Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

March For Science, April 22, 2017

  1. Mar 10, 2017 #1

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2017 #2
    If it's good enough for the APS I will inquire about partnership. If there is a sister march in a city nearby I will be there with my PF shirt on! Who's with me!? :smile:
     
  4. Mar 10, 2017 #3

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    There's one right where you live!

    https://www.facebook.com/events/404002266600901/

    Zz.
     
  5. Mar 10, 2017 #4

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I'm with you!

    ps. Does this mean I have to know what my new PF t-shirt means before I go?
     
  6. Mar 10, 2017 #5

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Me too.
    I should have my PF shirt by then.
     
  7. Mar 18, 2017 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    A charming, earnest and sincere young woman asked me to help, and based on our conversation, I've decided not to go.

    First, she identified this as part of "The Resistance". It's supposed to be non-political. I'm up for a protest rally, and I'm up for a non-political march, but I am not up for a protest rally that claims to be a non-political march. (And before some Mentor moves this, note that I am advocating for a politics-free March)

    Second, I think the scientists have lost control of the message. Obviously we can't tell people who can and cannot come, but this has been reported in major newspapers as an anti-Trump rally, so it may attract people who have a very different agenda.

    Related to that, I think the exact message is still fuzzy. The March seems to have a great deal of support in social sciences departments, many of whose members explicitly reject the scientific method in favor of postmodern speculation. Psychologist Clay Routledge makes the argument better than me.

    Finally, the list of "allies" is concerning, (I could even argue that the use of the word ally is unnecessarily martial), particularly for some of the satellite marches. In particular, Greenpeace. If the point is to protest politicians who pick and choose which parts of science they believe based on how much they like the outcomes, why pair with an organization that does exactly the same thing (to pick one, anti-golden rice).
     
  8. Mar 18, 2017 #7
    The March for Science champions robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity. We unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policymakers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest. (More on our principles and goals)
     
  9. Mar 18, 2017 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Yes, that's what they say. Middlebury said all the right things before their students rioted and sent a professor to the hospital. Sometimes one loses control of the situation or the message. I think that is already happening - Voice of America says it's an anti-Trump protest, The Guardian says it's an anti-Trump protest,Socialist Worker says it's an anti-Trump protest, and a whole pile of web sites (DailyKos and it's ilk) on both the left and the right say it's an anti-Trump protest. I think that's a sign that they've lost control - or they are trying a fig leaf ("We're apolitical...nudge nudge wink wink") that's not effective.

    The January 28th tweet (since deleted) from March of Science said "ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia & econ justice are scientific issues". Sorry, but they are not. A racist, sexist, anti-gay plutocrat may not be someone I would be friends with, but that doesn't mean the additional sin of being anti-science should be added to the list. (Indeed, I can point out some Nobel prize winners who fall into that category) I think that's a sign that the professional societies: AAAS, APS etc. have lost control of the message.

    I think it was a big mistake for the professional societies to sign onto this without representation on the organizing committee. They effectively said to the organizers "whatever you do is OK with us, and of course you can use our names". That was foolish.
     
  10. Mar 18, 2017 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't see how we can just hide our heads in the sand because people have made the connection between the policies and who is making the policies. It is probably unavoidable. It has never been unassociated in the past to my knowledge. And why should it be? Why should it suddenly be be shameful and hushed up?

    Does anyone have an example where such policies have NOT been associated with the power making them?

    It's a Pf policy not to name that person that will not be named. That doesn't apply to the country.

    BTW, I don't believe in marches, maybe they raise awareness, I don't know. I do believe in letter writing campaigns to the incumbents and let them know they won't be getting re-elected if they don't vote or influence wisely.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  11. Mar 18, 2017 #10

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I'm OK with this being an anti-Trump march. (Although I might question the wisdom of the argument "We hate you - now give us more money!") I'm OK with this being an apolitical march. What I am not OK with is it being an anti-Trump march under the guise of being apolitical. That's the worst of both worlds, and it's not fooling anyone.
     
  12. Mar 18, 2017 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't think it should be a political march pretending not to be political either. Obviously if it's about cuts to the budget it's political, no way to get around that. I mean who's cutting the budgets? But it shouldn't be a march to bash he who shall not be named, but to raise awareness that people should let he who shall not be named and his fellows know that we do not want cuts to affect science funding.

    He who shall not be named is not the type of person that is going to see millions of people marching and think "I must be doing something wrong". No, he's going to be angry and want to do more harm, IMO. That's why this cannot be directed at him. This must be positive, directed at the populace, to motivate THEM to get involved to put pressure on the people in office below him. If they realize that their careers are at stake, they WILL speak out. Congressional elections are next year. Perfect timing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  13. Mar 18, 2017 #12

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, to me its a protest of a significant part of the population:
    1) avoiding rationality and logic
    2) denying obvious facts
    to the detriment of us all.

    Political or not.
     
  14. Mar 19, 2017 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Please expand on these.
     
  15. Mar 19, 2017 #14
    What if one believes science would benefit more from less funding and greater accountability?

    I was writing yesterday on the idea that in a capitalist system every industry benefits from unfettered action of market forces that include up and down cycles. The down cycles are needed to trim the fat, streamline operations, and increase accountability between the producers and those paying for it.

    I see no reason why the science (and science education) industries would be exempt from the same benefits. If science funding is too low, then scientists need to own the failure of science education that they are responsible for in large measure. Compartmentalization and blame shifting are unwarranted. We (scientists and science educators) had thousands of hours of student attention, and many thousands of dollars to educate each and every voter. We blew it, and now (through funding cuts) will deservedly pay the price.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
  16. Mar 19, 2017 #15

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I am not focused in funding the funding issues with respect to this march. Any funding effects should be a secondary effect based on making people more aware of the positive effects of science and rationality on decision making that affect us all.

    I am much more concerned about people cherry picking or making up "facts" retrospectively to suit their preconceived notions that are based on emotion, religion, profit motive, and/or goals of political power and about this becoming an accepted mode of operation. This would include individuals, as well as groups like political parties, media companies, oil companies, some religious groups.

    Such an approach is disingenuous and, in my mind, will inevitably lead to trouble for the country, and the world.
     
  17. Mar 19, 2017 #16

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Where I live, letter writing to the local incumbents would not have much affect. They seem to almost entirely agree with the positions I hold.
    Instead, I am more interested in writing letter to the newspaper (not as productive as it might have been in the past when newspapers were a more successful enterprise) or trying to come up with catchy memes that would get and stick in people's minds.
     
  18. Mar 19, 2017 #17
    I can't find a claim of it being apolitical anywhere in the literature posted by zz or Greg. That's a straw man.

    The claim made is that it's non-partisan. That is quite a bit different than being apolitical. What it means is that the organizers aren't setting it up to be Democrat vs Republican. Republicans aren't being cast as anti-science. Any science-oriented Republican who finds the Trump administration, specifically (as opposed to the Republican party generally), to be a threat to science in the US should participate along with everyone else. It is absolutely political in that it is science vs the anti-science policies of the Trump administration. It is non-partisan in that the political orientation of any participant is immaterial.

    If Republicans who dislike Trump's science policies refuse to participate on the grounds so many groups with liberal agendas are participating that it can't be called "non-partisan" then, they are the ones making it partisan by default.
     
  19. Mar 19, 2017 #18

    1oldman2

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  20. Mar 19, 2017 #19

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  21. Mar 19, 2017 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What about a Republican who supports GMO crops, nuclear power and privately funded research instead of government funded research - would they be welcome?
    Republicans would be making it partisan to claim that only left-leaning groups are participating? That's quite a hair to split! To me, what makes a movement partisan or non-partisan is choosing issues that speak predominantly to one party vs both parties. By choosing left-leaning science issues* instead of right-leaning science issues, they make it partisan.

    *And non-science issues. Bowing to pressure from their constituents (democrats), they added "diversity" as a major platform issue. It is probably the second most coherent issue (next to money) they are advocating.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: March For Science, April 22, 2017
  1. Catch 22 (Replies: 5)

  2. April fooled (Replies: 79)

  3. March Madness (Replies: 3)

  4. April Fools (Replies: 13)

Loading...