Is there anyone here who doesn't let politics influence their views of science?

I don't. I believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, climate change etc and also know believe that there are obvious biological differences between men and women.

It just seems like the people who believe in climate change and vaccines, are the same ones who believe there's very little to no difference between men & women, but the people who understand the difference between men & women, are the same ones who are anti-vax and/or climate deniers

Don’t see that at all sorry, sweeping generalisations anyway.

I don't really understand the evidence for this OP. My OH is a professor of biochemistry and certainly believes in "science". He also strongly believes in physical differences between men and women, but believes that men and women should be treated with equal respect.

I don't think scientific knowledge is being influenced by political views, although the way scientific knowledge is sometimes manipulated, especially by the media and social media posts, sometimes is influenced. Unfortunately, so-called scientific journalists often don't understand what they're reporting and/or cherry pick information to suit their agenda, but anybody with a semi-curious mind can look behind superficial reporting.

Totally agree with you op. I don’t see how politics and science should even be connected.

I do believe in vaccines. Have no idea how/why it became a political thing anyway. Vaccines are not a new thing.

People can actually see the impact of global warming by just following natural disasters, shrinking of glaciers, flooding etc.

To be honest, I’m perplexed at how the gender/sex thing is going crazy. Think there should be a third, recognised gender. It’s unreasonable to treat a trans man the same as a biologically born woman. I cannot stand it when I hear about “chest feeding” etc. world is going crazy with that nonsense and more.

Very sweeping generalisations; and I have nursed adults and children with conditions that affect the sex they were thought to be at birth.

It's because of my belief and trust in the sciences that I know that climate change is real, that vaccines are vital and that the biological sex of human males and females cannot be changed. Gender is something totally different and is interpretational.

Men and women are different in many ways,but more importantly we complement each other.
You can`t argue with science,but i can and do with politics.
And global warming is only too real,sadly.

So. Scientist here. PhD in Physics. Can talk the hind legs off a donkey about all manner of things. But today, we’ll go for politics and science.

Politics and science are inextricably linked and have been since the year dot. Example - the rulers of Rome in the 17th Century suppressing Gallileo's view of the universe because the church didn't like it. More modern; funding from government being withheld from research that isn't currently in favour.

I don’t “believe” science, I use it to understand how things work and apply my knowledge to assessing what the most likely explanation of things is. I don’t “love” science either. What an odd approach to have. If you don’t want your scientific views influenced by politics, learn about science and work things out for yourself. I can recommend it.

Then you can argue with “science”; its not a faith, that’s not how it works.

So I’m wondering, what is the premise of this thread? Is it a trans thread?

Chewbacca

It's because of my belief and trust in the sciences that I know that climate change is real, that vaccines are vital and that the biological sex of human males and females cannot be changed. Gender is something totally different and is interpretational.

This. ^ Chewbacca says it all for me.

volver

So. Scientist here. PhD in Physics. Can talk the hind legs off a donkey about all manner of things. But today, we’ll go for politics and science.

Politics and science are inextricably linked and have been since the year dot. Example - the rulers of Rome in the 17th Century suppressing Gallileo's view of the universe because the church didn't like it. More modern; funding from government being withheld from research that isn't currently in favour.

I don’t “believe” science, I use it to understand how things work and apply my knowledge to assessing what the most likely explanation of things is. I don’t “love” science either. What an odd approach to have. If you don’t want your scientific views influenced by politics, learn about science and work things out for yourself. I can recommend it.

Then you can argue with “science”; its not a faith, that’s not how it works.

So I’m wondering, what is the premise of this thread? Is it a trans thread?

What volvo said - except I’m not a physicist ?

And I'm not a Swedish car

??

The way I see it is that climate change deniers, anti vacccers and trans activists are all people who like shouting.

To answer the OP's question, I'd say 'I hope not'.

But, I think that the problem partly lies in the understanding of the language used by scientists, particularly the word 'theory'. It has quite a different meaning for a lay person from the scientists understanding of the word. This enables people to seize on the word 'theory' and declare that it is just someone's unproven 'idea'. And to feel that it entitles them to come up with 'theories' of their own, without looking at the research that informs the theory.

Not helped by the masses of misinformation available on the internet.. and the doubts engendered by 'fake news'.

Ilovecheese

The way I see it is that climate change deniers, anti vacccers and trans activists are all people who like shouting.

And so are politicians.

Whoops. didn't read the question properly. My answer should be that I hope I don't let politics inform my 'views of science'.

The WHOLE point of science is that you don't have to believe in it. Its all provable and verifiable and mostly the research is published and available to all.

Well summarised there Audi/whoops, volvo or volver. Also excellent concluding question, is this another trans thread?

I think the OP is looking for a private echo chamber. 'Rightmove' might do a better job.

Science evolves surely. I wouldn't have thought that scientists believe that what we know today is, and always will be the final explanation.

Iam64

Well summarised there Audi/whoops, volvo or volver. Also excellent concluding question, is this another trans thread?

I quite fancy myself as a Jag. But in real life, I'm probably more of a Lada. ?

If I won, or indeed even did, the lottery, I’d buy myself an Audi TT for fun. And a Land Rover for dog transport.

Yes, me.

I believe in the Covid vaccine, so I've had those.

The climate does change, as it has since the Earth existed, so that happens.

I don't believe women can have a penis. Men that want to be women can, but not biological women.

?

volver

And I'm not a Swedish car

Vroom.

Me three for what she said

In light of another trans thread, maybe we should upgrade Volvo for Vulva.