It appears I am not making myself clear in this thread at all.
I did not mean emotional in the WAY he responded, I was referring to his apparent need to critique things I have brought up, even if I said they were not important to me.
He has seemed so determined to shoot any POSSIBILITY that these ideas might work that he uses rather strained arguments. A simple mmmmmmm, I'm not sure that would really work, would have been sufficient, or even I think this other way might be better.
But whatever...
For the sake of everyone's sanity I'll not debate your analysis of the argument thus far, and concentrate on what I consider the only real points, which is the conclusion you laid out.
quote:
It is unconstitutional to constrain religious theorists from speaking to congress on what science is about.
Agreed, and this is not what I was talking about. If the problem is with my inability to communicate properly, fine. I did not mean to suggest religious people cannot talk about anything. However, what I WAS trying to suggest is that whatever ANYONE says for use before Congress could be fact-checked so that false statements are not made.
This could be a combination of research/correction, and fining people for making false statements (ala perjury).
I gave as an example religious people being allowed to say whatever they want and their words treated as unquestionable facts, because that is what is pushing the very subject we are talking about. There are few "fair and balanced" hearings going on. Congressmen stack the decks and there is no fact-checking. Thus religious types get to speak for themselves and for scientists and that is all.
Bush is also doing this with his environmental and bioethics panels. He just fired two more prominent scientists so he did not have to hear what science has to say.
A number of scientists recently signed a public paper criticising this very type of thing which is the trend of this administration. I am only trying to suggest ways to start dealing with a reality that is already on the ground.
quote:
It is problematic to have "an independent organization free of partisan policy demands" in charge of informing congress of the issues.
To form one, or to have one? They have supposedly independent investigating commitees all the time, so I am uncertain why it would not be possible to have one more, and on a more permanent basis.
The CIA is itself a form of permanent information gathering, though on specific subjects regarding foreign economics/politics/military. They even publish their own worldbook for public use. It is to be independent and nonpartisan.
What would be difficult (beyond normal bureucratic realities) in setting up the same type of organization (information gathering) to focus on science subjects?
Obviously people can address personal conclusions or ethical conclusions from subjective criteria applied to objective reality, while formulating policy. This will simply make sure what is objective stays objective.
And heck, I'd love to see the government helping store and disseminate scientific information as they do for facts about geography/politics.
quote:
It is not (necessarily?) problematic to "make sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked".
And really this is my only interest.
Perhap I am mistaken but I do not believe this will be possible, without introducing some form of independent fact checking into the system we have now. Currently the system is for congress and the president to assemble ministers to preach to the choir.
Unless this precedent is changed formally, (IMO) the temporary position holds now will become permanent... impotently crying and whining before, during, and after religious types drive the legislative machine which crushes science education into a tool of religion.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2004]
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2