Donald Trump's US election win stuns scientists ...The comments were mostly pro-Trump.
Although science played only a bit part in this year’s dramatic, hard-fought campaign, many researchers expressed fear and disbelief as Trump defeated former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on 8 November.
“Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had,” says Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington DC. “The consequences are going to be very, very severe.” ...
Some researchers are already thinking about leaving the United States in the wake of the election. ...
“This is terrifying for science, research, education, and the future of our planet,” tweeted María Escudero Escribano, a postdoc studying electrochemistry and and sustainable energy conversation at Stanford University in California. “I guess it's time for me to go back to Europe.” ...
“It’s going to badly tarnish the image of the United States,” he says. “Roughly half of the population has voted for somebody who by almost any measure is unfit to serve as president.”
Of course no one can explain how Trump is anti-science as a comment remarks:
OK, so Donald Trump is anti-science. How so? Is he against gravity? Is he against medicine? Is he against scientific research? Is he against mathematics or engineering? is he against chemistry? Or may he is against the scientific method? Who is speaking here for all scientists? Did they conduct a poll so that they could say that Trump's election stunned scientists? Or maybe since his election stunned everyone, they are just assuming it stunned scientists as well? That's not really news is it - since it stunned most people! I still don't understand how Donald Trump is anti-science. I've never heard him say such a thing. Did he threaten to take away funding for scientific research? I think he realizes the valuable role science has played in the history of the US and my guess is that he expects real science will continue to propel the US forward. First anti-science President? Hmmmm. I have a sneaking suspicion that what he means is that if Donald Trump doesn't take his side in every single scientific issue, he is anti-science. I'm not worried at all! Up until now, everyone has been afraid of being labelled anti-science and so they have adopted as gospel truth, whatever unsubstantiated claims scientists made. I doubt Trump is afraid of that label which actually may be just what science needs to free itself from the grips of the ruling scientific elite.Yes. we have a ruling scientific elite that suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. Here is an example of such ppl worried about privacy, and the leftists are the ones who are really anti-science.
Just keep this in mind when Nature or some other elitist science publication tells us we have to do something about global warming or some other alleged problem. These folks are blinded by ideology.
When you listen to the academic scienctfic elite and notice their personal politics are 1. All democrat, and 2.) exactly aligned with what they consider science...and notice they have no actual visible debate, no squabbles, just a uniform public front of agreement and consensus, You begin to see they aren't really doing science, it's all politics.
ReplyDeleteThe kicker is when some academic in the sciences brags about how conservatives don't like science...and then bemoans the fact that there aren't enough different skin colors and non-polar genders represented in their respective fields. It does not take a PhD to see a person would have no chance in hell of ever teaching in such an institution if you are not of the same political mindset and groupthink.
This is how science dies and becomes the political dogma and sledgehammer of deluded technocrats. President Eisenhower saw this debacle heading our way decades ago.