Derek Lowe explains why he won’t be marching. I agree.
[Update a while later]
Arthur Lambert isn’t attending either:
…there’s no denying this march is political. It is a mistake to position the scientific method against the Trump administration or any other one, for that matter. That would serve only to undermine a central premise of the march: that scientific knowledge is apolitical. Organizers argue that the march is “nonpartisan.” While this may be the official line, I’m skeptical of whether anything approaching it can actually be achieved, especially on the heels of a divisive election. For example, I recently spoke with a colleague who was organizing a poster-making session for the march. She proudly described her design as an “I’m With Her” arrow pointing toward planet Earth.
I was also “with her” last November, but that should be beside the point. I fear that, contrary to its mission of inclusion, the march may actually alienate many of those it seeks to convince. Scientists are highly educated, the academic version of the 1 percent Wall Street class. They are also overwhelming Democratic. I can assure you that this has little to no impact on their science or for the potential public impact of their findings. But it would not be unreasonable for a rural blue-collar worker, watching the marches from afar, to perceive them as yet another attack from the condescending elite. We cannot drum up the broad support for science that the march seeks by aggravating a deep divide already present in this country.
Want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.
[Update a while later]
Bill Nye is the perfect talking head for a march against science:
March organizers have paid lip service to critical thinking and “diverse perspectives” in science. However, Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.
He attacks those who disagree with him on climate change or evolution as science “deniers.” He wouldn’t even rule out criminal prosecution as a tool. Asked last year whether he supported efforts to jail climate skeptics as war criminals, he replied: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”
Real science encourages debate. It doesn’t insist that scientists march in lockstep. Or that they speak with one voice. In fact, scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.
Bill Nye the lock-up-the-heretics guy.
[Update mid morning]
Bob Zimmerman says that the march against science is a Democrat Party operation.
[Update a while later]
“I love Neil de Grasse Tyson, but he’s wrong on climate.”
I don’t find him all that lovable, myself.
[Sunday evening update]
Judith Curry has a lot of links to “untangle the March for Science.”
[Bumped]
[Monday-morning update]
Bill Nye the Constitutional-Ignorance Guy.
[Update a while later]
Nye freaks out when schooled by an actual scientist on CNN. Just like his meltdown with Tucker Carlson.
on an epidemic of epidemiology.