A bit more building off yesterday's entry. It is a mixed bag to respond to specific people, since there are so many out there, so unless they are particularly important, the fact that they are wrong is of limited importance. Still, my long term pleasure in reading op-eds (now blogs) is that they provide a workable platform to consider a certain matter. So, though the desire to point out that someone online is wrong is a never-ending road to insanity, it can be a useful endeavor.
Looking at the background page to the science cheerleader, we learn part of her mission is to advance:
A process to unite the citizen’s desire to be heard and valued, the scientist’s growing interest in the public’s involvement, and government’s need to garner public support.
More power to those angry and demanding their government listen to them and care for their interests. Still, bare belief and venting is not enough. The scientific method (Wikipedia) is telling:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Chris Mooney, of the Republican War on Science fame, has gotten into some trouble in his campaign against "new atheists," who he feels are too over the top against religion in general. This is a (tedious) theme over at the comments at Amazon on his latest book, but suffice to say he might have gone too far. Still, the basic idea is sound: in fact, "bare belief" is used advisably. Religion, even as generally understood, is not really the problem. It is certain types of irrationality. Evangelists in the campaign against global warming shows this.
I think a rational application of public policy, the "reality based community," is a basic part of being a progressive. In fact, it might be what is different from being "progressive" and "liberal" in a certain sort of way -- a different flavor, perhaps. Science policy was an important theme of mine back in the days of the Kerry campaign as well. As I noted then:
And in a broader sense, a more nuanced moral understanding of the world we live in, including not limiting the "health and well being of the many" for the beliefs of the few. Not just scientific research, but abortion, condom use, euthanasia, homosexuality, medicinal marijuana, and a lot more is at stake. A simplistic view of public values, one that all too often interferes with the rights of others with a contrasting moral belief system that deserves equal respect in this nation (and sometimes internationally as well), mixed with partisan politics is just one more reason to vote the current bunch out of power.
The name of the post was "Ron Reagan and Bush's Science Policy," but obviously it was about more than science. Science retains its important place. The path is a rational one, one where homosexuality is seen as what it is, as a benign part of human existence. Does not "empirical and measurable evidence" show this to be the case? The "equal respect" I spoke about includes those some scientists might find irrational sorts. Science, however, is an important component of a moral worldview, the one that sound public policy should promote.
The moral worldview, the use of science, goes beyond mere science into politics, religion, and other matters. Science and rational policy, including when opposing the other side, retain a key place. Jefferson would agree.