ideology 101

[mushfromnewsies]

Check out this great headline from CNN:
Obama moves to separate politics and science
(link)
Quotable quotes:

As President Obama reversed the Bush administration's limits on embryonic stem-cell research, he said scientific decisions must be "based on facts, not ideology."

...Obama also signed a memorandum that directs the White House Office of Science

Comments

[spence137]

It may not be possible to have a science that does not rely on SOME certain assumptions or convictions, but those that our sciences do rely on seem to me to be the sort of essential, basic assumptions that are required to operate in the world on any level. Science values precision and accuracy and relies on ideas like cause and effect and a preponderance of evidence. Further, science values dissent enormously; there is no better way to make your name as a scientist than to CHALLENGE whatever assumptions the particular field does hold (in such a way, of course, that it can pass the scrutiny of one's peers).

And (even as a religious person myself) I think it is important to realize that religion does not have a monopoly on morality, and the two words are not synonymous. A religion is a conception of God, Man, the World and the relationship between these things. A morality is an idea of how one party should behave. Of course these are often related, but that does not make one a necessity for the other.

This is the essential idea behind the separation from church and state. Of course religion informs morality at every level, but if an action cannot be lauded or condemned persuasively without invoking the tenets of a religion, it may not be appropriate for a diverse public sphere.

That said, I find the philosophy of science to be super interesting, and this was a great post.