Comments on: Seed Issues Presidential Endorsement; Editors Should Read The Honest Broker http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683 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=4683&cpage=1#comment-11204 David Bruggeman Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:33:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683#comment-11204 If it's okay, I'll address the Nature endorsement in a separate post. If it’s okay, I’ll address the Nature endorsement in a separate post.

]]> By: Jim Clarke http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683&cpage=1#comment-11203 Jim Clarke Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:19:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683#comment-11203 Since most science is now funded by government, making the argument that science can be totally objective when dealing with government problems is delusional at best. Even if science was funded by a magical, eternal spring of grants, it would still have a cultural bias not disimilar from the culture at large, because science is made of scientist who, contrary to what some people may think, live in the real world with the rest of humanity. My guess is that the endorsement is actually based on which candidate is likely to dole out the most funds for research and has little to do with the purity of scientific investigation. It kind of makes my case when scientists make irrational arguments about the rationality of science. Since most science is now funded by government, making the argument that science can be totally objective when dealing with government problems is delusional at best. Even if science was funded by a magical, eternal spring of grants, it would still have a cultural bias not disimilar from the culture at large, because science is made of scientist who, contrary to what some people may think, live in the real world with the rest of humanity. My guess is that the endorsement is actually based on which candidate is likely to dole out the most funds for research and has little to do with the purity of scientific investigation.

It kind of makes my case when scientists make irrational arguments about the rationality of science.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683&cpage=1#comment-11202 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:22:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683#comment-11202 David- We've received by email a request for your thoughts on Nature's endorsement: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7217/full/4551149a.html David-

We’ve received by email a request for your thoughts on Nature’s endorsement:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7217/full/4551149a.html

]]> By: stan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683&cpage=1#comment-11201 stan Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:38:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4683#comment-11201 So science can tell us the appropriate standard for the burden of proof in seeking an injunction? Or the proper level of welfare payments? Science resolves whether to require a picture ID to vote or the advisability of same day registration? The relative merits of parlimentary or republican government is found in science?! SEED's reasoning is so bad it isn't worth the effort to laugh at it. So science can tell us the appropriate standard for the burden of proof in seeking an injunction? Or the proper level of welfare payments? Science resolves whether to require a picture ID to vote or the advisability of same day registration? The relative merits of parlimentary or republican government is found in science?!

SEED’s reasoning is so bad it isn’t worth the effort to laugh at it.

]]>