Comments | mushfromnewsies: ideology 101

mushfromnewsies

ideology 101

Mar 09, 2009 17:59

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 ( Read more... )

quotes, faith

Comments 10

stellar_dust March 9 2009, 23:52:38 UTC

*headtilt* I think the headline (and the similar phraseology in the article) is completely wrong. If anything, he's *restoring* science *to* politics.

Hmph.

leucocrystal March 10 2009, 00:24:56 UTC

Yeah, that was the impression I got as well.

amea March 10 2009, 01:29:21 UTC

More like "reducing politics to science". Not that it's physically possible or anything, but, you know! Because there is no point to political philosophy and political science is... the study of why embryonic stem cell research is okay!

mushfromnewsies March 10 2009, 02:43:55 UTC

Well... okay two things: (1) I agree that in principle, science when done rightly and ethically ought to be in harmony with the political sphere. That is, ideally they'd serve each other because they have the same wider purpose. And I think Obama believes he's doing that, for the most part ( ... )

Thread 5

amea March 10 2009, 01:28:02 UTC

I've been running around and screaming a lot about the human person recently, also. Am considering saving my voice by throwing copies of Theology of the Body at everyone I meet, because (a) it's heavy and would hurt and (b) says it all better anyway.

It's annoying how the real problems here are things we aren't "allowed" to discuss any more - because they've suddenly been assumed by some unspoken principle to be irrelevant. Le sigh.

mushfromnewsies March 10 2009, 02:50:48 UTC

I know, I KNOW. Ever since I was introduced to the Theology of the Body it ASTOUNDS me when I come across how people think (or rather, don't think) about the human person/morality/sex/the body. It's unbelievable to me how clearly nihilistic and gnostic and anti-person all modern thinking about the body is compared to this. But naturally you're laughed out of the conversation if you try to suggest that -- the body has its own language -- or WORSE, mention the name of the Pope!

amea March 10 2009, 01:33:20 UTC

The title is also hugely funny because you're used to thinking of whatever in that mantra is opposed to "state" (trans. politics) is the "bad thing" - only, whoop, apparently not? Connotations do not translate!

mushfromnewsies March 10 2009, 02:47:45 UTC

Yeah, that's what I mentioned in a comment above -- politics is used pejoratively here -- as in, the moral scruples or political agendas of politicians shall not defile the holy untouchable laws of science!

Once again, inconsistency inconsistency, because Obama has also made loud noises about forbidding human cloning -- clones = evil, but experimenting on human fetuses? Immune from all suspicion! Because if such a holy science was dare questioned, wouldn't the A-word pop up next?

spence137 March 11 2009, 01:32:59 UTC

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 ( ... )