Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

March For Science

Skotty

2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"
Jun 27, 2013
2,589
2,058
Kansas City, MO
Tried searching and didn't see a thread on this already.

There is a movement under way to have a March for Science (previously named Scientist's March on Washington). It's gaining steam fast, and science is a big part of why Tesla has the mission it has, so I thought we should have a thread on it here.


Some pages for the march:

March for Science | Facebook

Scientists' March on Washington

March For Science • /r/MarchForScience

March for Science (@ScienceMarchDC) | Twitter

And just a couple of the many news hits:

Scientists planning their own march in Washington - CNNPolitics.com

Plans Are Underway for a “March for Science”
 

Skotty

2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"
Jun 27, 2013
2,589
2,058
Kansas City, MO
This march has a strong emphasis on nonpartisan science advocacy.

There were some questions about whether or not this would be strongly Anti-Trump. I think Reddit user Zernin put it best by saying "The key is to stay Anti-Trump-Science-Policy and not devolve to being Anti-Trump-Voter or Anti-Conservative."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ModelX

Skotty

2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"
Jun 27, 2013
2,589
2,058
Kansas City, MO
A key point I see a lot of people making is that this march, if and when it happens, should focus exclusively on science advocacy (support for science and the freedom to share it), and be very careful not to let it expand into social justice issues, which would jeopardize the nonpartisan intent of the effort. I support this sentiment strongly.

At some point, science became political. It flared up during the days of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Regardless of whether or not it was accurate, it seemed to cause an increased politicization of science. It is CRITICAL that this be undone. There is no reason for Republicans to be against science, and as long as a sizeable number of them are, it poses a critical threat to the future of the United States and all mankind.

Some discussion for consideration: Is the March for Science a bad idea?

Another example of being careful about the message -- there was some discussion that participants should "punt" on DAPL/KXL as it starts to get away from pure science and more into politics and things like native American land rights. Debate that if you want, but it's a good example for what will or will not muddy the message.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ModelX

deonb

Active Member
Mar 4, 2013
4,062
4,362
Redmond, WA
There is no reason for Republicans to be against science, and as long as a sizeable number of them are, it poses a critical threat to the future of the United States and all mankind.

Democrats are as anti-science as Republicans. Just on different topics, like anti-vac, anti-GMO, anti-nuclear.

It doesn't help labeling Republicans as the anti-science party, and not admitting our own shortcomings. It just alienates people.

Sure Republicans may be more anti-MMGW and I think they'll happily admit that they're anti-MMGW. But a blanket 'anti-science' label attributed only to one party is hypocritical.
 

Skotty

2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"
Jun 27, 2013
2,589
2,058
Kansas City, MO
Democrats are as anti-science as Republicans. Just on different topics, like anti-vac, anti-GMO, anti-nuclear.

It doesn't help labeling Republicans as the anti-science party, and not admitting our own shortcomings. It just alienates people.

Sure Republicans may be more anti-MMGW and I think they'll happily admit that they're anti-MMGW. But a blanket 'anti-science' label attributed only to one party is hypocritical.

For the record, I am not against vaccines, GMO, nor nuclear power. As for Democrats in general, I believe only a tiny minority are anti-vac. GMO is a complex topic, and many who oppose may just be against the corporate influence and control rather than the science itself. I would agree that most Democrats are probably anti-nuclear, but there are clear issues with nuclear that need improvement, and growing reasonable alternatives. Most importantly, the Democrat anti-science positions, where they show, are very limited and do not appear to threaten the future of mankind. Furthermore, they generally do not challenge the legitimacy of science itself. The same cannot be said for the Republicans on climate change, and to a lesser degree, on general environmental protection.

Democrats do not question the legitimacy of science, and any apparent anti-science views are based on misunderstanding or concern over human or environmental health. This is noble, and a framework reasonable people can work within. Republicans DO seem to largely question the legitimacy of science, and they often do so out of economic self interest. This is not noble and puts us in a framework where we as a people cannot do good things unless it is also of immediate economic benefit.

Greed is systemic among Republicans, and this has led to a rejection of science because science doesn't always give you a picture of immediate prosperity. It only gives you the truth, as best as truth can be determined. Democrats may at times be dumb or simply wrong, but there is no apparent desire or intent to attack science or it's findings. Given this viewpoint, it is not hypocritical to call Republicans the anti-science party. That is what they appear to be.

In the end, I don't hate Republicans, and I don't like Democrats. But it's the Republicans rejection of climate change and other environmental science that is posing a legitimate existential threat to all mankind. Republicans need to change their stance on this, and start working on conservative ways to address the problems science identifies, instead of just trying to ignore it. Maybe I'm not addressing this in the best way right now. I don't know how best to address it. But I believe it's in dire need of being addressed. I would give up my own life to see this change. No joke. That's how serious I think it is.
 

AudubonB

One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!
Moderator
Mar 24, 2013
9,346
42,818
Please tell me if my fears are unjustified:

I don't see how this can end happily. The catalyst for change, now sitting in the White House, is such a provocative figure that, as so manifestly has been demonstrated* throughout the past weeks, effectively anything so structured as a March For ___X___ will ineluctably turn into a March For Y, Z, ∆ and Ω tout suite, frustratingly diluting or utterly drowning out the originators' intention.

And that's the best case. Worst cases are easy to imagine, and quite ugly.

* I'm sure it's obvious what I did here.....
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Merrill

McRat

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2016
5,771
6,080
LA
Name a scientist who has been elected to a high office in the USA? You'd think you could name 100 or more.

The more you politicize science the less science you get. Politics is the art of negotiating and misdirection. Neither of those are compatible with the scientific method.
 

AudubonB

One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!
Moderator
Mar 24, 2013
9,346
42,818
I think I'm closer to understanding you. What if I were to suggest that no one, I am fairly sure, is attempting to portray the proposed march AS science; rather, it is FOR science (doesn't allay my fears for it or frustration with its creators)?
 

McRat

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2016
5,771
6,080
LA
OK, I just read their re-write.

They took the Diversity™ brand science down a notch, no longer claiming Darwin was Martin Luther King Jr in disguise. I honestly did not feel that we need segregated math classes, so that's a relief. Can you imagine having 27 different safe zones for the quadratic equation?

They are deeply worried that Science™ will not survive a Huckster as President as well as it would a Politician/Lawyer as President. I can ease their anxiety by offering them that a neither Hucksters or Poliyers actually care about any science that does not empower or enrich them.

In fact, Hucksters and Poliyers often buy scientists to bolster unsupportable positions.

But I have hunch (not a dream) that it will devolve into a name-calling expedition and put science in a bad light. Somebody will have scientific proof our POTUS is a Klansman and his wife a prostitute. And everyone will laugh at those focused on science or technology. Again.
 

tomas

Out of warranty...
Supporting Member
Oct 22, 2012
4,345
4,265
Santa Barbara/New York
This march has a strong emphasis on nonpartisan science advocacy.

There were some questions about whether or not this would be strongly Anti-Trump. I think Reddit user Zernin put it best by saying "The key is to stay Anti-Trump-Science-Policy and not devolve to being Anti-Trump-Voter or Anti-Conservative."
This is a great intent... and protecting scientific endeavor is a great concern. This is truly what makes the US a global leader. The world is all about technology now, and scientific research is the leading edge of technology development.

I feel all protest should have a clearly defined purpose and message. There's a problem though. I've been to several environmental demonstrations/protests regarding the pipelines and other... and all kinds of fringe elements show up with general messages, or other anti-administration messages. Those people tend to be more demonstrative, violent, and therefore photogenic and press-worthy. From a press point of view, they tend to hijack the event... and it becomes easy for people to dismiss the whole thing as "a bunch of crazies", just as Clinton mistakenly characterized Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables". So, if there were some way to keep all of the other agendas out of this, that would be great. But I suspect people with other causes will pile on and dilute the effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lu Ann and McRat

Skotty

2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"
Jun 27, 2013
2,589
2,058
Kansas City, MO
I didn't realize I was posting in the March For Science thread last time I posted, or I wouldn't have posted it.

Let me follow up with this. I'm perfectly ready to support traditional Republican leadership on most issues, but environmental issues like climate change that are vetted by science absolutely must be recognized and addressed. Things like immigration bans are small potatoes compared to this.

Don't agree with scientific findings? Too bad! Science is our best tool for truth. If you doubt it, become a scientist and begin research. See where it leads. For the rest of us, if we want to be responsible and make our best effort to ensure a bright future for us all, you have to respect where science currently stands and make policy based on that science (and not obstruct science through things like censorship).

There are Republicans who respect science and want to do something about climate change based on the convincing evidence and broad scientific consensus on the currently assessed risks it poses. There are groups like Citizens Climate Lobby and the Climate Solutions Caucus in the House that are very promising. This is to be commended and supported. I don't know if it will be successful, but I hope the March For Science can help move us in the right direction on issues like this.

Likewise, if there are issues where Democrats are ignoring science, they need their eyes opened. Help open them if you can. The climate change thing just gets all the attention because of the scale of the risk.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: James Anders

McRat

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2016
5,771
6,080
LA
,,, Science is our best tool for truth. If you doubt it, become a scientist and begin research. ,,.

When scientific method is used to find the truth, I agree. When science becomes a political issue, then things can get murky.

If you are graduate student getting paid for scientific research, you are a normally union member in California, and there is a presumption you will toe the line when it comes to conclusions. It needs to agree with political stance of your benefactors.
 
When scientific method is used to find the truth, I agree. When science becomes a political issue, then things can get murky.
Looking at it another way, scientists and research orgs generally suck at PR. Without the support of the people and congress, federal funding for research will die (not specific to any administration). The funding of scientific research and the social acceptance of the importance of said research are political issues. Urging governmental agencies to enact appropriate policies and legislation based on the peer reviewed work of and with the input of the scientific community is a political issue. The results of the scientific process basically become political issues once you reach a point where acting on the information in the large scale is deemed necessary and this happens because, in a lot of cases, the government is who you have to turn to for change to eventually occur.

Science can stand on its own--ideologically pure--without politics involved... but all it can do is stand.

The world is murky.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top