Ron Bischof: March for science, not politicization of science

By Signal Contributor

Last update: Thursday, April 20th, 2017

I found Maria Gutzeit’s April 18 column “Marching because facts matter” rational and readable.

Regarding the “March for Science,” I’d expand her definition by noting that science is a process that should inform policy but is not a policy itself. Policies are formulated by participating individuals and organizations and they should be based on facts and reason rather than impulse and emotions.

Then the respective polities in our republic evaluate and vote on these policies as communicated and ultimately legislated by our representatives.

Realizing that humans are involved, rational, reasonable and well-intentioned people may disagree on what the most efficacious and cost-effective approaches are to solving problems that are informed by the scientific process. Disparities on policy solutions are therefore not a pro-science/anti-science binary.

As an engineer, Maria no doubt does not find this expansion revelatory. I thought it important to illuminate, as some are wont to politicize science itself.

Click here to post a comment

Ron Bischof: March for science, not politicization of science

Santa Clarita Christian School student Joshua Matzek shares his Deadbolt Lock Project with judges at the school's first STEM Expo Friday. Christina Cox/The Signal

I found Maria Gutzeit’s April 18 column “Marching because facts matter” rational and readable.

Regarding the “March for Science,” I’d expand her definition by noting that science is a process that should inform policy but is not a policy itself. Policies are formulated by participating individuals and organizations and they should be based on facts and reason rather than impulse and emotions.

Then the respective polities in our republic evaluate and vote on these policies as communicated and ultimately legislated by our representatives.

Realizing that humans are involved, rational, reasonable and well-intentioned people may disagree on what the most efficacious and cost-effective approaches are to solving problems that are informed by the scientific process. Disparities on policy solutions are therefore not a pro-science/anti-science binary.

As an engineer, Maria no doubt does not find this expansion revelatory. I thought it important to illuminate, as some are wont to politicize science itself.

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

  • Gil Mertz

    Thanks Ron. On point as ever.

    A classic example of the politicization of science is the global warming hysteria. While at the movies last weekend I had to hold my nose through the coming attraction of Al Gore’s sequel for Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore should NEVER be in a movie with the word “truth” in the title.

    One of the laughable fallacies he claims in the preview is how his prediction of the flooding of the 9/11 area of New York came true…..because of global warming. What a liar. The area was not flooded by melting glaciers, it was the result of a hurricane. If it were melting glaciers as Gore predicted where has all the water gone from that area in the last four years since the hurricane? He’s counting on enough stupid people to not ask that question.

    Another lie is when he mocks President Trump who is giving a speech about global warming. The movie clearly “cuts and pastes” the reaction of people from another person’s speech and makes it look like they are in Trump’s audience. Is it true? No. Does it matter to Al Gore and his ilk? Never.

    If fact, for Gore’s first pack of lies he won an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize. And while champions of tolerance at Berkely will refuse alternative voices to speak at their university, they will show Al Gore’s fantasy film over and over and over again to students. What a world.

  • Jim de Bree

    Great clarification.

  • Brian Baker

    “… some are wont to politicize science itself”.

    Masterful understatement in your excellent column, Ron.

    Today’s politicization of science, especially of “climate change” (as Gil points out), brings to mind the pre-Copernican dogma of the Catholic church and its earth-centric view of the universe, enforced by decree with draconian consequences for heretics who had the unmitigated gall to challenge that view. The same dogma which, of course, ultimately proved to be laughably inaccurate and absurd.