Is there anyone here who doesn't let politics influence their views of science?

I think I can honestly say I've never factored in my disdain for the current Conservative government into understanding how tidal energy works and how effective it is.

I think there has to be an understanding that there are truths in this world that do not depend on people's opinions or experiences. That they are true irrespective of how you vote or what other people think.

I think most of us would accept that we are a sum of our parts,
We can Never ‘not ‘be influenced by the sum of all our parts & experiences We just need to recognise this & factor it into our decisions as best we can.

Because I'm a scientist who can work things out for themselves, and I was long before the politicians even knew how to spell photovoltaic.

My question was - and remains - how can anyone know for themselves whether their views are politically biassed.

It is like institutional racism, it is so programmed in that we do not realise we have it.

We will all make judgements on other people's judgement, but there judgements and ours are dictated by our inbuilt and unrecognised biasses.

M0nica

Why did you not mention all the scientists who have opposing views to you?

You cannot just blame the politicians.

M0nica, you asked if anyone can say that their political views do not affect their reaction to science.

Well I've given you an example of how my views are not coloured by politics on very specific and timely example.
You'd have to ask the scientists who support nuclear if their views are influenced by politics, or even by their funding.

If you want to have a discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear, in comparison with truly green technologies, I'm sure we could fill a whole thread on that.

Why did you not mention all the scientists who have opposing views to you?

You cannot just blame the politicians.

No, my attitude to nuclear is not affected by my political views, its affected by what I learnt about nuclear as a Physics PhD student in the eighties and have continued to learn ever since. Which in turn has informed my political views.

So the exact opposite of what you said, actually.

volver are the views you express in your post. Clearly anti nuclear and based on a particular attitude to nuclear power, not shaped by your political views?

For example you make no mention of scientists who are much in favour of nuclear power and see the waste problem as manageable.

I am sorry, I rather think you have made my case.

I'm not sure I agree with that M0nica. A person's political views may affect how they communicate or interpret science, but that's not the same thing.

For instance, a scientist may well tell you that a nuclear power strategy based on fission is undesirable, because the waste is impossible to get rid of, it lasts thousands of years and we are just storing up trouble for future generations. But someone with a short term political vision will tell you we need it because it doesn't emit carbon and so they will pretend its good for the planet.

So "the science" stays the same, how people choose to interpret and communicate it can be different.

(Regarding thalidomide; it was reviewed using the standards of the day and the impact it had on society led to those standards being strengthened. I think its unfair to say it wasn't reviewed properly.)

Nobody can say that their political views do not affect their reaction to science. How would you know?

Growstuff -"With all due respect, that isn't really science"

I guess my point is that it was presented as science at the time, by renowned doctors, and touted my medical professionals. The Thalidomide drug was another example of science not reviewed properly before being used. And of course politics is involved in the regulation of medicine.
Science changes and we learn more, so I think it is important to do a little research on your own.

I'm not saying not to trust science, but I think if you say politics doesn't influence science, you are naïve. Note I am using 'you' in the generic sense. I have followed every mandate and recommendation during this pandemic because I trust the head doctors hired by the government, but at the same time I have tried to gather as much info as possible for my own education.

Seeing as how the topic of the thread is politics and science, not really trans debates, did anyone watch "The Challenger" on BBC4 last night? Its about the investigation into the Challenger disaster. William Hurt as Feynman, a fabulous example of not letting politics override the scientific truth.

I was really making the point in response to some posts, not as I said, to enter into any other debate.

volver toot toot ?

Nannarose

I just have to point out, as succintly as I can (and suggest those interested look it up) - that some people have chromosomal abnormalities, that some conditions give rise to hormonal variations. I am not saying this to enter into a 'trans / gender critical debate' - I am simply pointing out that such conditions exist.

Such conditions do indeed exist. They are known as Differences in Sex Development and have zero to do with people who are trans.

As a person who really loves science
Are you a scientist onley89?

I'm not quite sure of what is being asked in the OP
Perhaps I am being dim

People were influenced by religion as well as politics. Science proved many of these beliefs wrong although many people still stand by rigid religious beliefs.
Others can reconcile the two.
Politicians may use scientific advantages to promote their agenda but I don't really agree that Neither of the extremes of each side actually care about science
Which extremes of each side do you mean and can you give examples?

If it wasn't for science we wouldn't have had Volvos.

It's child behaviour psychology mumbo-jumbo, hiding behind a science label because moralists believed children shouldn't be "spoilt" or different (left handed) from others.

With all due respect, that isn't really science CanadianGran.

Hmm, science has always been influenced by politics (or the church). I believe in science, but I think we need to be aware of who is funding the science, and who is publishing the science.

I can say my view isn't skewed by politics, but at some level (sometimes unknown) it is.

For instance, in the early 20th century women were discouraged from cuddling children, since it would lead to spoiling them. Tying down hands was encouraged if they showed signs of left-handedness. These were all studies by children's doctors at the time, and approved by the governing health authorities. They were later found to be wrong, but somehow their views were published, and health authorities spread the word.

I guess the best we can do is stay as informed as we can, and decide if the governing body of the science is trustworthy.

I just have to point out, as succintly as I can (and suggest those interested look it up) - that some people have chromosomal abnormalities, that some conditions give rise to hormonal variations. I am not saying this to enter into a 'trans / gender critical debate' - I am simply pointing out that such conditions exist.

I disagree with a lot of political policies but I go with the flow and don’t fight the system, as for vaccines I do agree with the policy which is in my opinion is about the only useful thing Johnson has done.

maddyone

But volvo couldn’t you identify as a Swedish car just for today?

Toot toot. ?

I know that vaccines have saved many lives.
I know that climate change is causing the world to heat up, or the other way round.
I know that the world is round.
And I know that two XX chromosomes equals female and XY chromosomes equals male.
I know that a person can’t change sex but can live as the opposite sex if they want to.

But volvo couldn’t you identify as a Swedish car just for today?

volver

And I'm not a Swedish car

Vroom.

Me three for what she said

In light of another trans thread, maybe we should upgrade Volvo for Vulva.