Safety Month BOTMKT Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Drowners The best from Bose just got wireless Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks STEM Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Review

334 of 388 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An important and balanced book, August 30, 2005
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Republican War on Science (Hardcover)
Mooney does a good job at meticulously showing the politicization of science by both sides, but as the title shows, he refuses to make the common journalistic mistake of imposing "false balance" where it is not warranted. Just as you wouldn't say, "people differ on roundness of the Earth", Mooney has the courage and the wherewithall to call a spade a spade - and he doesn't ask you to take his word for it.

The facts are here for anyone with eyes to see. The "perfect storm" of anti-regulatory conservatives and fundamentalist Christians have combined to wage a unified war against science with a vengeance that the disorganized "frankenfood" liberals can only dream of.

Mooney's objective, scientific approach to making his case only makes his partisan conclusions that much more compelling and impossible to deny. In this war of reason vs. ideology, Mooney plants himself firmly on the side of reason, while always being fair. After reading his book, anyone who values science and critical thinking will do the same.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 3 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 27, 2012 11:39:23 AM PST
Enigma says:
Being and independent and non-partisan I have a hard time swallowing that the republicans are more anti-science than the Democrats. Sure they have a few whoppers (climate change, evolution, etc) but as a whole the Democrats/liberals seem to out-number the Republicans in their crazy and anti-scientific beliefs. For example I did a quick GSS (General Social Survey) search to see which party tends to hold more unscientific beliefs:

ASTROLOGY IS SCIENTIFIC
% answering "Very scientific" or "Sort of scientific"

Republicans 25.6%
Democrats 34.9%

LASERS WORK BY FOCUSING SOUND WAVES
% answering TRUE

Republicans 24.5%
Democrats 36.0%

ALL RADIOACTIVITY IS MAN-MADE
% answering TRUE

Republicans 14.8%
Democrats 22.2%

ANTIBIOTICS KILL VIRUSES AS WELL AS BACTERIA
% answering TRUE

Republicans 35.9%
Democrats 46.2%

And just a small sample from progressive and liberal programs that were going ape over these issues just last week: genetically modified organisms, nuclear power, environmental toxins, biological differences between men and women driving sociological trends, vaccine safety, animal testing, organic farming, "The Bell Curve", the use of nuclear batteries in space probes, Kennewick Man, AIDS being created by the CIA, alternative medicine, cancer clusters, cell phones as carcinogens, contrails being a government plot, etc. etc.

I'm sorry but I find the kooky, anti-science award generally falls to those on the left.

Cheers

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 7, 2013 7:11:21 AM PDT
I think you have made the error of confusing lack of scientific education with being anti-science. Conservatives, on average, are wealthier and therefore have, on average, more educational opportunities. It doesn't surprise me, then, that they might do better on a test asking the kinds of questions you sampled. It would be more interesting to see answers to questions like, "True or False: When scientific evidence is discovered that seems to run contrary to common knowledge, there must be a flaw in the way that evidence is being interpreted."

Questions that ask about the scientific method itself, rather than about the facts that science has uncovered, will show more about a person's attitudes towards science. If you take a person who incorrectly answered your question about all radioactivity being man made, and you tell them about uranium and how it is formed, and then ask them the question again, and they STILL get it wrong, THEN they are anti-science. If they get it right the second time, then they weren't anti-science to begin with - just poorly educated. There's a big difference.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2013 5:46:49 AM PDT
D. Feltus says:
Exactly.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2013 5:48:51 AM PDT
D. Feltus says:
As Gatten's comment indicates, you seem to be conflating ignorance with opposition.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 30, 2013 8:54:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 30, 2013 9:03:26 AM PDT
Enigma says:
>>>I think you have made the error of confusing lack of scientific education with being anti-science.

I am not because what I point out are the claims of the highly educated.

Studies show that the higher level of education you have attained the more likely you will be liberal. Studies have also shown that it is the highest educated liberals that squawk the most about the following: genetically modified organisms, nuclear power, environmental toxins, biological differences between men and women driving sociological trends, vaccine safety, animal testing, organic farming, "The Bell Curve", the use of nuclear batteries in space probes, Kennewick Man, AIDS being created by the CIA, alternative medicine, cancer clusters, cell phones as carcinogens, contrails being a government plot, etc. etc.

>>>ask them the question again, and they STILL get it wrong,

So after receiving you PhD you still believe the above . . . " THEN they are anti-science. If they get it right the second time, then they weren't anti-science to begin with - just poorly educated. There's a big difference."

So they have a PhD and are poorly educated - great.

Cheers

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 30, 2013 9:10:49 AM PDT
Enigma says:
If is true that I am conflating - IF up is down, white is black and war is peace. Otherwise I am just presenting the facts, data and evidence as they are. It's your choice if you wish to believe reality or proclaim the world is flat and Santa Claus is real.

The irony is the my liberal PhD friend runs a website fighting GMO's while she plays with her Genetically Modified Dog, prunes her Genetically Modified Roses and eats her OWN Genetically Modified fruit that she grows. BTW, her kids are not vaccinated because that's an evil plot and after the election she is going to work with her liberal PhD husband on his project of anti-nuclear power while they drive their green car that get's it's power from a coal fired power plant. And these are not aberrations at all, I used to teach at a university level where all the professors had a minimum of masters degree, most had PhD's, and most were far left liberals. The craziest, anti-science buffoonery echoed throughout the teachers break rooms every day. In fact the above examples were all the things that I heard on a regular basis during my time there and no rational conversation could be had.

Cheers

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2016 9:14:17 PM PDT
Strindberg says:
Here's what gets me. Conservatives are, for example, more likely to be suspicious about the theory of evolution than liberals. How many people have died because of that suspicion? I'm not aware of any. How many people have died because of a belief in creationism? Crickets. Did the big bang happen? Really, who cares. Knowledge of it won't affect any of us. But how many people have died and will die because of a belief that vaccines cause autism and therefore should be avoided? How many people have died and will die because of a misguided belief in alternative medicine? How much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere because liberals feared The China Syndrome (largely due to a movie, for crying out loud). The list goes on and on. While there is certainly evidence supporting man-made global warming, it is still debatable whether this will be at all as "bad" for the globe as the alarmists claim. So I can say with confidence that the goofball non-science based claims referred to above have caused many people to die, but can't say that about skeptics' non-belief in man-made global warming. Liberals should proceed with caution when trying to tar conservatives regarding science.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details