So I am having a real hard time getting into the minds of the majority of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN readers who said yes to keeping science out of politics. Where to begin?
Salon summation:
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/10/27/keep_science_out_of_politics/index.html
Is this aligned with the premise of keeping church and state separate? Science is objective fact; it is empirically-based. Religion is belief-based. The two are diametrically opposed (I'm sorry Ben Stein). Sworn allegiance to Blessed Americuh -in sickness and in health- seems to have fogged the minds of even followers of scientific matters. Although, this conjecture is predicated on the assumption that Scientific American readers represent an educated citizenry, which is entirely debatable. But would one not expect more from readers of a scientific publication versus those 58% who do not believe in EVOLUTION or the 34% of Americans who believe in UFOs and WITCHES? Maybe the groups are not mutually exclusive...
And do not think Canada is immune. Hell to the N-O. In fact, researchers and academics have started their own public service site, if you will, eliminating the need to step around the gag order Harper currently imposes on the lot.
Check out Suzuki and co. here:
http://www.publicscience.ca
With all this aversion to evidence perhaps it'd be best to pack up and head to greener pastures, both metaphorical and fiscal. The Dutch pay up to 3000 Euro a month plus health and holiday bonuses for doctoral researchers. Not exactly rolling in it yet a thousand-fold better than the North American sitch of living below the poverty line.
But oh how California calls! I was so looking forward to packing some sophisticated heat whilst sipping a cuppa.
