think?
"And these days, centrist is just a polite way of saying 'scared that someone will disagree with my opinion, so I'll hold all opinions!'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, calling oneself a centrist is a polite way of saying "the wings are full of whack-jobs and we desperately need to reintroduce some rationality to the system." Only the whack-jobs in the wings use your definition.
In discussions such as this, it is helpful to remember what science is. Science is the systematic discovery of the workings of the universe using the scientific method. Some studies estimate that the half-life of scientific knowledge thus acquired is 47 years -- i.e., half of all scientific knowledge is rendered obsolete or found to be wrong every 47 years. Science is always open-ended: nothing is absolutely proven. Even now, our understanding of climate change is evolving.-- the role of black soot is now understood to be as singificant (and much easier to mitigate) as carbon dioxide. It is both true to say that the science of climate change is "proven" in the sense that manmade emissions are impacting climate and is "uncertain" in the sense that we are still do not understand the many and complex feedback loops and interactions. Many of the people on both the left and right who claim to "believe" in science are really talking about political philosophies that are derived from what science discovers. Science itself is neither left or right, Republican or Democrat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell stated
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that, among other things, questionable at best non argument methodologies and eminently illegitimate assertions, in articles like this and among "science" devotees, only demonstrates the patently invalid nature of that pre occupation and all it yields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote, for example, Michael Shermer's calculatedly loaded language in talking about granting "embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells". In what way is their standing "higher"? The question is whether to definitely kill one in order to "potentially" cure another! Is it placing you on a higher moral level than someone with heart damage to say that they don't have a right to kill you and steal your heart? To say one doesn't have the right to kill another is to place them both on the same level! Shermer is literally saying that letting an embryo live is giving it better treatment than it deserves! That embryos exist only at our behest, that they're little more than chattel, and therefore have no reasonable expectation to be allowed to continue living, if it benefits us to butcher them! Frankly, that's placing the adult at a higher moral level! Because the embryo can't fight back!
And that's the nature of the pragmatism that so characterizes "science".
Alva Noe on NPR championing cheating as a demonstration of "initiative" and "ingenuity".
An individual replying to comments by me on the New World Order on Discover by saying that, if the NWO was all that powerful, why even try to change things for the better? Just let them do what they're going to do to others and hunker down and try to make as good a life for yourself as you can.
Cold blooded and reptilian.
Shermer and like ilk can make all the apologia for "evolution" that they want, but there was never this level of brazen cravenness before. "Science" simultaneously denies religion and apotheozies itself. There is nothing higher than the material; there is no such thing as conscience, only "enlightened self interest"; there is no such thing as soul, just bulk matter; so the only "ethic" you can ever aspire to is "get all you can, kill anybody who lays a finger on it and make sure you don't get caught".
And what shoddy doggerel constitutes "science"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWretched machinations like mentioning things like "evolution", "safety of vaccines" and climate change in the same breath, justifying climate change and, like all swindlers, leaving it to the "pigeons" to convince themselves that, “therefore”, “evolution” and “the safety of vaccines” are equally defensible. They’ll never actually try to defend such things as “evolution” or “vaccine safety”. With “evolution”, they’ll simply order you to believe that “it’s been proved time and time and time again”. With vaccines, they’ll say things like, “thousands of people die each year of these diseases”, “therefore”, “vaccines are safe and they work”.
Of course, now, there seems to be a burgeoining trend of “science” devotees simply saying, “I don’t understand a word you’re saying” and leaving it to the gullible to believe that means what you’re saying is meaningless.
And, going beyond unethical non argument tactics, even in areas of what are supposed to be tangible facts, they will violate all standards of propriety.
God haters opining, for example, the patently deceitful “all wars were caused by religion”.
Or Shermer shilling for the likes of Monsanto by saying, provably deceitfully, that “we’ve been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 through breeding and selection”. Genetic modification is precisely that, modiying! Husbandry merely emphasizes genetic populations that were already there! It doesn’t make new genetic material or introduce alien genetic material from one species, family, phylum, order or even kingdom into another! It merely enhances a process that would have happened naturally, a process that nature does not have its own barriers to prevent! Cross breeding and selecting genetic traits never has been, is not now, and never will be “genetic modification”. Along with the evinced attitude toward those who don’t have a say and supposedly can’t fight back, it is only another demonstration of the cravenness Michael Shermer and all “science” devotees display.
This just came up on cnn.com. it's an opinion piece from a family farmer who has dealt with Monsanto:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/01/17/opinion-my-family-farm-isnt-under-corporate-control/?hpt=hp_bn11
i agree with most of the posters here that it is an uneqal argument. the right only believes in science that enriches their bottom line, to the devil with the environment. comparing the selection for vegetables 10K years ago does not have anything to do with monsanto and their quest to own vegetables. why do these righties continue to argue from false platforms?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a lot to unpack in this short piece by Michael Shermer but after reading the part about “progressives have declared Armageddon” I have to wonder at his political motivation. The examples listed are very interesting. So Shermer would have us believe that Berezow and Campbell have done a good analysis of progressive scientific thinking. He would have us believe that only “far-left progressives” are worried about nuclear waste disposal and that is the only concern progressives might have with nuclear power. He would have us believe that waste disposal is such an inconsequential matter that these progressives are far worse than climate science or evolution deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other examples also indicate some kind of fundamental bias but I am not sure where he is going with it. It seems he is saying that scientists who are worried about global warming should also be pro-fossil fuel. Is he really saying that dams, hydroelectric or not, do not disrupt river ecosystems? Shermer I think needs to better explain how these progressives who want better ways to generate electricity are anti-science. That they are so vastly more anti-science than abject global warming science deniers and evolution deniers and young Earth creationists and those who believe women have magic rape protection as long as the rape is legitimate, that they can reasonably be characterized as having declared Armageddon against science!
That Shermer has included the part about anti-wind makes me think he has not even bothered to look at any polls to discover how many progressives are really against wind power. Shermer did a good job of indicating how many Democrats are young Earth creationists and doubt anthropogenic global warming but I wonder if he really believes that progressives are the same as those educationally challenged Democrats. Why is he insisting progressives and all Democrats are the same? If the majority of the Democratic Party and the majority of Democratic leaders were young Earth creationists and doubted anthropogenic global warming then I would put them in the anti-science camp too. All I can say is please do a better job Michael. I know you have it in you.
The really ought to be titled "Humans war on science", we have a hard time doing science, after all if we were able to reason this way naturally the adoption of the scientific method wouldn't have been much of an event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRefusal to believe evidence based arguments that run counter to our cherished beliefs, prejudices and superstitions is just what we do... even scientists. That's why we need such a formal structure of reporting results, methodology and oversight from other scientists in order to keep science on track. This isn't our normal way of thinking.
It's good to point out how ubiquitous this is, good article.
@julianpenrod, "Genetic modification is precisely that, modiying! Husbandry merely emphasizes genetic populations that were already there! It doesn't make new genetic material or introduce alien genetic material from one species, family, phylum, order or even kingdom into another!" It really isn't that clear cut. First of all, viruses frequently add new genetic material to the genomes of all living things. This is a tremendous source of evolution as it represents material that can be changed without shutting down some other useful function. Also, plants, bacteria and some animals freely exchange genes. So moving genes around isn't actually all that new.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree that selective breeding is not genetic modification. You are modifying the genes of a population and given that some of those traits are spontaneous mutations one cannot claim that the genome is not being modified. It is a slower process than direct modification but it is really not much of a difference.
All genetic modifications are not created equal. For example; one case that has gotten alot of press recently is a genetically modified salmon that grows faster. This was accomplished by replacing a gene that causes that species of salmon to go dormant with the gene of a species of salmon that doesn't go dormant. This does not represent a human health risk or environmental risk.
On the other side are the cases some have referenced in which a crop is given resistance to a herbicide or pesticide. The concern being that the genes can transfer to weeds giving them resistance and creating a cycle of dependence on companies like Monsanto. I joined the chorus cautioning about this long ago and it was confirmed to have occurred in-situ not long after these crops started to appear in farmer's fields.
The fact is, each case must be evaluated on its own specific merits. One cannot generalize. I share your concerns I just caution you not overreact and paint all genetic engineering with the same brush.
You might even call that concept the "Big Lie"--if it weren't already taken. Ironic, no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@josephcraig, sorry, but as a centre/left leaning environmentally focused individual I would have to say that you are one of the people this article is about. I am no fan of Monsanto and have been involved for decades in demonstrations against Monsanto's vision of agriculture. But Monsanto is not the entire genetic engineering industry. Their are great things that can be done with this technology that do not represent a clear and present danger to the environment and human health and can in fact reduce the human load on the environment. How great would it be if we could create a perennial variety of grain, bacteria that could turn human waste into fuel without the need for sunlight, crops that were so genetically diverse that no single pest or disease could wipe out everything? Food security is a major concern and I agree that companies like Monsanto should not be left unchecked. In fact I think every nation should have a policy that all food crops grown in its borders should be open source or publicly owned. I think we should also look at a mix of traditional and high tech farming techniques to reduce the agricultural footprint. I believe we will find in the coming decades that the secret to stability in almost any human endeavor is in diversity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to see the left get rabidly anti-science, talk about nuclear power. As far as global warming, the left is pretty anti-science and religous about that as well. They don't want really want to use science to fix what they consider global warming they want to take over all the economy and corporations. They don't want to replace the coal, they want carbon taxes to take money from the industries and use as they wish. GMO rice with vitamin A would help people in developing countries, they do what they can to stop it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the creationists, they need to realize that there is evolution but it in no way shape or form describes where life is from so they should drop it.
There are some articles in science publications regarding optical illusions, the illusion of free will, the illusion of time and the illusion of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently some posters cannot see the illusion of war on scientists. Do scientists relish this (imagined) war?
When is the last time a Democrat lawmaker proposed legislation denying evolution or promoting creationism in public schools? Yeah, I cant remember either. And I consider myself a progressive liberal and I have nothing against GMOs. Monsantos business practices are another matter....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI consider myself a progressive liberal, and I am pro nuclear and pro-gmo. Now, I prefer fusion to fission! And GMO's aren't inherently bad in my estimation. I might not like Monsantos business practices, but my issue isn't with GMOs. And yeah, I am very aware that there is some batshittery on the left. But I can't name the last time a Democrat proposed we teach Creationism in public schools. Can you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefenders of "science" always have a fall back. RSchmidt claims "viruses frequently add new genetic material to the genomes of all living things". Another piece of "information" that isn't mentioned at other times, only dredged up to support the lie that genetically modified food must necessarily be trusted. Those who would withhold information like that cannot necessarily be said to be trustworthy in anything. If it were true that viruses added genetic material "frequently", genomes would be millions of times larger than they are after all that. And , since viruses don't enter every cell of a body simultaneously, every body would have some cells with one type of added genetic material, others would have other types. Everyone and everything would become deformed chimeras as uncontrolled genetic material was added randomly to different cells. Viruses insert their genetic material in cytoplasm outside the nucleus, but only to use chemicals there to build new viruses. It is not recognized by the cell as part of itself. If a virus is used by technicians in an abnmormalkly controlled manner to deliver genetic material to a nucleus, that isn't natural. Another lie to support "science".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd where is RSchmidt's "proof" that the genetic aleration of Aquadvantage salmon "does not represent a human health risk or environmental risk"? Where are the decades long studies of the effects of this salmon to prove it isn't dangerous?
"Science" does nothing but lie.
This article is absolute crap. Michael Shamer, rather, huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat linear thinking! Far right and far left as if it were a line. If it were a circle the far right and far left would be sitting next to each other. They have "far" more in common with each other than either "side" wishes to admit. Same goes for the labels liberal and conservative. The author at least points out that the statistics stem from groups that are self labeling themselves. About as useful as asking groups to self identify as being "smart", "intelligent", and "god fearing". Do we need a Kinsey scale of 1-6 with centrists being the bisexuals with a mixture of "tendencies" and the 1's and 6's being 100% "conservative right wing nuts and whack jobs" (extremely republican?) or 100% "liberal left wing nuts and whack jobs" (extremely democrat... as opposed to being democratic)? I agree with the commentators who question the use of the term "war on science", as in what are the "weapons", who are the "victims", and can science "win" the war, or will "it" become a "victim" of the war? Extremism... can I be extremely scientific and avoid extremism? Otherwise, good article hopefully exposing the extremists on both "sides" of the debates? of the war? of the issues? Maybe we could try something akin to position papers? Positions everyone, lights, camera, action... and tonight we bring you more war stories from scientists around the world, how long can pure science endure these attacks from the right and the left? Can the center hold?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCelebrity SSkeptic Michael Shermer feigns the appearance of balance by citing the irrationality of the 'Left' using the example of 'their' reaction to genetic modification of food. In this editorial he practices two key methods of unethical pseudoscience: obfuscation of threatening data through Semantics Jousting and Associative Condemnation of sponsors; thereby blocking subject access to the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer claims that the Left possesses a “religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food.” Because we question the scientifically sophomoric, unaccountable and non-skeptically challenged genetic modification of our food by a corporation not just targeting, but having achieved, monopolistic dominance of an industry, we are irrational. Yeah right. He further claims that discussion is moot, because GMO opponents babble religiously about “Monsanto” and “profit.” And further employing this obfuscation method, since those injured by Bernard Madoff emotionally spout the words “Ponzi” and “cash to gains balance sheet substitution” they are therefore not credible plaintiffs. This is a method of pseudoscience; the unethical practice of Associative Condemnation.
Mr. Shermer claims additionally that the definition of “genetically modified” includes procreation by plants and animals. Selective breeding by ancient Levant farmers also equals the introduction of GMO technologies. “The fact is that we’ve been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection.” This malicious alteration of the scientific definition of ‘genetically modified' is Semantics Jousting which is fully unacceptable under the scientific method, or even common ethics. Indian citizens refuse to allow import of US foods due to our recombinant DNA practices. But in America, we don't get this freedom of choice, as we have Mr. Shermer determining our policy for us.
Were Mr. Shermer an ethical skeptic he would have shown his mastery of the data around the GMO topic, sought through prudent skeptical questioning, and not spun shill propaganda.
It is damaging to rely upon one-liner trained, toe-the-line SSkeptics regarding topics in which they hold no field expertise. At best they regurgitate propaganda. At worst our science and health is at the mercy of their personal level of integrity. Further, it is unwise for publications like Scientific American to regard Celebrity SSkeptics as representatives of science. Scientists use skepticism, but SSkeptics do not represent science. - TES
Indeed. It's scary how many people think the Corporation is doing things now no different than farmers have always done. With so many ignorant people talking as much as they do, the Man's works is half-done already...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we need is a gene therapy that codes for chlorophyll in human skin... that way, we could stop farming all plants and animals and just feed on sunlight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL@null
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem is that political extremes tend to attract those who subscribe more to ideology than to reality. Their differences are little more than intellectual "seasoning". The base ingredients are the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf all the comments on this article, yours is clearly the most cogent. There is definitely a difference between science (learning how nature works), and putting that knowledge into practice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur problem is scientific illiteracy. As Carl Sagan pointed out in one of his last books, 95% of the American people are scientifically illiterate leaving 5% who have some scientific sophistication. 5% is the percentage of black slaves who were able to read when it was illegal to teach slaves to read.
Yes, we might as well have a law on the books banning the teaching of math and science in the US, for the results would be the same.
You started out making sense then your argument devolved into cluelessness. "every possible combinations of genes ...." and "bad combinations in favor of good ones".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't understand evolutionary concepts in the slightest.
HOWEVER, the concept that random mutations magically occur and somehow magically happen to be exactly the right mutations....It is more likely to be every possible combination of genes has started at the beginning of life...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis just shows how little you know of genetics. Mutations are caused by many known factors - and none of them are "magic" - including (but not limited to) DNA replication errors, UV radiation, aromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzene & its derivatives), heavy metals and some viruses & bacteria. And mutations are far more likely to be "wrong" (harmful or even lethal) ones than they are to be "right" (beneficial) ones. We see more of the results of the beneficial mutations simply because organisms with harmful ones either die or fail to reproduce. (There are also mutations that have no noticeable effect, but those obviously don't get much attention.) There has also been sufficient lab work done to conclusively prove that mutations do occur - anyone who has ever taken a microbial genetics course (myself included) has almost certainly had to complete a lab module on mutagenesis.
"And , since viruses don't enter every cell of a body simultaneously, every body would have some cells with one type of added genetic material, others would have other types. Everyone and everything would become deformed chimeras as uncontrolled genetic material was added randomly to different cells. Viruses insert their genetic material in cytoplasm outside the nucleus, but only to use chemicals there to build new viruses."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike priddersen, you're showing your ignorance of your topic. Some types of viruses do indeed insert their genes into our nuclear DNA, for example retrovisues (like HIV) and herpes viruses. It's how they're able to hide out in the body for years, with long asymptomatic periods between outbreaks. Since each virus uses specific binding molecules usually found only on the surfaces of specific cell types in the human body, anyone who has been infected by one of these viruses IS a genetic chimera. If you've ever had chickenpox, YOU are a chimera now.
It's incredibly stupid that fundamentalist Christians deny evolution when there's literally nothing in the Bible that precludes evolution being true. It just makes us all look stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral comments here have voiced their support of genetic engineering in principle but opposition the corporate policies of Monsanto. That's a fine stance to take, but it is not a distinction that is being elucidated at your average anti-GMO rally. If you're not willing to explain these differences BEFORE you get called out on them, you can look forward to many more year of being lumped in with the anti-science right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is fundamentally the exact same response to the scientific consensus regarding climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is plenty of science on GMO's, much like vaccines and global warming. To say there isn't, is to reveal your anti-science bias. Always pointing to a minority of scientists on the fringe, or single nonrepeated studies, cherry picking and anomaly hunting to prove a point. While dismissing all those in the consensus as in the pocket of "insert demonic entity here"
The only controversy is with ideologues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVaccines stop the spread of dangerous disease. Anti-gmo propaganda will prevent the world from being fed. They both stand to do a lot more direct damage than silly beliefs about the origin of the planet or species.
Anti-Monsanto is anti-coprorate. Anti-GMO is anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that's the case, then why are there bills being proposed to label foods as GMO?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn an attempt to demonize a company, the left has lumped an entire field of science with it.
Anti-GMO is anti-science. It's exactly the same thing as being anti-stem cell. Only one of these is currently being sued to fee the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of BT (which is also has a organic variation used in organic farming), you are talking about one practice using the technology of GMO. The left has demonized the entire field of GMO. Ever had Yellow rice? Ever heard of Norman Borlaug?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should never accept anything as true from reading one article. Or one study. You look for the consensus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a mountain of good science out there showing GMO technology itself is safe, you simply have to go looking for it.
MadScientist72 demonstrates how, like RSchmidt, "science" devotees have no sense of honor. RSchmidt talked about viruses "adding new genetic material to the genome of all living things". i pointed out that viruses might inject their nuclear material into the cytoplasm of a cell, but that is outside the nucleus. Viruses sxteal necessary chemicals from the body of a cell to recreate themselves. That is not the same as entering the nlceus, inserting virus genetic material into the gene sequence and having it work. If that were the case, we would all be born creating viruses for numerous diseases right from our own cells! That's what virus genetic material is, the substance to recreate the virus! If that is in someone's "genome", then that means that that individual's cells would start actually producing and sending out viruses! From birth. This is what MadScientist72 suggests with their reference to "retroviruses". To the extent that "science" doesn't say anything that it doesn't retract years later, there is little reason to suspect this isn't just more doggerel to hide the truth from the "rank and file". If this were the case, such infection from birth would have been seen repeatedly over the centuries. They would have identified certain lineages as tending to get certain viral diseases from birth, almost as if born with them. "Science' would have mentioned that as a point of importance, essentially eliminating the need for vaccines since people would be born containing the very viruses vaccines are supposed to attack in the blood stream. In either case, it would be another example of "science" withholding the truth. Yet this point is carefully ignored by both RSchmidt and MadScientist 72.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still think science should free plants and animals from human tyranny by figuring out how to make humans photosynthetic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo, Dr. Shermer for writing about this problem! You could add to the list of hysterical liberal anti-science leanings: anti-fluoridation and pro-"alternative medicine."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou published my story in Skeptic on the Bush Administration's abuse of science, so I read this with interest. Your main points here seem to be that many liberals are religious. They, therefore doubt evolution and think the brain has not evolved -which possibly stems from a belief in a soul. So most aren't atheists. They also believe in keeping the Earth pure, and have some funny notions of their own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe examples I gave were of the Bush Administration stopping the testing of beef when it was found some had Mad Cow. They prevented ranchers from voluntarily testing their own beef. They stacked committees with industry people of the areas they were meant to regulate and repeatedly select unqualified people who, however, hold a similar party line to head science committees. They killed scientific reports they didn't like and groups produced bogus science to counter it. When scientific studies say something they don't like, they change "inside" to "outside," or cite a study as saying the opposite of what the study's authors claim. They have spearheaded efforts to rewrite textbooks.
For there to be an equivalence, you would have to show liberals stacking committees with anti-genetically modified food people with more ties to the organic food industry than scientific credentials, killing studies showing vaccines are harmless and producing bogus scientific studies to show links because the current science doesn't. You'd have to have them demand anti-nuke activists get to decide how to describe nuclear power in textbooks rather than scientists and historians.
You have shown none of these things. What you show is that many liberals are not atheists, and are not scientifically literate. That's not a war on science in any sense of the word.
"On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're saying there is no waste-disposal problem, fossil fuels don't cause global warming, dams don't effect ecosystems or that birds don't run into wind turbines, then who's being anti-science? All these things are true. Science agrees with all these things. Which is why you merely attack the policy beliefs that this, therefore, outweigh the benefits, as a "underlying current" that “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad."
You and I may find some of these ideas absurd, but I dare say concern about fossil fuels is not scientifically baseless. Many scientists believe this. As many have pointed out, it may be dumb policy judgment, which is why there has been a not insubstantial movement on the left to embrace nuclear power - despite the fact that there is nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of.
As for genetically modified food, that appears to be a value judgment like abortion. It's not anti-science to say a heart beats at a certain age, or that the soul enters the fetus at a certain point - it's a value judgment. When you say a woman can't get impregnated by her rapist, it starts getting into scientific abuse. Whether or not you value having pristine wilderness is akin to whether or not you like old buildings preserved. It may be more expensive, there's a cost - but some people like the idea of having some national parks and historic buildings around. Science doesn't determine these questions.
Viruses DO get there genetic material into the nucleus & integrate it into the human genome. Do a google search for "virus dna in human genome" and you'll get more that 5 MILLION hits of evidence supporting this fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a microbiologist. I spent several years studying bacteria, viruses and fungi and the way they infect human beings. What are your credentials? Do you have any, or are you just talking out of a hole other quite a ways south of your mouth?
Pauli #23, Was I making an "argument" when I asked a question? (The answer is no.) Did you answer the question? Not to my satisfaction. Perhaps you could offer a few specifics beyond the desire to know. (That is not in any way a dismissal of the desire to know.) When I mention a "spectrum" I am trying to point out the difficulty of defining an individual by gender when gender traits are not exclusive to one sex or the other but are rather distributive in a spectrum. Perhaps that is not a scientific use of the word? Remember, asking a question is not the same as disagreement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood grief. I just read this article. It is nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer has to stretch every rule in the book to be able to come to his conclusions. Let's examine each of the things he says.
1) Liberals are waging a war on science because NOT ALL people who classify themselves as "liberal" are against creationism, or believe the planet is warming. Oh really, Mr. Shermer?
2) He claims that in the 80s and 90s "liberal intellectuals" led an all-out assault on Evolutionary Psychology because the EP crowd were advocating the idea that “human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past”. Oh really, Mr. Shermer? Check your facts: those liberals did mount an assault on EP, but not because it was advocating the idea that “human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past” -- rather, they attacked EP because it was filled with pseudoscientific, unverifiable nonsense (every time a behavior was observed, EP came up with a fantasy rationale for how it had been selected by evolution). And, those same liberal intellectuals actually accepted that neither the blank slate idea nor the evolution-is-everything idea told the full truth: the vast majority of them accepted that there was some kind of balance between nature and nurture. Did they feel that the balance had been pushed too far to the innateness end? Quite possibly. Is that the same as deny that “human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past”? Of course not!
3) Shermer cites some right-wing intellectuals who consider liberal attitudes toward nuclear power, the fossil-fuel impact on global warming, the impact of hydroelectric dams, and the impact of wind farms as “[declaring] Armageddon against science”. Oh, really? It is anti-science to point out that dangerous nuclear power plants have been designed and implemented so sloppily that some of them have been put on earthquake fault lines, in places prone to 20-meter-high tsunamis? That is “unscientific”, is it? And it is unscientific to point out the extraordinary ecological and geological impact of hydroelectric dam projects, or the impact of wind farms on migratory birds? Just exactly what part of “science” is being violated here, Mr Shermer?
[continued...]
4) Liberals are also accused of having “an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food”. Indeed? Which part of the scientific evidence do you think does not exist, in this area? Air emissions from industrial plants, perhaps? Water table pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing operations? The rape of India’s agricultural economy by Monsanto Corporation? Which part of the science that differentiates between the positive effects of genetic modication, and the negative effects, don’t you understand, Michael? Which part of the science do you find “anti-science”?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn none of these accusations is there evidence of a “liberal war on science”. Liberals, both extreme and moderate, tend to use science to bolster their arguments. Sometimes their arguments may lead to wrong conclusions.
But THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS. Science is the pursuit of empirical evidence and rational arguments to uncover how the world works, and sometimes that evidence and those rational arguments seem pretty good until they turn out not to be correct. Scientists who use that method AND THEN turn out not to have been nailing the exact truth are not “waging a war on science”, they are doing their job.
Those liberals – extreme or moderate – who are using science to support their arguments are equally scientific, whether their arguments turn out to be the best ones or not.
But if you think that that scientific dialog is the same as the nakedly anti-scientific zealotry shown by the Right, you are delusional.
IIUC, Science for the People had a Marxist stream to it. If so this is probably why they some of them hated evolutionary psychology. True communism is supposed to lead to perfected humans so it needs humans to be plastic under environmental change alone, cf. Lysenko.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarxism is considered left, but it isn't liberal and it has little relevance to the modern leftist and environmentalist forces you describe in the article. It has some relevance still to anti-corporatism but I'd guess not much.
The sad reality is that science in America has become Scientology, with the adherents of various theories being no more than cyber-gangs that browbeat anyone who questions their methods, their results or their paradigms. I saw this trend beginning back at Princeton in the 1980s, where popular science was taking on a life of its own. The problem with pop science is that you end up with a cadre of middlebrows who think they "understand physics" by reading a Stephen Hawking book. Science is a dynamic battle, ever questioning, not a set of legal tomes. The final straw with this style was Al Gore, a sort of Williams Jennings Bryant of Science-tology who resorted to labeling his questioners "Deniers" and cybersmearing their names using legions of Green Guards and other bullies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason that climate change skeptics have been labeled 'deniers' is that, well the shoe fits more often than not. There are very specific studies and arguments that run contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, of course. Are there folks out there who present those arguments thoughtfully while also attempting to account for all the other data that has been established? If so, they rightly deserve the proud title of climate change skeptic. Most of what I see, however, are folks who have no interest in establishing a new theory to explain the data, but rather are only interested in criticizing and questioning the consensus view, something that climate scientists themselves are actually already quite good at. Their contribution to the conversation is to deny. They bring nothing else to the table, therefore they are deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne could say that honest skepticism is anti-science if one ignores DDT, lead, asbestos, cocaine, bug zappers, toning shoes, tobacco, radiation (used for medical treatments), electricity (used for medical treatments) the whole FDA drug approval process is because of fraudulent claims made by private companies. Recalls.gov provides ample evidence that company research and data are suspect. Historically, psychiatric diagnosis follow the latest drugs. How many people had depression before Prozac? That which is asserted with evidence cannot be dismissed without evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember Atrazine? The guy in the commercial would drink a glass of it to demonstrate how safe it was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's funny that students are smart enough to see the truth while our leaders just can't!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Often students in Ayala’s introductory biology class tell him that they will answer test questions as he wishes, but in truth they reject evolution because of their Christian beliefs. Then, a couple of years later, when they have learned more science, they decide to abandon their religion. The two, students seem to think, are incompatible." - <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolution">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolution</a>
I agree with several responders that Mr Schermer has in a few places confused science with technology. About 25 years ago, when I was working full-out for alternate energy sources to replace fossil fuels, I read somewhere (maybe SciAm) that a researcher had conducted a survey of conservatives and liberals with respect to the way they valued science. The issue under discussion was--I believe--space exploration. Conservatives (who were not so much taken over by religious fundamentalism back then) demanded manned space missions seeking resources. In general they tended to value, even worship, tech fixes for every problem and the only science they valued was applied science, another term for technology. Liberals (who largely hadn't been drawn into New Age yet) had mixed feelings about space exploration. I can't recall the ratio, but appreciators saw it (as I still do) as both a testing ground for cutting edge technology and as a spiritual adventure. Liberal opposers strongly demanded that we should concentrate on solutions for this world, then turn to space. They generally suspected tech fixes, wanted social values included in applied science and preferred visionary abstract research. In the intervening years, my liberal friends have softened objections to space research, although increasing protest against attacks by technocrats and plutocrats on the world. The numbers of supporters of new energy sources, opposition to fossil fuels and nukes has multipled, and there is now opposition to new technological problems which have been disclosed in recent years. Does anyone remember that old survey? And can you cite any others, more recent?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have long noted that there are anti-science/anti-technology beliefs on both sides of the political spectrum, though they tend to be on different subjects. Some of the primarily left-wing beliefs not mentioned include that vaccines are unsafe, that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful, and that electromagnetic fields cause cancer. However, dividing the antis into political camps is ultimately unproductive. The real concern should be the failure of our educational system to instill a knowledge of the scientific method into students so that as citizens they can accept evidence-based conclusions and the necessity of their application to public policy decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Shermer's article is pretty much full of the same false equivalence that we've all witnessed with mainstream news outlets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad many here caught this sorcery right away. David Brooks of the New York Times is a master of this dark art.
I had a good guess as to what was driving Shermer, so I searched "Michael Shermer" + "Ayn Rand" and low and behold, this man is a sociopath.
I mean the biological reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are plenty of examples of liberals loving pseudoscience or anti-science. Again, anti-fluoridation (as we currently see in Portland, OR) is a hugely destructive movement powered mainly by a leftist community. Both the left and right love "alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine." Some things, such as "energy medicine," may be considered satanic by the right, but the lefties embrace it. On faith, no less
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are using the anecdote question/argument.(It's a distinction without a difference) If women and men differ very much psychologically on average, but there are a few masculine women and feminine men, we should not make the distinction and anyone who does is a bigot. You see, there is a problem when obvious truth is subverted to an ideology. Why are over 95% of those in prison males? It must obviously be because the justice system discriminated against them, or something. You act rather dismissively toward the "desire to know." Human beings, human social systems are of great interest to people and understanding them has always been very important. Why do people behave the way they do? How can human sexuality be explained? Most people, even common people, want answers to these questions and religion and ideology provides the answers to many. Evolutionary psychology provides answers to these questions using scientific methods, answers liberals, as defenders of an ideology, are afraid of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe entire modern left is rooted in Marxism. Many of the President's tutors and friends were Marxists. That's not to say all of the left is Marxist but Marxist individuals have had a great impact on the movement. Just ask any liberal political leader what they think of Steven Jay Gould, a leader of the movement. He is considered a saint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Pauli, wow just when I think we have scraped the bottom of the barrel when it comes to idiotic trolls you show up and prove there is no bottom. Only an american right wing fanatic would even imply that Obama is a Marxist. Obama is far to the right of every other western government and none of those governments could be called Marxist. The article was about irrational people on the left but not to be out-done you once again demonstrate the almost fairy-tale quality of right wing delusions in which everyone on the left is the spawn of Satan. The blue states need to cut the red states loose or have Pauli and his hillbilly brothers drag you into a new dark age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@LindaRosaRN, I have many friends and family that embrace complementary health. Unfortunately a certain degree of conspiracy theory about the pharmaceutical industry seems to be required. The best argument for complementary health I heard was from Dr. Buckman who said that medicine helps people get better while complementary health helps people feel better. I would have to agree that the bedside manner of complementary health practitioners is much better than that of doctors and that is what selling, human contact, empathy. I think modern medicine is starting to realize it needs care for the patient's "well-being" and not just treat the disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is one thing that can always be relied upon, it is the laziness of the pseudo-intellectual. An extremist idealist does not formulate informed opinions on their own through introspection, reason, and evidence. Slothfully plodding along with their own kind, and mindlessly regurgitating unsubstantiated memes/platitudes, is much simpler than thinking critically. And this is true regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. Good article.
PEng
The one thing that strikes me as somewhat different between the left wing spiritualists and the right wing deniers is the extent to which they will go to advance their agenda. The left tend to employ conspiracy theories and pseudo-science just like the right, but the right puts significant effort into misinformation campaigns, lies and distortions. When a left wing nut job says he thinks fluoride causes autism or whatever I believe that he believes it. He/She has made irrational conclusions and doesn't understand the facts but they believe it. The deniers that frequent sciam don't believe what they are saying. They have seen the facts but have been spoon fed bullets points to cast doubt on them. They are aware of what they are doing. Their objective is to maintain the status-quo and so they gladly lie to do so. I am sure there are bad apples on both sides but in the case of the radical right we are talking about a large number of ruthless people who's sole purpose is to try and deceive the american people into doing nothing about climate change. Even when we shift focus to Evolution we have the creationists themselves saying that intelligent design is just a ploy to get religion back in the classroom. To me that takes the issue in another direction, rather than ignorance, gullibility and a lack of scientific reasoning we are now talking about malevolence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest environmental issue is that there is too much of us. But few of us, and certainly not the religious, are inclined to tackle that. They need Kanonenfleisch for the coming Armageddon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a liberal who has known for decades that there is a strong war against science by the liberals. Much has been pointed out in the article, but one of the greatest anti-science movements ever has been the very slanted feminist movement, whose members have pronounced on many occassions that all of science must be rewritten form their point of view. Anytime a man dares mention the endless and significant differences between the genders, the feminists loudly protest and even expect resignations, etc. We have experineced one-half century of their post-modern feminist influence and our nation's science endeavors have been weakened because of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps this "news" article "The Liberals' War on Science: How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum" by Michael Shermer would have been better titled as "The Science Writer's War on Liberal Politics: How a science writer distorted politcal reporting"...early into this opinion piece Shermer cites a 2012 Gallup poll of Democrats (and Republicans) and cites:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women's bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.
The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book."
While Shermer has utilized a very subtle transition within his article to shift the statistical poll results of all polled Democrats to suggest all Liberals are engaged with their own war on science, even a high school journalism student could have pointed out to Shermer and his editors at Scientific American that there is a vast gulf of difference and opinion within the Democratic Party itself between liberal democrats, moderate democrats, and yes, even conservative "Blue Dog" democrats.
True, extremism at either end of the any spectrum, political, religious, economic, etc., is wrong. And it is true that we have been "genetically modifying" both animal species (horse breeding, dog breeding) and plant species (read the story of wheat sometime) for 10,000 years. But that fact does NOT validate or excuse everything that is going on today. In fact, modern forms of wheat that have, since the 1980's, been bred to have shorter growing seasons and higher yield have resulted in an organism that also now contains unexpected compounds that our bodies cannot handle and which make us fat. (See the book, Lose the Wheat and Lose the Weight.) Just as there can be no universally applicable condemnation of these practices, there can not be any universal acceptance of them either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is embarrassingly "balanced" in the way that the mass media has been training us to expect our information to be delivered and not up to the usual Shermer as Skeptic standards. It's written as if the media, or in this case, Michael Shermer, were an even handed and all knowing information broker. To equate the slow and painstaking process of plant breeding to provide better yields, superior drought resistance or whatever with Monsanto's GMO work to develop plants that will survive under deluges of the organophosphate of the week is ridiculous. And where on earth did this tabula rasura/blank slate the intellectual property of the left come from? Concern over the disposal of nuclear waste is a leftist concern? Talk with folks in that hot bed of far leftism, Utah. And the political analysis! Science for the People is far left? The Democrat Party is some monolithic leftist organization? In fact, in the Gallup poll cited, Independents are, by the standards of the article, even further to the left.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally, Michael, you've been out sniffing Monsanto GMOdified something or other! Time to go back to being skeptical.
Ah, "they do it too".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the last resorts of those who wish to negate policy differences between the parties.
The american right, and republican party, are very obviously vastly more anti-science in belief and action at present than the left and democratic party.
See how the author equates at far left groups who twenty years ago argued against evolutionary psycology with republican senate candidates who last year illustrated their ideologically convenient complete lack of understanding of basic reproductive biology.
This is the basic fallacious argument.
Mainstream elements of group A famously did X (anti-science value 90) last year, but I dug up a reference to extreme elements of group B who twenty years ago did Y (anti-science value 40) therefore A and B are both anti-science! Yay for "balance"!
Similarly the fact that there are downsides to most (all?) energy sources is not anti-science, it is a fact. One consequence for a rational policy maker is that we ought to put a good deal of effort into conservation so we don't need to generate as much energy. This does not mean we should not build more generation, but it does mean we ought to think carefully about it (vs "drill baby drill"). Most people don't spend the time to think this all through very carefully to reach good policy, but again that isn't anti-science its just insufficient effort put toward thinking about policy. A serious, but very different problem.
What an odd set of connections to make about politics and science. How does attitude about climate change relate to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'cognitive creationists'?
How does extreme concern for how to deal with large amounts of spent nuclear fuel relate to anti-science?
The was written by someone looking for an argument or totally clueless about the subject in context.
Everyone, Shermer has a personal political agenda, to which he has previously admitted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe also conflates science with engineering, something any reputable engineer will let you know is mistaken.
This article appears to be a case of an attempt to politicize science, which is not appropriate. Perhaps the editors of SA might consider that such an article increases sales; however, I feel that it is a grave error. What we see in the intro is agenda-driven ignorance and labeling.
Those of you who are aware of multifactorial effects on genetic and epigenetic activity, will recognize the simplistic attempt to rabble-rouse, as it were.
Shermer's previous books indulge in this nonscientific philosophizing. Again, science is explored by this author as a means to promote something else.
Enough said - perhaps both Scientific Americans and editors of the magazine will recognize logical and other flaws.
Those who know something of neuroscience and psychology will no doubt have made comment on Shermer's unfounded conclusions in many of his recent writings. Since SA is a Nature Group publication, such conflation as is clearly attempted is below reasonable standard for publication.
Actually I think this is more of an attempt to nullify science as a political issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider the audience of scientific american. I expect is is largely prosperous middle aged men with an interest in science.
This is a good demographic for the republican party, but the anti-science ideology and policies of the party are a problem. So the idea is to negate that because "both sides do it".
Conflating natural processes and the adaptation of natural processes with the fraudulent manipulation of genetic materials that could never be found in a natural state, whether crossbred by man or not, is beneath such a keen mind as Shermer's. He should apply his abilities to the teasing out of what Monsanto is trying to accomplish, and note at the same time that Monsanto was a major contributor to the defeat of the California initiative to allow consumers to know what they were eating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Conflating natural processes and the adaptation of natural processes with the fraudulent manipulation of genetic materials..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is exactly the kind of unsubstantiated meme/platitudes that this article addresses as an example of anti-science from the far left. What, exactly, is a "fraudulent manipulation of genetic materials"? What makes it fraudulent? There is a special type of arrogance here that attempts to masquerade as informed opinion, and elevate itself based on some vague sense of environmental concern and moral superiority.
"He also conflates science with engineering, something any reputable engineer will let you know is mistaken."
I'm an engineer, and I saw no such conflation. Can you give me an example from the article which you believe is a such a conflation?
The difference between cross-fertilization and GMOs is like a handshake to a bullet, like a date is to rape. Corporations which are existentially committed to profit cannot be expected to question assumptions that science must question. There is only medieval power and control to be expected in the oxymoron of corporate science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author apparently has not seen the statements of some our esteemed conservative GOP representatives. Most people quoted here are on the Congressional Science Committee. Lord help us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., called evolution “lies from the pit of hell”
Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-MN.,The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It's all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.''
Missouri Rep. Todd Akin "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down".
Sandy Adams R-FL., " I am encouraging us to reduce funding for climate change research,which undercuts one of NASA's primary objective of human spaceflight. - WHAT????
Dana Rohrabacher R-Ca., Is there some thought being given to ..clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases.
There's plenty more where this came from Mr.Shermer and none of it from liberals.
You cite as evidence the number of Democrats believing in young earth creationism, but ignore evidence from the very Gallup survey you cite, namely that these percentages have not altered significantly in the past 30 years. This belies you claim of a liberal "war." If you'd gone with liberal involvment in the anti-vaccine movement I'd be with you, but as it is it seems you're cherry-picking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelevant Gallup 2012 quote: "Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question."
monsanto is an evil entity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see it took only about 10 minutes for one of you to come out of the woodwork. Q.E.D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConservative science is an oxymoron. The Conservative keeps, preserves that which it has, challenges no basic assumptions that threaten in any way current politics of control. Liberals believe that individual liberty has something of value and in such pursuit of happiness may act to threaten the Conservative store and bankable delivery paradigm. If this seems like a celebrity death match, it is only Evolution, and treating it like a battle rather than a working dialectic slows it to a crawl. The Middle Ages with the pope's church infrastructure locking up western thought and transmission of knowledge was one such crawl. Lurching from crisis to crisis and hostage decisions proves the point. Science needs not the magical thinking of faith, and relegates it properly to the dustbin of history. There are no conservative degrees awarded, they are appointed by smoke and mirrors, but mostly mirrors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. The author can't tell the difference between rejecting science for ideological reasons, and rejecting technology for safety reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a foolish article! First, the author confuses "liberal" with "democrat." There are many conservative democrats. Second, just because science does something doesn't make it good. To those who need an example, think of atomic bombs. As a scientist/consumer I eat GM foods, but I do have concerns about the possible negative effects. That is not being anti-science. That is being a firm believer in Murphy's Law. I'd like to see a reference for his assertion that, "...moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally..." Judging by members of congress, conservatives simply reject science. There will be adverse effects to any source of energy on the scale necessary to provide for 6+ billion people, but no one wants to hear that there are simply too many people if we want to maintain diversity in our environment. That said, carbon free sources of energy will do far less damage to our environment than fossil fuels, and if one adds in the cost of building storm protection and levees, as well as cleanup from storms such as Sandy, will be cheaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow!Pleanty of sensationalism here. One would think a science writer would be more scientific than to use single beliefs expressed in a survey to determine whether one is anti or pro science. The quality of Sciam though conitnues to deteriorate. Oh, and by the way - liberal and Democrat are not synonymous, so why would it be surprising?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo is science arriving to the point when everybody start to realize it can cause so much destruction that it cannot be justified anymore by anyone? When scientists start to think before introduce their inventions that lead to more bad than good? Or they have to be occupied first of all by making money as everyone in capitalist society to survive? Unfortunately we have to re-examine basics in the foundation of our whole civilization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article tells us more about the writer's political label bias than it does about the subject matter. People of strong religious belief in either political group may dispute some of those pillars of science that are at odds with their religious doctrine. The article says nothing about the science of economics. Many avowed liberals with whom I am associated dismiss the idea that their are hazardous consequences to uncontrolled deficit spending. Or that likewise their are consequences to paying national debt through manipulation of the money supply. Or that individual agents respond positively to and adapt behavior strategies to economic incentives. That welfare and other great society social programs meant to help people in the short term effect social institutions and economic processes often in unpredictably diasterous ways in the long term. And yet these ideas disregarded by liberal advocates are central to understanding the science of economics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany liberals also embraced the global warming threat prior to conclusive evidence merely because some of the proposed solutions required adapting publc policies which they favored for entirely different reasons. If it were proven scientifically that the only solution to global warming was unfettered free markets, the so called science based liberal advocates would (perhaps) drop their advocacy of the climate change cause in short order. My personal assessment with the majority of people I know in both sides of political aisle is that their is very limited regard for scientific methodology when it is pitted against their pet superstitions. And the fact that an article written for anaudience that obviously holds science in high regard and which also assumes one political group has more science savvy than another shows little more than an overt confirmation bias.
"'He also conflates science with engineering, something any reputable engineer will let you know is mistaken.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm an engineer, and I saw no such conflation. Can you give me an example from the article which you believe is a such a conflation? "
I, too, saw that right away. The typical right rejection of evolution and climate science, vs the left's rejection of certain technologies. Rejection of facts/science deemed dangerous vs rejection of technologies deemed dangerous. The author conflates the two.
Are Humans a natural organism? Are we separate and distinct from the rest of the biosphere or an integral part of it? Those to the right seem to believe we are separate from it and have been given a divine right by their god to do as we please with the rest of our environment. Those on the left seem to subscribe to the notion that we are totally part of the biosphere but should take no action to alter the inner workings of our environment. Every entity within our environment impacts it in one way or another. It would seem an organism only causes profound change when its numbers exceed a sustainable magnitude. The activities of most organisms are usually a beneficial component of their niche in the system. Unchecked they can be disruptive. Several small groups of beavers on a watershed usually enhance conditions for others to thrive. Thousands can be devastating. Pine Bark Beetles recycle nutrients. Unchecked they can be devastating. The examples are limitless. The harsh reality both the left and right must face is - Can our current environment support the population currently existing and what is projected in the very near future given the changes in climate and expectations of an expanding population. Populations of all organisms ebb, flow and disappear depending on the availability of vital resources to sustain them. We can adapt, argue or perish. There are no other options.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer is right, I don't believe there's a liberal war on science. As others have already pointed out, these are remarkably lame arguments. Oh, wait. I get it. This is a test to see who was paying attention last month.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have rarely seen such a number of comments on Sci AM for what is nothing more than a report of current events in science. Both the political right and left fall into the same trap; a hubris of presumed knowledge. Rather than accept information as neutral we tend to force it into the preconceptions of our beliefs. In fact Dr Shermer had an article last week describing this exact phenomenon. The plethora of "rationalizing" responses to this article is a standing tribute to the accuracy of the assertion that we always want to incorporate or justify new information to our existing beliefs. Late in his career Richard Feynman said the most important thing he had learned was how hard it was to actually know something. To be able to divorce oneself from all preconceptions and just let the data speak for itself. We should all take this message to heart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults . . ." and this is supposedly anti-scientific. How does one scientifically determine moral standing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA more interesting result is when you ask people (or detect through conversation) what they fear. Liberals all fear certain things and conservatives fear certain things. These fears, once examined, prove to be obsessional and phobic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven more interesting is to observe how the Democratic and Republican parties both jump on any sensational event involving one of their favorite fears or phobias. I mean: there's always an overnight "mobilization of troops" following a sensational event (like the giant fraud perpetrated by Wall Street financial companies or the recent mass shooting at a grade school). The anti-regulation Republicans circled their wagons to prevent "government intervention" and ended up with across the board forgiveness from prosecution and half a trillion dollars in bailout money. The December school shooting raised an outcry from the left - for more gun controls. Republicans are manic/phobic about government intervention, Democrats are manic/phobic about firearms.
NEITHER is "scientific" when it comes to the "threats" ideologues use to gain support - all for political / power/ money reasons.
The enemy of every ideology is the truth and honesty. So naturally both of our political parties work to subvert actual scientific investigation (it might reveal "inconvenient truth") and rational thought (which might provoke a movement to establish honesty in politics).
Seriously? This article lost me at GMO's. The lumping together of contemporary genetic modification with selective breeding is sloppy science. And really sloppy argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's the tip of the iceberg, though. The real flaw of the article is that it falls into the rhetorical fallacy of "false equivalency". The Left is just as bad as the Right? Really? But gee, couldn't the news here could just as easily be that some Republicans believe both the theory of evolution and the evidence of anthropogenic climate change? But instead, the article offers a call for reining in the extremes of both sides so the moderates can do the real work of moving us forward.
So the chilling conclusion of the article is a celebration of the moderate middle as somehow ideologically neutral, and then places companies like poor beset Monsanto there. Monsanto is neither good nor evil. It is, however, ill-equipped to judge the impact of its innovations when it it is systemically geared to prioritize returning a profit for its shareholders. Calls for regulation and transparency in their work is not anti-business or Luditism -- it is well-placed caution after too many experiences in modernity with shortsighted motivations blinding us to the unintended consequences of innovation.
It is not leftist extremism to believe in the precautionary principle and to note that corporate models tend to prioritize (relative) short term profits over long term effects. It is wise to question and weigh new forms of technology, to ask what is the cost as well as the benefit.
And this is where the Left generally trumps the Right and refutes such arguments of false equivalency. Yes, some on Left are a bit zealous in their caution. But still, there is a commitment there to thoroughly investigating possibility, to the value of multiple views, to the fundamental complexity and diversity of existence. This does not take the same form as the Right's "message discipline" and monologuism, Reagan's eleventh commandment, selective appeals to tradition, and general preference for faith over rational inquiry. That difference is important, and one too easily (opportunistically?) erased in the argument of false equivalency.
Forgive me, the article clearly states that you cannot talk about GMO's without a liberal bringing up Monsanto or profit. I stand by my assessment that those things are anti-corporitism. Had the author chosen to bring up pseudo-research into cancer in lab rats, I would agree with him. Words matter! I belong to an online discussion group that involves dozens of people from all walks of life and political persuasions. What I find is that for every liberal that supports vaccines, there is a conservative home-schooling mother teaching her 8 yr old to shoot guns while spreading anti-gmo propaganda. For every progressive democrat that believes in nuclear power as a viable option there is a libertarian conspiracy theorist that believes vaccines are secret sterilizations. And yes, for every "all natural" left-winger that believes chiropractic cures all ills there is a Christian that believes in evolution. This article and the ensuing discussion illustrates the need to reframe the debate. "Americans" are anti-science. This is one of the biggest failures of our country. We can't have debates about ethics and applications if no one understands how to do it. That said, I do feel there is one small group that is actively trying to subvert progress through political office, school boards, and any other means necessary. They no more represent the majority of Republicans than Dennis Kucinich represents Democrats. They have, however, started a dangerous game by manipulating people with inflammatory arguments. Rational people must put aside political persuasion and make educating children a priority or we will find ourselves in a very, very scary place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYay for you, Michael. You will get flamed for sure. I would add that liberals are the bastion of the ultimate anti-intellectualism: the denial of objective reality itself. How we know what we know is a thorny problem, and leads to what I call the Fundamental Fallacy of Philosophy. Defining how we know something is difficult; the one thing it cannot do is tell us anything at all about reality itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you ever noticed that, when it comes to technology, liberals demand that the technology be proven safe beyond any reasonable, or even unreasonable, doubt? On the other hand, when it comes to social or behavioral issues, like say legalizing pot, the behavior has to be proven UNsafe before they'll support a ban on it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a grotesque example of false equivalence. Worries about risks associated with various technologies may be misguided, but they aren't anti-science. The risks of nuclear energy are far from dismissible, and the very high costs, despite claims of 'power too cheap to meter, are also worth noting. But in saying this I'm really not demonstrating my chops as an anti-science type... and neither am I taking a position that has been made a central plank of left-wing policy makers. On the other hand, political leaders of the right regularly reject evolution, and sponsor and pass bills undermining science education. They also regularly declare global warming a fraud, promote conspiracy theories about the broad scientific consensus that GHG emissions are causing climate change, and oppose any action to mitigate climate change. Now THAT'S anti-science. (Oh, and just by the way, the only politician I know of who sought national office over the last couple of years and who has promoted anti-vaccine views including the myth that vaccines can cause autism is a Republican-- I'm sure all of you out there can remember her name...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis post is a bit of lazy liberal-bashing. The generalization presented is just plain false. Liberal support for legalizing marijuana draws on many lines of argument: there is no evidence showing that it's more harmful than (say) tobacco and alchohol (in fact, evidence strongly suggests it's less harmful than either). Moreover, criminalizing marijuana has (just like prohibition) enriched and empowered criminal gangs. Assuming it's harmless is among the last and silliest arguments one could propose. As for proving technology safe, some may demand too much, but they aren't all liberals. It's conservatives who keep claiming that emergency contraception (or even the pill) just might (in some very few cases) cause 'abortion' by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg (even thought its mechanism of action is understood to be preventing ovulation).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer, the title of your article should be something like: Democrats Have Some Problems with Science, too. Republicans actively try to suppress science - wage war against it - and that's not at all what you're describing with the democrats. I'm sure libertarians have their own problems with science that are at least as severe as those of democrats. Why not describe them and title it The Libertarians' War on Science? Then you can do the next political group and the next and the next.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnology is a branch of science. The two are not separable. Technology is not a pure science but it is the science of applying science - applied sciences. Technology need not be material things either, for example law is a form of technology and so is the scientific process itself. I'm sure Michael Shermer knows this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear waste is a very minor problem. It's a problem for which there are a variety of solutions but the anti-nuclear lobby would like you to believe otherwise.
What stupid arrogance is displayed by some of the "LEFT" contributors. I am a retired Navy Director of S & T Development, a lifetime researcher and a current Science advisor to Government and corporate entities. The accusations and hate expressed against anyone who questions a scientific THEORY, displays ignorance worthy of the opponents of Galileo's concepts. It is not a RELIGIOUS based bias, it is clear stupidity or avarice. Many "religious" concepts are erroneous conclusions drawn from biblical writings, BUT so are many scientific conclusions from drawn from the need to get grants despite erroneous data. Think of the 4 elements earth, air, wind and fire, long the SCIENTIFIC basis of existence. Not too good, eh. more recently, there was an accepted "NUCLEAR WINTER" (before anthropogenic>global warming>climate change "FACTS"). Remember, creation and evolution can exist together. It happens every day. The Patent office is filled with both. Oh well, keep a scientific mind and question, question, question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat stupid arrogance is displayed by some of the "LEFT" contributors. I am a retired Navy Director of S & T Development, a lifetime researcher and a current Science advisor to Government and corporate entities. The accusations and hate expressed against anyone who questions a scientific THEORY, displays ignorance worthy of the opponents of Galileo's concepts. It is not a RELIGIOUS based bias, it is clear stupidity or avarice. Many "religious" concepts are erroneous conclusions drawn from biblical writings, BUT so are many scientific conclusions from drawn from the need to get grants despite erroneous data. Think of the 4 elements earth, air, wind and fire, long the SCIENTIFIC basis of existence. Not too good, eh. more recently, there was an accepted "NUCLEAR WINTER" (before anthropogenic>global warming>climate change "FACTS"). Remember, creation and evolution can exist together. It happens every day. The Patent office is filled with both. Oh well, keep a scientific mind and question, question, question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHank Campbell of science20.com produces some of the dumbest crap I've read on evolutionary psychology. One comment congratulating an anti-EP screed reads "you wrote the only book last year using evo psych that didn't make me want to reach for a pistol. :)" So I'm not going to be reading a book that he worked on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe stuff about power, GMOs and even cospiracy theories about world events holds true for "progressive" types for sure, I'd caution a guess that there are better writers on rationality however.
The denial of evolution is strictly an american phenomenon. The fight against any form of electrical energy production however is particularly strong in Germany. This country wants to limit power plants to windcraft and solar panels.The slogan is energy turn- around. At the same time they want to export more cars. The problem of global warming can not be compared to evolution. While the melting of glaciers has been a fact for at least 100 years, the cause is still in doubt. Correlation does not prove cause and effect. There have been multiple ice ages and periods of global warming, with no explanation by "climate scientists". I am always amazed at the certainty with which reduction of CO2 output is equated with
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisclimate protection.
This article is a classic example of the belief, apparently widespread among journalists, that one proves one's objectivity by devoting equal time to both sides of a dispute - even if nearly all the evidence favors one of the sides. To balance the breathtaking examples of antiscience attitudes on the right - creationism, climate change denial - Shermer cites one very limited example on the left, Science for the People, a 1970s group that never had much influence or many members (though it did have a gift for attracting publicity). Beyond that, he can only list concerns that some liberals have with specific negative effects of nuclear, hydro, or wind power, as well as with fossil fuels. He doesn't argue that science has disproved these concerns; he only jumps to an unsupported claim that people who worry about these issues believe that "everything unnatural is bad".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to draw parallels, you need to find subjects that are parallel. Environmentalists argue that the costs of unlimited use of fossil fuels outweigh the benefits, so we should take measures to reduce that use. That's not denying science, it's trying to use the (tentative) conclusions of science to make policy decisions. The counterpart to these environmentalists would be people who argue that the benefits of fossil fuels justify the costs, not people who simply pretend there are no costs.
"Viewing the world with a rational eye" is a valuable thing, Mr. Shermer. Such a rational eye would not feel obligated to manufacture a non-existent equivalence between right-wing denialism and left-wing criticism.
This article is not based on any facts or reality. The author should be ashamed of this biased hack job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. "
While there are almost no liberal Republicans (easily less than 1%), there are many *conservative* Democrats, I'd say up to 40% of the party is conservative (ever heard of the Blue Dogs?).
"Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally"
Again, pure BS. Only 9% of American scientists surveyed call themselves conservative. Further, self identifying conservatives and Republicans take extreme stands against every field of science. http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/
It's a real shame that the Editors of SciAm allowed this ridiculous article to be published. It really tarnishes the image of the site and entire organization to have this ludicrous blog post up.
The far left is not anti-vaccine. It's the Michelle Bachmann style conservatives that are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is a terrible hack job. I respect your ability to try to talk rationally here though, disinformation like this really makes me angry.
I completely agree that there is a large contingent of liberals that are anti-science. However, there is a major difference between the conservative anti-sciecne crowd and the liberal anti-science crowd. That difference is in the representation in congress and government. The democrats do a fairly good job at keeping the crazy elements of their party in check while the mainstream republicans proudly embrace them. I don't think it is possible to honestly argue that the size of the anti-science/anti-intellectual movement on the left even comes close to the size of the movement on the right. Nor are they as loud as the right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't particularly care for PZ Myers anymore or Rebecca Watson since they both display a remarkable amount of irrationality in regards to their embrace of feminism but Myers hits the nail on the head in this response to Shermer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/23/shermers-false-equivalencies/
What shoddy thinking in this vapid article! Not all Democrats are liberals while some Republicans are social liberals. Opposition to capitalism is not anti-science. Indeed, it may be the logical conclusion of scientific thinking. Most leftists I know embrace the use of technology to meet human needs and oppose its use to pollute the planet. Why do the authors assume that "back to nature" advocates are "left"? There is almost too much slipshod thinking in this article to criticize in a short reply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBroccoli is full of toxins. So are basil, mint and jalapeno. Why do you think they taste so good? Plants make those tasty chemicals to deter bugs, and we've bred some of them to be much more "toxic".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKnowledge-free polemics like this are exactly the point of Shermer's essay.
Shermer fails to make the elementary distinction between science denial and technology resistance. Moreover in all of the technology issues mentioned by Shermer except vaccination, there are legitimate scientific and economic reasons to oppose the technologies. Nuclear power for example can't possible succeed without a massive and unfair subsidy from the Price-Anderson provision which drastically limits their liability for massive meltdowns. A fair regulatory policy with a requirement for a carbon tax but also full liability insurance would close down all existing nukes forthwith. And as for opposition to wind turbines that may kill millions of birds, Shermer is pretty blase about species extinction for a supposed fan of science. (I support wind turbines, by the way, but you have to take environmental costs seriously, and Shermer obviously doesn't.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-David Burress
As many have pointed out, there is a big difference between denying scientific fact and disagreeing with the technological policy preferences of most scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@tahanson:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Kurzweil points out, we are converting many of our sciences into information sciences. We are no longer experimenting slowly trial and error on genomes; we are designing ever larger portions of genomes. DNA is the ultimate software. It's extremely compact, and it's omnipresent. As a software engineer, I can assure you that no one writes a non-trivial piece of software that works as expected.
For this reason, GMOs have a high burden of proof. We have a long history of new technologies having unexpected consequences. There is some evidence that GMOs, which are designed to produce pesticides to keep crops healthy in the face of natural predators, are causing harm to honey bee populations.
Monsanto and other organizations producing GMOs need to be *extremely* transparent, acknowledge the risks, and provide strong evidence from independent researchers that each of the risks has been properly addressed. It isn't enough to say "the medical community has established that GMOs are safe for human consumption". We also need to know that dumping round-up on fields, breeding super weeds, and encouraging farmers to be dependent on a monopoly are net pluses. We need to know that when these genes escape into the wild, we aren't going to end up with diminished diversity or creeping kudzu. We need to know that the new genes narrowly target specific problems instead of broadly attacking parts of the eco-system we are highly dependent upon.
Global warming is clear. Some of us remember what the weather was like 40 years ago and notice the changes. We have clear evidence that the polar ice caps are melting. It's remotely possible that one might reasonably argue that Global warming is not anthropogenic, but it's pretty clear that 7 billion people have an effect on the planet.
The left asks for more science to ensure our collective well being. The right denies science to ensure high corporate profits.
"religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is ridiculous. "Religious fervor" implies superstitious belief that air, water and food are important. In fact, there are some sound scientific reasons why one should care strongly about the purity and sanctity of air, water, and food.
First, clean air, water, and food is necessary to life. I grew up in Los Angeles, and having sore throats multiple times a year because the air was polluted was not a good thing. I am quite happy that I live in a place where drinking water does not risk my catching cholera and dying.
Second, is the social-economic reason why clean air and water is important. Our commons belong to all of us. They are not the private reserve of rich corporations to use as they see fit to make a profit.
Unless you want to argue that thinking breathing and drinking water are superstitious behaviors, unless you want to argue that all men are not created equal and the poor are allowed by the whims of the rich, you should spend more time thinking before you write garbage.
Funny, I seem to remember the "vaccines cause mental retardation" issue arising from the extreme right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference between the left and the right on this issue is that you can present sufficient evidence to convince the liberal media to convince the liberals of the validity of the science and the net benefit.
@waterbergs:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for explaining that a four-cell embryo is exactly the same as a multi-trillion cell human adult. I don't understand why we deny embryo's the right to vote. And I'm pretty sure the second amendment demands they carry firearms in the womb.
@madscientist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(paraphrasing) "on the left, it's 'big business is evil and can't be trusted'; on the right, it's 'the government is trying to take away our guns".
The difference is that on the left we have strong evidence that big business is immoral and can't be trusted. Acid Rain really did exist. Love canal was a huge problem. Air pollution and water pollution actually existed. The cigarette industry really did consistently lie to people for decades.
Wow! what a great lot of grasping onto misinformation. Is that a genetic predisposition of yours?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your comments; it's always nice to see the conservative idiot making a fool of himself.
Having read the comments of many tea party supporters across the internet, I'd have to say that josephcraig's comments are not prejudicial and are accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe atheist is more moral than the christian. The atheist does good because it is the right thing to do. The christian does good for fear of punishment and in hopes of a reward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy what a strange and wonderful fantasy world you invent for yourself. It's unfortunate you live in a place here you never encounter liberals and can obtain a more realistic perspective of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"every possible combination of genes has started at the beginning of life and over the last half billion years evolution has removed the bad combinations"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm... I would have thought Scientific American would have attracted a more intelligent caliber of reader.
I can't decide, Mr. Shermer, if JulianPenrod supports your arguments or not. It does seem to be clear that there are a lot of confused people out there, and, no doubt a lot of those confused people claim to be progressive liberals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDenying that software has risks is anti-science. Denying that there was ever a technology that caused more harm than good is anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consensus can say "jumping off the golden gate bridge won't hurt you". That doesn't make the consensus correct. GMO is software engineering. Software engineering clearly has risks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the consensus is saying that GMOs are completely safe, then the consensus is clearly wrong and we better start paying a *lot* more attention to the fringe deniers.
I'm a liberal scientist myself, and anti-science liberals drive me crazy, too. For some reason much of their attention focuses on health and medicine. Belief in the healing power of herbal supplements never put through a rigorous trial; mistrust bordering on paranoia concerning vaccines (Bill Maher is Exhibit A); the whole western-vs.-eastern medicine "debate"; and the unshakable conviction that genetically modified crops are dangerous to our health: None of this makes one bit of scientific sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's strange because for some reason liberals who take as a given that Western doctors are corrupted by billion-dollar drug companies harking harmful or useless medicines are nonetheless perfectly willing to believe that billion-dollar herbal-supplement companies only have our health and well-being at heart.
Before everyone jumps on me, yes I know there are lots of problems in the way new drugs are funded, tested, and brought to market. (But at least the *are* tested.) And sure, the motives of pesticide manufacturers financing GMO research are deeply suspect, and this technology needs careful regulation. But let's not confuse our distrust of corporate behavior with the science of these issues.
Still, it's fair to point out that liberal anti-scientists only nibble at the edges of irrational belief, whereas anti-science conservatives virtually wallow in it. So I guess I'll stick to being liberal.
Do these liberals object to Monsanto because they scientifically modify food, or because they claim ownership in perpetuity over the living things they modify – to the extent that they sue farmers whose crops have become cross-pollenated by their patented protected crop species?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy hunch is that most of the folks that object to the Monsantos of the world mostly object to their politics (i.e. creating “round up ready” crops that require round up, and no other brand; preventing farmers from saving part of their harvest to seed next year’s crops). Their politics really are egregious and deserving of scorn, IMO. Imagine if Monsanto had followed the lead of the free-internet activists: created genetically superior soybeans, and allowed them to be freely propagated around the world.
I think then the criticism of GMO would be limited to a few bull-goose loonies that would be much easier to ignore.
And while I'm at it -- regarding this giant brain-fart dressed up as argumentation: "[GMOs]...are the only way to feed billions of people." This line of thinking rests on the unstated premise that "billions" of people should be fed. If billions should be fed, shouldn't trillions, zillions, quadrillions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell me, Mr. Shermer: how should we feed a trillion people? I mean, stack them one-upon-the-other and hand over their allotment of soylent-green?
The point is, that maybe this line of reasoning succumbs to an over-due expiration if our population were such that it could be sustained without recourse to ever-increasing technological fixes (and their ubiquitous unintended consequences: see poisoned/depleted aquifers, acid rain, deforestation, climate change, etc.).
Instead of treating the predicament of human hunger as a supply problem, isn't it reasonable at some point to consider it a demand problem? Maybe not yet, oh no, not at this point. But can we reframe the discussion in 2050 when we hit 20 billion people, and we're standing knee deep in each other's excrement? Or should we then look to the Monsantos of the world in full expectation that they invent a machine that turns sh!t back into food-paste, that we reinsert in our food holes?
Perhaps then Mr. Shermer can add his voice to Mr. Harris' about the scientific evidence supporting the fact of the unassailability of human dignity (via ethical delimas = misconceptions of empirically testable hypotheses).
Or maybe, ethics do matter (and further, they may actually be the domain of those that rely more on logic and reason than they do on only things that can be empirically examined?). And when you go attacking rationally minded people on the basis of their stance on science, you should be careful to separate ethical concerns from the scientific concerns...
Some fairly weak arguments presented here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"41% of Democrats are Young Earth creationists."
And what percent of these Democrats are _liberals_?
Does this 41% of the party control its actions? Are they voting for anti-Science creationists? Where is the "liberal war"? You've neither shown a "war" nor the participation of "liberals."
"19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer." So, you're offering as evidence for the "liberal war on science" the fact that only 81% of Democrats (not liberals, mind you) "doubt that Earth is getting warmer."
This is really weak stuff.
The only evidence of any kind of war, other than anecdotes that you want to pass on, is a question by Bill Maher. A comedian.
In contrast, there are several well-funded think tanks whose purpose is to offer up propaganda against any and all science that supports global warming science. Where is the "liberal" equivalent of this campaign?
Thankyou for some commonsense and reason tahanson.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGMO insulin replaced insulin from pigs 30 years ago. Millions of diabetics out there inject the stuff three times a day. So far no reports of any diabetics growing a second head or horns on their foreheads.
One wonders if Michael Sherner’s article is provocative so as to entice scientists to log into the website and browse Scientific American’s content. I am quite certain that most scientists would for example agree that the US Democrats are not the far left, that US liberals have not declared Armageddon on science, that nuclear power and fossil fuel are more damaging to the environment than wave, wind or solar energy and that 19% of Democrat supporters not believing in global warming is considerably less than 51% of Republicans. Nuclear power stations, hydroelectric dams, etc, are not built for the advancement of science but for profit. Balancing benefit of the society with profit by a single company is not anti-science but a political and social issue. The problem with Monsanto as many other readers already pointed out is not its use of scientific knowledge or technology but the controversial way in which it seeks or sought financial profit, in the absence of sufficient longitudinal studies and especially at the expense of traditional agricultural societies and economies. Human embryos are just as human as the elderly. Whether their lives or cells are less or more expendable is a moral not a scientific question. In fact, the responses from the readers make it clear that the result, if not also the aim, of the article was to provoke scientists to visit the Scientific American website in order to respond to Michael Sherner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer is incorrect that "we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection." While deliberate and natural breeding do bring on genetic changes, the term GMO is used to describe a technique whereby genetic material is extracted from one organism and then physically transferred into another organism. The two organisms need not be at all related, as exemplified by the creation of a tomato with some fish genes (for frost tolerance). Such a combination could never occur in nature or with traditional plant breeding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPotential hazards of GMO foods are the presence of hidden allergens and secondary effects of inserted genes (pleiotropy). Furthermore, GMO plants have not diminished pesticide use and they have contaminated non-GMO plants.
At this point I can only echo some of the comments here. Mr. Shermer's usual accurate commentary is clouded here by the attempt to be "evenhanded". Democrats are not the same thing as far-left liberals, and being skeptical about the safety of certain profit driven technologies is not the same as being anti-science. I am generally a Democrat and politically liberal but also a scientific thinker. This makes me open to good science but not blindly supportive of every application of good science for bad technology. I'm not against GMO's but I am against allowing companies like Monsanto to monopolize life forms. The difference is that the religious right think their imaginary friend in the sky is going to take care of everything so they don't have to worry about environmental degradation or a long term future. Secular liberals actually expect there to be a long term future and welcome good technology that will allow that future to be healthy and sustainable, but oppose those that will make the future a nightmare of pollution and rapid climate change that exceeds our biological and technological abilities to adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer, The crossbreeding and hybridization of crops (done for 10,000 years), has no relationship, whatsoever, to adding starfish genes to corn (or what Monsanto has done with our food). You sir used to have credibility. No more! Genetically engineered organisms are unnatural and could never occur in nature!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the very nature of Shermer's article is very distorted. Science relies on, not just skepticism, but testing, observations, falsifiability, peer review, methodological naturalism. I think, the most important principle is methodological naturalism. To say science entirely relies on skepticism is partially accurate but also wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue, but instead we have a president who has paid lip service to global warming concerns but so far has taken no sweeping steps to curb emissions. To the extent that the lip service placates ordinary citizens who might otherwise be shouting about the problem, the Democratic presidential approach might in a way be more insidious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me their a process involved when liberals reach concensus on something.........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst they invite ONLY people who agree with them, then they all talk and realize they are all in total agreement!
Then they hold a press conference and declare EVERYONE agrees!
I thought questioning methodology of science was what it was about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it true that a scientific theory has to disprovable, that this is how experimentation works? How are you testing something if everything you do will have the same outcome?
Tell me anything, absolutely anything, that would be accepted as disproving climate change theory? Too hot is proof of it, to cold is proof of it, more storms is proof of it, less storms is proof of it.............. Hell, they even cooked up "climate dimming" to explain when we don't see anything they predicted occuring!
How can it be science when anything and everything proves your theory?
I am all for it too, if it is affordable..... but all the supporters of clean energy use the idea that they will "make it affordable" by artifically make everything else unaffordable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd no, subsidizes do not make anything affordable! Making someone else pay for part of the cost does not make something affordable! Your just making it cost less for one person, by making someone else pay for most of the cost!
What's truly remarkable is that scientific research shows that liberals are quite dishonest which lends support to the authors premise. I believe it was even reported on this website that the last few years have been fraught with fraud in the scientific community (heavily dominated by liberals who admit that they regularly engage in tactics to prevent the hiring and advancement of conservatives), record amounts of it resulting in an epidemic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome relevant examples of the Liberals’ War on Science are found at the very foundational beliefs of liberals, beliefs that violate foundational principles of modern science.
One is the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy. At first it was thought prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing, but since that obviously violated the 1st Law (and sounded too much like Creation), it was revised to particles & anti-particles moving in & out of existence. So to assert that there is NOW the same amount of matter/energy as there was BEFORE the Big Bang would take some very tricky verbal gymnastics.
Another scientific fact proven by a Creationist (Creationists discovered MANY of our greatest scientific facts, disproving the lie that Creationists are anti-science) was that "life only comes from life, produces after its kind and never comes from non-life". Yet, liberals also do not believe this one either. They actually believe life CAN come from non-life.
By the way, aren't conditions today more favorable to life than some toxic mix?
To continue, liberals like to apply the rules of logic to Creationists, but not to themselves. For instance, Creationists are regularly mocked for believing in God by faith. Yet, believing that God does NOT exist also requires faith. Can one PROVE that God does not exist? No. And what do we call it when someone believes something that cannot be proven? That's right, faith.
Now, before someone quickly shouts, “You can’t prove a negative, you idiot!” (a popular tactic is yelling names & obscenities at Creationists), let me just tell you that I can provide many examples where that isn’t so, but since all that’s required is just one exception, here goes: “No one exists in this small box I hold in my hand”. Can I prove this negative assertion? Of course. Try your own little experiment at home if you still doubt me.
My sweeping generalizations of liberals are just that, and for those liberals who are truly kind and humble, my apologies as my jabs are not aimed at you.