I forgot to mention another pet peeve of mine, which reflects the way in which the media tries to perpetuate the conservative=anti-science/liberal=pro-science meme. Whenever liberal Democratic Congressman Rush Holt is mentioned in the press, almost always, they mention that he is a physicist, as if it granted him some sort of authority, sometimes even qualifying that by calling him a former plasma physicist at Princeton, even though his duties there were strictly admininstrative. When he was first elected, in fact, it was a cause celebre in the press that a scientist was coming to congress, "Mr.Science goes to Washington", as NPR trumpeted. What they didn't mention was that the Republicans had already sent two scientists to congress, Vernon Ehlers and Roscoe Bartlett, and that Ehlers, in fact, had a far more distinguished career as a physicist than Holt. But not only did they not mention that, they hardly ever mention that these two very conservative members of Congress are scientists with excellent scientific records who have done much to help continue scientific funding in tight times.
I didn't know this. I'll look them up.
I haven't read articles or seen this. But let me guess: If there is a political subject that needs the slightest bit of scientific backing, his name is brought up.
If so, this is another common fallacy, called " argument by authority ".
Aside from the 'other' threads, this thread is IMHO a very salient topic to begin discussing. All one has to point to is the push in the mid to late 90s with respect to ratifying the Kyoto Treaty to see the dangers of politics mixing with 'science'.
Then again, I'm one of those troublesome epistemologists.