Sentences with phrase «science in political debates»

What he finds may surprise you and raise questions about the role of science in political debates.

Not exact matches

If you want to incorporate this debate in a debate or philosophy or political science class, have at it, but it does not belong in a hard science class.

At present, the rediscovery of culture in the social sciences, at the debate over methods of studying culture empirically, promises to shift studies of religion and politics more in the direction of looking at religious and political culture.

The Politics in Spires blog series «A Separate or United Kingdom» has attempted to contribute to an expanded discussion of the independence debate with voices from across the social sciences, including law, economics, sociology, psychology, human geography, political philosophy, and more.

Moderated by Grant Reeher, political science professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, the debate began with relatively toned - down statements from the individuals in both camps to advance their argument.

The debate will start at 7 p.m. in Syracuse University's Maxwell Auditorium and will be moderated by Grant Reeher, political science professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

In the debates, Perry distinguished himself by comparing the persecution of a 17th - century astronomer by a powerful religious and political body with the plight of those who doubt the science of climate change.

«The conflation of political motives and scientific findings has been common in debates related to sexual orientation,» they write, «and when this conflation is mistaken, it is to the detriment of both politics and science.»

Make them the same length as a decent lesson — at least 50 minutes — so that they can be planned properly, and they can be used to wrestle with substantial content, such as a wellbeing issue like bullying, a big political debate like who should be the next President of the United States, or an area to explore in science, maths, or history.

Presenting essays written by authorities in the fields of education, political science, and law, West and Dunn highlight the many areas of education policy that have made their way into U.S. courts to be debated and decided, and consider the implications of heightened judicial involvement for schools...

But debates over how to improve public schools aren't limited to just top - slot candidates, said Susan F. MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

Notwithstanding the exceptional advances of science on display, it was as though the political and educational policy debates were taking place in two different universes.

If the Julie MacDonald incidents — which were covered by the high - profile media outlets — don't get people to care and worry about the political interference with and repression of science, then there's no point in a science debate.

There are lots more reasons a debate could be problematic, including just by putting science in an inherently divisive political context — exactly what scientists usually say they want to avoid.

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

In today's political world of binary debates, is there a way to get traction simultaneously on both deployment of today's clean tech where it makes the most sense and on greatly boosting spending on fundamental science related to energy systems?

Every political group uses spin to try to persuade the public, but some of the groups that represent conservatives and industry use what can be called extreme tactics in the climate change science debate.

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.&raquIn the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.&raquin political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

I can understand why a politician says the science is settled — as Barack Obama did... in the State of the Union Address, where he said the «debate is over» — because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a «Flat Earth Society» (as he did last June).

Doing this is a political action, not a scientific one, and shows that the writer is interested in scoring debating points, not examining the science.

What is at issue is not an interest in the public's understanding of the science, but their attachment to sides in the political «debate».

Issuing statements of «consensus» or «authority» is antithetical to good science, and especially so in circumstances where the originating organizations have been established with political intent, have acted to restrict public debate or have a financial conflict of interest.

Just as bulldozer is not having a debate by plowing earth into heaps, As a political campaign, and a political campaign which so much in a fever swamp that does even want something like the attraction of «presidential debate», and it explains the slogan, the «science is settled».

In 2005, during the peak of climate hysteria and the drive to create an international political response to climate change, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challenge it.

The problem with a red, blue team approach to climate science is the extremely political nature of the debate which would be carried out in the public arena.

There are a lot of things that can be said that aren't very controversial in science that still make it seem like the political debates are quite out of focus and confused, but then this can be said of so much in politics.

On the other hand, questions on how society and politics should respond can not be answered by science, but should be discussed in the public and political debate.

While this might work to the short - term advantage of certain agendas in political debate, what won't be addressed by this approach are those processes that foster the pathological politicization of science.

As we argue often here on CR, «the politics is prior to the science» in the climate debate, and the emphasis both «sides» in the debate place on science impedes any progress on understanding the political claims either side are making.

It is essential to scrutinise the science produced in this debate in order to show that there are problems in the political argument that they seemingly support.

The truth about Judith Curry, as I see it, is that she has a strong attraction for political dialogue, and refuses to see that the public debate over climate is fundamentally at odds with good science, as is the IPCC - sponsored «consensus» of climate alarmism, or in her case, of climate political - worryism (she seems deeply attached to helping bring about «reasonable» and «responsible» climate policies — whereas my view is that any and all such climate policies, now, are necessarily based upon incompetent, false science, are entirely the wrong thing to try to impose upon the people of the world, and need to be summarily thrown out, before one can even begin to have a dispassionate, competent scientific dialogue — as opposed to the political debate now being served up — on the state of climate science.).

Editor's note: Once upon a time, political arguments over the content of science education focused on a single topic: evolution.While it would be wonderful to think that such debates ended with the Scopes Monkey Trial, I live in Missouri... where some members of our legislature still think our science classrooms are the proper places for ideological debates.

This was the same phrasing used in a dubious textbook written by political hacks that distorted climate science, casting the «debate» between «activists» and «skeptics».

Obfuscation has always been their weapon of choice, Gavin handled him best when he was here, there is no debating a leader of a political movement who understands science as much as his role in the house of Lords.

The debate may largely be drawn along political lines, but the human role in climate change remains one of the most controversial questions in 21st century science.

One of the hardest parts of really trying to understand what is going on in the AGW scientific debate is separating the scientists doing real science from the political advocates, who sometimes carry quasi-scientific titles.

«Political philosophy has a legitimate role in policy debates, but not in the underlying climate science,» a group of scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of Sciences, has written to all members of the U.S. Congress at the start... Continue reading →

The hearing's goal was to discuss the «debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science.»

Three leading constitutional scholars will debate campaign finance reform in a live webcast Friday, April 11, 7 p.m. Scheduled to participate are Bruce Ackerman, Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale University Law School, and Kenneth Starr, former independent counsel and now adjunct professor at the NYU School of Law and partner at Kirkland & Ellis, Washington D.C. Douglas Kmiec, dean and St.Thomas More professor of law at the Catholic University School of Law, will moderate the event.

Three leading constitutional scholars will debate campaign finance reform in a live webcast Friday, April 11, 7 p.m. Scheduled to participate are Bruce Ackerman, Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale University Law School, and Kenneth Starr, former independent counsel and now adjunct professor at the NYU School of Law and partner at -LSB-...]

He attended Bowling Green State University on a debate scholarship and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Communication with a specialization in Political Science.