Oh, dearie me...
This about what you are saying here.
I have, perhaps you should too, before responding, because you have totally misrepresented what I said,m either through dishonesty or ignorance, I'll let you tell me which.
If scientists are political by definition, what makes their work scientific?
the fact that they use the scientific method, the fact that they strive for repeatability and that they submit to peer review, their personal beliefs have no bearing on whether the evidence they produce should be accepted or not. However it is often interesting to look at how they decide which areas to investigate.
If all of their work is influenced by their own politics, then none of their results are valid.
utter rubbish, their work stands and falls on the evidence, regardless of what influences they had in carrying out the work.
Scientists stop doing science when they become political.
scientists cease to be human when they stop being political. I am unaware of any scientist which have managed the feat whilst alive.
That's precisely why scientists must adhere to the scientific method.
You clearly have no idea what the terms "political" and "science" mean. It is perfectly possible to be both political and use the scientific method. The evidences stands and falls on its own, regardless of the person who puts it forward, or would you rather argue to the man than to the evidence? (hmmm if only there was a snappy Latin phrase to describe that fallacy...)
The idea that anyone at any time can be free from all bias is laughable,
that doesn't make their conclusions invalid- the
work should be able to stand or fall on its own
regardless of the personal opinions of the person who created it. Should peer review journals include political opinions of the authors in the error bars of their articles?
