Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Science and Partisanship: A Reasoned View 

speakingcorpse writes:

Does it matter that 48 Nobel laureates have signed a letter supporting John Kerry and denouncing the Bush admninistration's plan to save the lives of frozen embryos (perhaps for eventual elevation to the office of "Embryo-in-Chief," changed from "Commander-in-Chief" in honor of salvaged abortion George W. Bush)? Does the opinion of leading scientists matter to the Bush campaign? No, because, according to campaign spokesperson/plumber Steven Schmidt, these 48 Nobel laureates aren't just scientists, but political "partisans."

Americans who might be inclined to listen to the opinions of 48 Nobel laureates on the stem-cell issue, Schmidt argues, should recognize that their scientific expertise has been discredited by the fact that many of them opposed...the Iraq "war"! The fact that they opposed the "war" means that these Nobel laureates are not motivated by their hopes for scientific progress, but by base political calculations. Furthermore, Schmidt argues, their opposition to the "war" shows exactly how partisanship clouds their objective vision. Clearly, the Iraq intervention was supported by reasoned, even scientific, research and argumentation. And scientifically speaking, the "war" has been shown to be a real and unimpeachable success. The fact that these Nobel laureates have opposed the "war" means that they are closing their eyes to the scientific evidence, which clearly proves that the "war" has been a victory in the larger terror struggle. In their scientific failure, the laureates are much like liberal reporters, who have ignored reality in much of their reporting concerning the supposed pervasiveness of death and mayhem in Iraq.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?