Anti-science
m (References->Footnotes) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The term can also be used for policy decisions which, for political reasons, ignore the advice of scientists paid to inform such policy. In the Bush administration, politically appointed administrators of the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies have made decisions in conflict with the recommendations of agency scientists. In addition, wording and conclusions in scientific reports have been changed to support corporate interests. | The term can also be used for policy decisions which, for political reasons, ignore the advice of scientists paid to inform such policy. In the Bush administration, politically appointed administrators of the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies have made decisions in conflict with the recommendations of agency scientists. In addition, wording and conclusions in scientific reports have been changed to support corporate interests. | ||
| − | == | + | ==Footnotes== |
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:Pseudoscience and the culture wars]] | [[Category:Pseudoscience and the culture wars]] | ||
Revision as of 18:56, 2 October 2008
Anti-science, in modern terms, refers to largely ideological attacks on the teaching of evolutionary theory and other sciences in schools, and their use in the world at large. This is particularly true when it comes into conflict with conservative or religious positions. Common targets include evolution[1], global warming and various sorts of medicine, although other sciences that may conflict with right-wing ideology are often targeted as well.
The anti-science position generally holds that in cases where science and ideology come into conflict, science itself must be flawed. This position is normally couched in reassuring code phrases, such as Intelligent Design. This leads to numerous attempts to discredit scientific methodology, the scientists themselves, and the very foundations of science itself. These attempts often involve misrepresentation[2], obfuscation[3] and outright denial.
This modern usage of the term should not be confused with the anti-science movement in the 1960's and 1970's, which was largely concerned with the possible dehumanizing aspects of uncontrolled scientific and technological advancement. While this skepticism of unchecked change meets the classic dictionary definition of conservative, it falls far short of the anti-intellectual thrust of modern political conservatism.
The term can also be used for policy decisions which, for political reasons, ignore the advice of scientists paid to inform such policy. In the Bush administration, politically appointed administrators of the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies have made decisions in conflict with the recommendations of agency scientists. In addition, wording and conclusions in scientific reports have been changed to support corporate interests.