Comments on: Mooney Talks Past Marburger http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4905 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4905&cpage=1#comment-11700 David Bruggeman Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:25:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4905#comment-11700 You're right, the quote should not be considered as something that Mooney necessarily believes, but it's an argument often found by those who are supportive of there being a "War on Science." It's gotten bigger than what Mooney originally articulated, and I think he buys into this growth in parts of his hatchet job. Your characterization of Mooney's perspective seems fine, certainly the second half of it. The problem comes when the implementation of the first part runs into what some consider interference. That such interference never happened prior to Bush (or never crossed a line of outrage) is part of this whole thing I've had trouble with, but wasn't directly connected to Mooney's hatchet job. You’re right, the quote should not be considered as something that Mooney necessarily believes, but it’s an argument often found by those who are supportive of there being a “War on Science.” It’s gotten bigger than what Mooney originally articulated, and I think he buys into this growth in parts of his hatchet job.

Your characterization of Mooney’s perspective seems fine, certainly the second half of it. The problem comes when the implementation of the first part runs into what some consider interference. That such interference never happened prior to Bush (or never crossed a line of outrage) is part of this whole thing I’ve had trouble with, but wasn’t directly connected to Mooney’s hatchet job.

]]> By: PrajK http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4905&cpage=1#comment-11679 PrajK Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:31:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4905#comment-11679 Hi David. Great post, and I look forward to your follow up. But there are a couple issues. While I agree that the "war on" metaphor is incoherent, I think you've misrepresented Mooney's argument when you state: "The notion that any particular entity in power would not use (or ignore) scientific or technical knowledge to its political benefit (an underlying evil in this rhetoric), is laughable and unrealistic." I think Mooney's argument is that while everyone uses science to advance their own goals, Republicans starting in 2000 did it to such a large degree that their actions warrant special condemnation. And what you identify as a weakness of Mooney's thesis (that the status quo ante was good enough), Mooney probably identifies as a strength. That is, Mooney believes (incorrectly) in the purity of science that only gets corrupted by dirty politicians and especially Republicans. I suspect that, unlike you or me, Mooney was very happy with science policy from 1992 - 2000. I agree with you that the simplistic notions of science policy that Mooney promotes should be attacked...but we need to represent his beliefs correctly. Thoughts? Hi David.

Great post, and I look forward to your follow up. But there are a couple issues.

While I agree that the “war on” metaphor is incoherent, I think you’ve misrepresented Mooney’s argument when you state:
“The notion that any particular entity in power would not use (or ignore) scientific or technical knowledge to its political benefit (an underlying evil in this rhetoric), is laughable and unrealistic.”

I think Mooney’s argument is that while everyone uses science to advance their own goals, Republicans starting in 2000 did it to such a large degree that their actions warrant special condemnation.

And what you identify as a weakness of Mooney’s thesis (that the status quo ante was good enough), Mooney probably identifies as a strength. That is, Mooney believes (incorrectly) in the purity of science that only gets corrupted by dirty politicians and especially Republicans. I suspect that, unlike you or me, Mooney was very happy with science policy from 1992 – 2000.

I agree with you that the simplistic notions of science policy that Mooney promotes should be attacked…but we need to represent his beliefs correctly.

Thoughts?

]]>