Obama's Strident Support of Science
As Karen indicated, Obama spoke this morning about swine flu and other topics in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences (full text of his remarks after the jump). The President used the occasion to reiterate his intention--first declared in his inaugural address--to "restore science to its rightful place."
I generally agree with the value of investing more in scientific research and with those who believe that the past eight years saw too many instances of ideological biases trumping scientific--and particularly public health--concerns. And yet I find it striking that whenever Obama talks about science--from that first mention during the Inauguration to his speech restoring funding for stem-cell research to today's address--his tone is rather un-Obama-like.
It's not that Obama works himself into a rant when he talks about science. He's still calm, cool Barack, after all. But for him, it is almost strident. Sometimes it's his language--today he complained that "We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas." And sometimes it's just his tone--when I listened to the stem-cell speech, his voice sounded uncharacteristically hard, although in reading the text later I noticed a sensitivity to dissenting beliefs that hadn't come through in the delivery.
Maybe the dismissal of science and evidence simply offends Obama's intellectual sensibilities. Or maybe it's one of those rare issues on which his emotions peek through and we're hearing from a man who believes his mother died too early from a disease he hopes will one day be curable.
Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama's generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful. The anti-science, anti-expert mindset is obviously troubling. But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress. To cite just one troubling example, this week Michael Isikoff reports a confrontation between FBI interrogator Ali Soufan and a CIA contractor whose harsh methods disturbed him:
"I asked [the contractor] if he'd ever interrogated anyone, and he said no," Soufan says. But that didn't matter, the contractor shot back: "Science is science. This is a behavioral issue." The contractor suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one. "He told me he's a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works."
Now, obviously that's an extreme example. Most advocates of science aren't looking to use it to excuse torture. But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in "effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas."
|
-
1
But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in "effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas."
.
Bullsh*t. -
2
How absurd.
-
You're "worried" about Pres. Obama possibly being passionate about science? Science is about truth, it's neither inherently good or inherently bad. Obviously we would not want people out there practicing bad science, or doing bad things in the name of science...but that's definately not what Pres. Obama advocates for on the subject of science. He advocates against the idea of holding scientists back based on some ideaolgical arguement.
-
You're worries, and your example, don't apply. -
3
Actually Amy, your example is completely, insanely bogus. Real interrogation science - the kind practiced by the military, the FBI, and the CIA before Bush, shows that torture is the worst way to gather information.
-
After WWII, the U.S. military hired the best interrogators of Nazi Germany to lecture at U.S. bases and help set the American doctrines of interrogation. We were able to hire and utilize these individuals because the best Nazi interrogators disdained torture and refused to use it.
-
The most significant breach of captured U.S. personnel occurred during the Korean War. The communist interrogators who turned the most American soldiers didn't use torture either. They convinced the captive soldiers they were their real friends, then encouraged debate and helped guide that debate in ways that were helpful to them.
-
That's interrogation science. Some contractor hack babbling about psychology and calling it science isn't any more scientific than some idiot contending they've found proof in the fossil record of Jesus riding around on a velociraptor. -
4
The stridency is needed. It's a correction. He needs to say it loudly so the Washington elites do their freaking jobs. The past eight years have been nothing, if not an abject failure of Washington elites.
.
Washington slept after Run Suskind wrote this:
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/149156.php
.
The public at large got it long before the beltway did:
.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/as_science_goes_so_goes_the_nation/ -
5
Given the fact that Obama supports killing infants who have survived abortions, does he support harvesting the organs of the killed infants, so that non-killed infants in need of organ transplants have a chance at life? If not, what would be Obama's objection to harvesting the organs of the children he supports killing? Does his plan to socialize American medicine include paying for harvesting the organs of children killed after surviving abortions? BTW, will Time magazine post the video of Obama's speech today where he demonstrates that he is a complete idiot when his teleprompter gets ahead of him? If not, what is Time magazine's reason for failing to post said video?
-
6
Textee is my hero for being willing to speak truth to power! I will strive, daily, to be more like you. Let's be sure to get together and talk shop at the next teabagger's ball...I'll make sure I'm properly washed.
-
7
Given the fact that Obama supports killing infants who have survived abortions, does he support harvesting the organs of the killed infants, so that non-killed infants in need of organ transplants have a chance at lie?
.
Exhibit A -
8
And it still goes on, by the way. Here's Chris Mooney correcting George Will's, er, Straussian manipulation:
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660.html?sub=AR
.
And Will keeps deceiving the public, even after this. It's ridiculous. Says Rachel Maddow, what the h*ll do we do about this, but go all Jon Stewart on it:
.
-
9
Amy has fallen into a familiar trap. Science is was and remains all about gaining knowlege. Using that knowlege on the other hand is a different field of endeavor we generally call Engineering. No actual scientist would ever make a claim like "I know how the mind works."
The whole operation of science relies of the fact that all knowlege is tentative and subject to revision if the occasion warrants it.
.
Misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) that point is a huge source of ignorance in this country and Amy's willingness to opine on things she clearly doesn't understand is a fine example of the larger problem. -
10
Basic empiricism is something the right has ditched. Even David Frum has said as much:
.
"we have to follow the evidence where it leads"
.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/28/david-frum-lies-about-me-and-the-lying-liars-who-tell-them.aspx
.
Um, Duh? -
11
They have had this problem with history as well. These two fields are the worst enemy of an ideologist, anyway.
.
That's why we see so much 'revionism' in history and 'doubt' cast in science.
.
Neither has any impact on their respective fields, which is why, in order to make it stick, intellectuals have to flee their country of origin when a strict ideologically based movement takes over. -
12
Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama's generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful... But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress.
.
Hasn't Obama seen all of those movies in which scientists, while striving to create something good, lose control of it and see it turn to evil?
.
Seriously, given the damage done over the past eight years to the general state of science education and many aspects of basic research, a call for "nuance" makes much less sense than a call for triage. -
13
Or, in the case of the Bush Administration, since you can't drive off or persecute the intellectuals (except in a few cases), they resorted to placing political operatives in charge of agencies that have the ability to undercut their ideological aims.
.
Thus, the so-called 'diversity of opinion' the trolls rant about... -
14
"We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas."
.
Amy Sullivan, you moronic concern troll, this isn't being "strident," it's calling a fact a fact. Obama is describing the fate of science at the hands of the Republican Party.
.
Do you think of yourself as being "strident" when you insist upon pushing a "God Gap" that exists nowhere outside of your own imagination?
.
"Amy Sullivan, you wouldn't recognize reality if it robbed you at gunpoint in a parking lot at noon." That's being strident. Do you get the distinction? -
15
"He told me he's a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works."
.
That's egomania and self -delusion, not science. Apparently, an education in religion is poor preparation for the science beat. Who would have guessed? -
16
I wonder if Amy is bothering to read this thread? I have zero sense that she understands the distinction between believing something is true based on a methodical and rigorous examination of the evidence (i.e.: interrogation science as defined by Sean at 3), and believing something is true because you really really want to torture somebody (i.e.: the CIA contractor who had never conducted an interrogation).
.
IN fact, there is so much fail in Amy's post that perhaps an entry to http://failblog.org/ is inorder? -
17
I'm sure Obama would recognize that there's a difference between the physical sciences and the human sciences.
.
But the past few years have been a study of political discourse operating as if it were completely disconnected from the merits of actual physical scientific arguments. -
18
From the Helpful Guide To Liberalism, Page 32:
.
"Politicizing science is a bad thing that Republicans do. When Democrats politicize science - such as trying to send their opponents to Siberia in one way or another - that's a good thing, because they're de-politicizing science. Those Dems are politicizing science in a strict sense, but they aren't politicizing it in reality because they're getting rid of bad ideas from bad people. So, it's all good."
.
You can read the PGTL for free here. Just keep scrolling and scrolling. -
19
Perhaps you would do well to follow another Obama example and that is to think about things before you post. Why would you categorize Obama's disdain for the way the wingnuts have hamstrung this country's efforts to safeguard our food stock, conduct medical research, educate our children and reduce us to an intellectually impoverished nation in an attempt to praise their God, as somehow indicative of a personal defect.
-
20
When you have GOP trolls working full time to argue against this meme, then you know there's something there and it has legs.
.
Paul Krugman was onto this a long time ago. Chris Mooney did a lot of the early legwork. And you know he was effective because he was attacked.
.
My thinking is that this goes back to stoked antagonisms against the "New Class" that people like Irving Kristol dreamed up against "liberal" professionals in order to raise money for conservative foundations. -
21
The success of the conservative movement's infrastructure has been because of “a sophisticated ability to relate ideology to constituencies” (former AEI president Michael Baroody). But what happens when, as Jay Rosen put it, “the base is no longer reality based“? Do you rail against reality itself? Apparently, you do.
-
22
Bullsh*t.
.
sgwhite,
.
Short, succinct and to the point. Well done . . . -
23
It offends my sensibilities whenever an allegedly professional journalist tries to create yet another false equivalency as between fact and willful ignorance.
.
But, then, neither AS nor (evidently) the High Sheriffs care a fig for what the readers think. -
24
Go back to answering to "Bible Girl", stick to your fantasy rather than trying to understand science.
-
25
""I asked [the contractor] if he'd ever interrogated anyone, and he said no," Soufan says. But that didn't matter, the contractor shot back: "Science is science. This is a behavioral issue." The contractor suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one. "He told me he's a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works." "
.
Isn't this more a case of a moral degenerate using science as an convenient excuse to justify his illegal acts than it is an example of the evil of science? As someone pointed out above most of the "experts" don't think torture even works. Science for the most part is value free. Good and evil are found in how it is used.
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- Rep. Woolsey: Majority Of Dems Will Vote Against War Funding
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- Dogfight: Can Rescued Attack Dogs, Pit Bulls Be Saved?
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Tiger Woods Admits 'Transgressions': Will Image Be Hurt?
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?













RSS