While I applaud the firing of Paul Ehrlich for his consistent false warnings and overt political activism, Im not so sure I agree with Nurse. What really constitutes continually misused science to support their preconceived beliefs(?) In cases like Ehrlich, where they are prominent because of those preconceived ideological beliefs, its probably easy to see them as more ideological figure rather than a scientific figure. Do you think anything like this could happen in the US? Im just generally wary of purity in anything, even science. Some dissent even if wrong is still a good thing from a group dynamics/grouthink perspective. Thoughts? Britain’s most senior scientist has launched a fierce attack on influential figures who distort scientific evidence to support their own political, religious or ideological agendas. The president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, said scientists must challenge serial offenders from all spheres of life who continually misused science to support their preconceived beliefs. Speaking ahead of an inaugural speech he will give next week as the incoming president of the British Science Association (BSA), Nurse said it was not enough for scientists to sit on the sidelines and sneer when public figures expounded unscientific nonsense.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:36:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015