Looking for good philosophical arguments on not attending the MARCH FOR SCIENCE

[spangler1982]

I’m hoping the moderators will allow me to keep this thread in the Philosophy forum, but if not, please move me to the right category.

I work as an environmental scientist at a US state agency. recently, on the work bulletin board one of my co-workers posted a flier for April 22nd’s MARCH FOR SCIENCE. I know this movement has various leftist political agendas behind it, so I most likely will not attend.

Anyways for those scientists, other epistomologists, and ethicists: If you were in my place and a secular-or even religious co-worker asked you why you are not attending, can you suggest what you might say to them? I’m looking for some good old fashioned natural law based arguments.
thanks!

 

[Bradski]

I’m hoping the moderators will allow me to keep this thread in the Philosophy forum, but if not, please move me to the right category.

I work as an environmental scientist at a US state agency. recently, on the work bulletin board one of my co-workers posted a flier for April 22nd’s MARCH FOR SCIENCE. I know this movement has various leftist political agendas behind it, so I most likely will not attend.

Anyways for those scientists, other epistomologists, and ethicists: If you were in my place and a secular-or even religious co-worker asked you why you are not attending, can you suggest what you might say to them? I’m looking for some good old fashioned natural law based arguments.
thanks!

How about you tell them that you consider that support for science has various leftist political agendas behind it.

I find that honestly is always the best policy.

You might recognise my avatar as Richard Feynman. The sound you hear in the background is him spinning in his grave.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m hoping the moderators will allow me to keep this thread in the Philosophy forum, but if not, please move me to the right category.

I work as an environmental scientist at a US state agency. recently, on the work bulletin board one of my co-workers posted a flier for April 22nd’s MARCH FOR SCIENCE. I know this movement has various leftist political agendas behind it, so I most likely will not attend.

Anyways for those scientists, other epistomologists, and ethicists: If you were in my place and a secular-or even religious co-worker asked you why you are not attending, can you suggest what you might say to them? I’m looking for some good old fashioned natural law based arguments.
thanks!

You would probably know more about the true nature of it than myself, often names can be misleading, like the ‘2017 Women’s march’ that was basically a pro-abortion march under the euphemism of ‘reproductive rights’.

In the case of the women’s march, I don’t know whether I would have even been invited as a guy, but if I was, I would decline and the reason I would give would be that “I don’t support abortion.” that way it gets to the heart of the issue and cuts through all the word games.

From what I have read from the link you provided, it seems to be a lot more vague and possibly sinister in regards to what the true intentions of the march are, so it may be harder to mention a particular issue, nevertheless, if asked, you could just mention that you don’t agree with X or Y and that you don’t want to give people the wrong impression by attending.

It’s clever how they frame things sometimes, like ‘Women’s March’ for pro abortion, so if you speak against it your accused of being anti women, and I suspect ‘March for Science’ is probably a similar tactic.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I can’t see any argument other than…it doesn’t bother you that the future of our planet at risk.

lol, no different to the quip “Women’s rights don’t bother you then” for not attending the March for Women.

Some people have leftist agendas, some people have right-ist agendas. All agenda-types will be found at the march, I’m sure.
Why let others stand in your way to stand up for the importance of Science? Especially when you are a scientist!

The march is “to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments.”

As a scientist, do you not want to support the importance and need for your own work?

This is why I brought up the ‘March for Women’ the parallel arguments are strikingly similar. It will all come down to the true nature of it and what the main purpose is behind it, which the OP at this point will probably have a greater insight to than myself at this stage.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

You might recognise my avatar as Richard Feynman. The sound you hear in the background is him spinning in his grave.

I looked him up (Never heard of him before) and I noticed the following quote attributed to him -

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” - Richard Feynman

What a brilliant quote, if only people applied that today when it comes to things like transgenderism and same sex marriage etc.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Bradski]

I looked him up (Never heard of him before) and I noticed the following quote attributed to him -

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” - Richard Feynman

What a brilliant quote, if only people applied that today when it comes to things like transgenderism and same sex marriage etc.

I’m pretty certain he’d be horrified to know that people were hijacking his comments to use against sexual equality.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m pretty certain he’d be horrified to know that people were hijacking his comments to use against sexual equality.

sexual equality? lol.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I’m hoping the moderators will allow me to keep this thread in the Philosophy forum, but if not, please move me to the right category.

I work as an environmental scientist at a US state agency. recently, on the work bulletin board one of my co-workers posted a flier for April 22nd’s MARCH FOR SCIENCE. I know this movement has various leftist political agendas behind it, so I most likely will not attend.

Anyways for those scientists, other epistomologists, and ethicists: If you were in my place and a secular-or even religious co-worker asked you why you are not attending, can you suggest what you might say to them? I’m looking for some good old fashioned natural law based arguments.
thanks!

I read the website and the only leftist agenda I can find is: base policy on scientific consensus. Why wouldn’t any scientist want to get behind that? Is the rightist alternative position preferable to you?

Don’t think you have a leg to stand on here in terms of philosophy unless you can prove that it’s secretly a pro choice march or something of that ilk.

ETA: really only in the US do right wingers tend to reject scientific consensus. At least in Europe the centre right parties would probably be considered leftist by some US citizens.

 

[jaimeleglise]

I think I would just be vague and say I don’t believe in all the agendas they are marching for. However, my reasons for not going are complicated.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m pretty certain he’d be horrified to know that people were hijacking his comments to use against sexual equality.
josh987654321;14577763:

sexual equality? lol.

My apologies, I shouldn’t laugh, I’ve never really seen anyone change their heart/mind on an issue when something was laughed at (Although some people do, but in those instances it’s peer pressure and not honesty), instead it only usually hardens hearts and minds.

I would ask, what exactly is ‘sexual equality’?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[commenter]

Because it’s not about Science, it is about politics. Some of the sponsoring organizations have nothing to do with Science. Some of them are specifically secular advocacy groups.

A person who is a scientist might also take advocacy positions for other causes. A scientist Monday through Friday might march in a Mormon cause on Saturday. But even if you get many scientists in Utah to march in a Mormon cause on Saturday, that still would not make it a “March for Science”. It is for Mormonism.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m hoping the moderators will allow me to keep this thread in the Philosophy forum, but if not, please move me to the right category.

I work as an environmental scientist at a US state agency. recently, on the work bulletin board one of my co-workers posted a flier for April 22nd’s MARCH FOR SCIENCE. I know this movement has various leftist political agendas behind it, so I most likely will not attend.

Anyways for those scientists, other epistomologists, and ethicists: If you were in my place and a secular-or even religious co-worker asked you why you are not attending, can you suggest what you might say to them? I’m looking for some good old fashioned natural law based arguments.
thanks!

Any scientist who believes in God should not attend this. This is a march for secularism.

 

[Fiasco]

Don’t think you have a leg to stand on here in terms of philosophy unless you can prove that it’s secretly a pro choice march or something of that ilk.
.

The doctrine of “Climate Change” might be promoted way over the top.

What a brilliant quote, if only people applied that today when it comes to things like transgenderism and same sex marriage etc.

I would ask, what exactly is ‘sexual equality’?
Josh

Be careful that you don’t poke your tongue right through your cheek!
And don’t let any members of the “LGBTQETC” promoters hear your question about “sexual equality”!!!
They’d be insulted, thinking that you don’t know.

 

[ffg]

To answer the OP’s question.

I like Bradski’s answer.

Rather than looking at the groups as ‘left’ though, I’d attack the lack of inclusiveness.

Ask them to show you where there is inclusion for those who think science is not at war with God, and rather exists to learn about God’s Creation.

If the organizers are ‘inclusive’ these scientists would be sought to join as well.

In other words - rather than you doing the labeling, let the event do it’s own labeling through the thought process of those pressuring you, in which case -

When they conclude your type are not welcome, they will stop pressuring and may see a truth in the lack of inclusiveness.

 

[Latias]

I’m hoping the moderators will allow me to keep this thread in the Philosophy forum, but if not, please move me to the right category.

I work as an environmental scientist at a US state agency. recently, on the work bulletin board one of my co-workers posted a flier for April 22nd’s MARCH FOR SCIENCE. I know this movement has various leftist political agendas behind it, so I most likely will not attend.

Anyways for those scientists, other epistomologists, and ethicists: If you were in my place and a secular-or even religious co-worker asked you why you are not attending, can you suggest what you might say to them? I’m looking for some good old fashioned natural law based arguments.
thanks!

Why does philosophy have to be brought in to this? Many people don’t attend the March for Life because there are many rightist organizations and political agenda. Just say that for the March for Science.

Yeah, it is a march for secularism. Just say you want Christianity to have more cultural influence and to enact its will through public policy.

 

[spangler1982]

thank you for taking the time to answer my post everyone. Yes, my choice of the word “leftist” was definitely not the best, and a term like “secularist” would have been a better choice for this philosophy forum. Thank you to those who corrected me. So far, I think the Forum Member ffg’s reply has been the most powerful for me:

To answer the OP’s question.
I like Bradski’s answer.
Rather than looking at the groups as ‘left’ though, I’d attack the lack of inclusiveness.
Ask them to show you where there is inclusion for those who think science is not at war with God, and rather exists to learn about God’s Creation.
If the organizers are ‘inclusive’ these scientists would be sought to join as well.
In other words - rather than you doing the labeling, let the event do it’s own labeling through the thought process of those pressuring you, in which case -
When they conclude your type are not welcome, they will stop pressuring and may see a truth in the lack of inclusiveness.

 

[spangler1982]

Why does philosophy have to be brought in to this?

well, it doesn’t have to, but I thought it would be useful. I see Apologetics having at least 3 distinct levels: 1-Natural Law, 2-Christian, and 3-Catholic, all building on each other. For my question, I wanted to appeal to this first level as most of my co-workers attending are non-Christian.

Many people don’t attend the March for Life because there are many rightist organizations and political agenda. Just say that for the March for Science.

Yes, that is true! good point. That’s why I haven’t totally overruled not going. the gathering in my local area is not far from where I live.

Yeah, it is a march for secularism. Just say you want Christianity to have more cultural influence and to enact its will through public policy.

Another great point; thank you.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think the main impetus for the march is the threats to certain types of science – the science that reveal “inconvenient truths.”

When I was growing up in the 50s science was king and well respected. However if we can conceive of science as being divided into “production science” (the science that help advance technology and economic wealth) v. “impact science” (the science that reveals how we are harming human and planetary well-being), then it become much more understandable why we just love some types of science (production science) and cringe at other types of science (impact science).

Some people, including those in power, go further and downplay impact science, ignore it, create a pseudo-science that contradicts it, or even block it altogether (as Trump is trying to do with climate science). And various industries threatened in their bottom line by impact science are glad to buy politicians who will disregard impact science in their policy-making and buy pseudo-science to confuse the public.

The march, I think, is mainly a struggle against these types of excessive measures that go against impact science.

There are no good philosophical arguments that I know of not to support or at least cringingly accept it without impeding it.

However, as for joining a march to support it, you could say you have a bad knee.

 

[MPat]

How about you tell them that you consider that support for science has various leftist political agendas behind it.

I find that honestly is always the best policy.

You might recognise my avatar as Richard Feynman. The sound you hear in the background is him spinning in his grave.

It is true that honesty is good. And so, we have one argument to use: one can point out that pretending that “March for Science” and agenda of its organisers is the same thing as “science” (and support for one is the same as support for another) is dishonest, and thus that should be avoided. Participation in such a march or support of it can be seen as just such pretending. Therefore, it must be avoided.

Now, of course, leftist groups were pretending that their agenda is “science” for a long time. For example, in USSR one of subjects in universities was “Scientific Communism”.

If there is any need to show what the agenda of “March of Science” is, one blog has made several posts about that, for example:

• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/snake-oil-salesman-becomes-hononary-chair-of-march-for-science/
• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/getting-harder-to-hide-to-partisan-agendas-behind-the-march-for-science/
• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/march-for-science-supporters-dont-seem-all-that-interested-in-science/
• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/march-for-post-modern-science/

One of the points made there is that “March for Science” is post-modernist. Thus, if many atheists here proclaim that science is the only reliable way to find truth, some of the supporters of “March of Science” seem to deny that there’s even a truth that can be found. Pointing out that might also work.

And if a more philosophical point is necessary, one can simply ask what science actually is. Is it even something that can be “supported”?

 

[Bradski]

And if a more philosophical point is necessary, one can simply ask what science actually is. Is it even something that can be “supported”?

Good idea. Let’s stop all funding. I mean, what has science ever done for us?

Apart from medicine and transport and clean water and the internet and protection from the environment, hospitals, beer, comminication, knowledge…etc

OK, now it’s your turn to list all the bad stuff like bombs and things. Off you go…