Anti intellectualism directed against science.

Hans Blaster · Mar 19, 2023

stevevw said:
I certainly gave those *specific* attacks on science earlier such as Woke and PC ideology that believes there is no fixed nature, no biological sex, gender has no biological basis, CRT tenets claim there is absolutely no innate basis for race/ethnicity, climate change deniers who believe there is no human made climate becuase of their political beliefs.

And they were utter failures.

stevevw said:
So I am not sure what else there is. Can you give me other examples.

Feminism take a similar view as other ideologies like gender ideology in that there is no innate male or female or differences. They have disputed the science many time and feminist theory underpins government and workplace policy.

Feminism is a closed, partisan ideology designed to lobby for female advantage.

"Feminism is a partisan ideology" what twaddle.

stevevw said:
Science is an open exploration designed to test and expand knowledge. Feminism and science are entirely incompatible.[1]
Feminism rejects biological knowledge about the differences of males and females.
Biology is rejected on the grounds that locating gender differences in biology has been used to oppress women.[3]

Feminists Assault Science | Frontier Centre For Public Policy

fcpp.org

Is Modern Feminism Incompatible With Science?
Ideology is a double-edged sword. Dedication to a set of beliefs can be admirable, but when it leads to inflexibility and obstinance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is a dangerous thing. Such ideological rigidity -- often found among the adherents of various philosophical, religious, and political doctrines -- can lead to the rejection of evidence-based inquiry, which serves as the bedrock of modern science.

In an excellent essay for Quillette, former feminist Toni Airaksinen warns about the dangers of modern feminism, particularly as taught in women's studies classes, which she has described as a "rabbit hole" that leads to a "perverse wonderland where up is down."
Ms. Airaksinen's concern is that feminism has been built upon ideas that can neither be proven nor refuted, precisely the sort of evidence-free groupthink that typifies unscientific thinking.

Is Modern Feminism Incompatible with Science?

Ideology is a double-edged sword. Dedication to a set of beliefs can be admirable, but when it leads to inflexibility and obstinance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is a dangerous thing. Such ideological rigidity -- often found among the adherents of various...

www.acsh.org

The "ACSH" is a shill organization for industry particularly fighting against regulation of chemicals.

stevevw said:
Do you notice the similarities feminism has with CRT and gender and transgenderism. They all reject the biological basis (the science) for sex and gender and believe its a social construction. The concern is this thinking has permeated education and is being used as the basis for policy, even presented as science.

At this point I'm not paying much attention to you quote vomiting. A quick look over and all I see is ideological attacks. Not the right board.

stevevw said:
Yes so if scientism is an attack on science so are the other 'Isms' like marxism, liberalism, socialism, feminism ect.

Scientism is the attack thrown out at science oriented people when other ideological attacks aren't sticking. So instead the attack is made to claim science is an "ism" too. That's why the "scientism" claim is an anti-science attack.

stevevw said:
All 'isms' are ideological beliefs, philosophical positions, religions, social views which are subjective aned opposing objective science. If you are anti science you will occupy one of their 'isms'.

People sometimes develop a set of beliefs about how the world is and how it ought to be. This is called an ideology. Ideology often aims to be both descriptive—what the world actually looks like—and prescriptive—how it should ideally be.
The political world is full of lots of ideologies, each with its own logic and set of beliefs. A lot of them end in “ism,”

Ideologies and Isms

The question is why is it about power. Its about power because its about ideology. Its a belief and assumption about how the world is and how it should be ordered. How one 'orders' society and the world is based on power relationships. Power is the aim but at the heart of politics public servants have a strong belief and philosophy about how we can best order society that it motivates them to take action.

Yes money is a powerful motivator. But even that is a ideological belief that 'money is the key to happiness and a better life' such as Capitalism as opposed to socialism. But I think its cynical to say that all politicians and politics itself is purely about money. Though todays politicians sure don't seem like they care.

But the basis for why the Right are supporting big business in the first place to succeed is because of their philosophical belief about free market enterprise aned capitalism over all else including social welfare. Thats almost a moral position as it is putting profits before people.

Didn't see any science here again. Pass. Wrong board.

stevevw said:
I thought we already went through this.

So did I.

stevevw said:
Gender and transgenderism deny biological sex and gender having any biological basis.

There you go again. Your sentence claims that "Gender and trangenderism[sic] deny biological sex [has] biological basis. Are you confused or do you not understand the structure of your sentences?

stevevw said:
Queer theory is the basis for ideologies like Feminism, gender and transgenderism. Like CRT it developeed out of the cultural revolutions of the 60's and 70's and became popular in academia in the 90's and is underpinned by postmodernism and post-structuralism.

Science destroys its credibility by embracing critical theory
“Queer Theory” is the academic discipline that birthed the increasingly popular understanding of sex and gender. Its adherents deem any conventional idea about sexuality — say, that “male” and “female” are fixed categories rooted in biology — as oppressive. “Queer Theory is dominated by… the deconstruction of categories, and a profound skepticism of science.”

Science destroys its credibility by embracing critical theory

Critical theory is an existential threat to Enlightenment values, public health, and the scientific enterprise.

bigthink.com

Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts.
Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles: Denying biological sex is anthropocentric and promotes species chauvinism: Denying biological sex is anthropocentric and promotes species chauvinism - PubMed

Well this is what is commonly used even in science articles. Everyone uses it. It accurately describes transgenderism. What else could we call it. Its not science and its more about subjective feelings, belief and assumptions about human nature and the nature of the world. Its not just speaking about self but is a worldview about how society and the world is and should be. Or at least it has become that similar to feminism has become an all encompassing position. Thats what ideology is.

OK I get you now. Well I did discuss the attacks on science by ideology such as Woke and PC earlier and have referreed back to this several times ie there is no fixed nature, no biological sex, gender has no biological basis, CRT claim there is absolutely no innate basis for race/ethnicity, climate change deniers who believe there is no human made climate change or climate change exaggerators who claim the world will end in 5 years ect. Even religious belief. All ideological positions and not science.

What else is there to discuss that is not an ideological position but also anti science and anti intellectual.. You gotta come up with something as I also don't want to talk about PC and Woke anymore either. Only to say that we can agree that ideological thinking is a way to deny science generally.

Again, all I see here is a wall of text as part of your ideological battles. I'm not interested in such.

stevevw · Mar 19, 2023

Hans Blaster said:
And they were utter failures.

Yet I provided evidence that some think biological sex is not real. Even you said that anyone who thinks biological sex is not real is engaging in anti science.

Hans Blaster said:
"Feminism is a partisan ideology" what twaddle.

So what part do you object to. The word 'partisan' or 'ideology' or both.

Hans Blaster said:
The "ACSH" is a shill organization for industry particularly fighting against regulation of chemicals.

How ironic an organisation that was set up because of a concern that there was a lack of sound scientific basis, common sense, reason, and balance in public forums and public policy is themselves an anti science organisation. OK so theres an example of anti science. An ideological position that is biased in favor of industry while ignoring the science.

Heres a link by Jerry Coyne from 'Why evolution is true' that I know everyone trusts on this thread as its been used many times to dispute creationism that should satisfy you.

The anti-science views of third-wave feminists

Because of its connections with postmodernism, third-wave feminism has sometimes shown a disturbing trend of doing down science. That, of course, is because postmodernism rejects objective truth, v…

whyevolutionistrue.com

Hans Blaster said:
At this point I'm not paying much attention to you quote vomiting. A quick look over and all I see is ideological attacks. Not the right board.

Actually it would be the right thread as an ideological attack by its very nature is an attack on the science.

Hans Blaster said:
Scientism is the attack thrown out at science oriented people when other ideological attacks aren't sticking. So instead the attack is made to claim science is an "ism" too. That's why the "scientism" claim is an anti-science attack.

OK so are you saying there is no such thing as 'scientism' as far as the dictionary meaning explains. But rather its a made up idea used to attack science itself.
According to the Oxford dictionary
Scientism is the excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Hans Blaster said:
Didn't see any science here again. Pass. Wrong board.

So are you disputing what the book says. If we are going to debate anti scientific thinking then we have to define what that is. I am saying that all anti scientific thinking is derived from ideological thinking. Its not rocket science. If you can think of any other way people engage in anti scientific thinking then we can deiscuss that as well. But sio far you hav'nt given me anything.

Hans Blaster said:
There you go again. Your sentence claims that "Gender and trangenderism[sic] deny biological sex [has] biological basis. Are you confused or do you not understand the structure of your sentences?

Not sure what your point is. Are you talking about the grammar or my use of the word 'Transgenderism'. It seems your concerned with everything else but replying to the actual point I was making.

Hans Blaster said:
Again, all I see here is a wall of text as part of your ideological battles. I'm not interested in such.

Ok I know when to give up. What other way can we discuss anti-scientific thinking. If we can't agree on what is anti scientific thinking then how can anyone discuss the issue.

Hans Blaster · Mar 19, 2023

stevevw said:
How ironic an organisation that was set up because of a concern that there was a lack of sound scientific basis, common sense, reason, and balance in public forums and public policy is themselves an anti science organisation. OK so theres an example of anti science. An ideological position that is biased in favor of industry while ignoring the science.

"The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a pro-industry advocacy organization founded in 1978"

"The Scaife Foundation and John M. Olin Foundation provided ACSH's first financial support in the 1970s."

"As of 2005, they had received $90,000 from ExxonMobil.[28]"

"In 1979, the information director of the FDA said, "Whelan just makes blanket endorsements of food additives. Her organization is a sham, an industry front."[32] In 1980, ACSH co-founder Frederick J. Stare was chairman of ACSH's Board of Directors and sought funding from US tobacco company Philip Morris USA for ACSH's activities, stating that he believed financially supporting ACSH would be to Phillip Morris' benefit.[26][27] In the early 1990s, ACSH decided to stop reporting its funding.[33]"

Industry shills and right-wing foundations. That's what they are.

stevevw · Mar 20, 2023

Hans Blaster said:
"The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a pro-industry advocacy organization founded in 1978"

"The Scaife Foundation and John M. Olin Foundation provided ACSH's first financial support in the 1970s."

"As of 2005, they had received $90,000 from ExxonMobil.[28]"

"In 1979, the information director of the FDA said, "Whelan just makes blanket endorsements of food additives. Her organization is a sham, an industry front."[32] In 1980, ACSH co-founder Frederick J. Stare was chairman of ACSH's Board of Directors and sought funding from US tobacco company Philip Morris USA for ACSH's activities, stating that he believed financially supporting ACSH would be to Phillip Morris' benefit.[26][27] In the early 1990s, ACSH decided to stop reporting its funding.[33]"

Industry shills and right-wing foundations. That's what they are.

So would they be an example of anti scientific thinking.

sjastro · Jul 10, 2023

This old thread deserves an update as meteorologists around the world are receiving on line abuse and threats for reporting on climate change in their news reports.
The world has truly gone mad.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/27/world/meteorologists-conspiracy-harassment-abuse-climate-intl/index.html

Halbhh · Jul 10, 2023

sjastro said:
This old thread deserves an update as meteorologists around the world are receiving on line abuse and threats for reporting on climate change in their news reports.
The world has truly gone mad.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/27/world/meteorologists-conspiracy-harassment-abuse-climate-intl/index.html

Ah, perhaps it's good that I do the weather update I intended to post... Have a look in a minute in the news forum.

AV1611VET · Jul 10, 2023

sjastro said:
This old thread deserves an update as meteorologists around the world are receiving on line abuse and threats for reporting on climate change in their news reports.

Interesting article.

Perhaps they are tired of science crying "wolf" so much?

sjastro said:
The world has truly gone mad.

Don't know why they're doing it, but I wonder if some don't want to think it's a sign of the end times?

I would think a true Christian would be getting excited about all of this though.

JohnEmmett · Jul 10, 2023

AV1611VET said:
a sign of the end times?

Kali Yuga is ending

According to some…

AV1611VET · Jul 10, 2023

JohnEmmett said:
Kali Yuga is ending.

So is the dispensation of Grace.

sjastro · Jul 10, 2023

AV1611VET said:
Interesting article.

Perhaps they are tired of science crying "wolf" so much?

Don't know why they're doing it, but I wonder if some don't want to think it's a sign of the end times?

I would think a true Christian would be getting excited about all of this though.

The CNN article covers the predicaments faced by meteorologists.
If you are a climate scientist and female the threats go to the next level.

Threats of death, rape and other forms of violence have left a number of researchers feeling concerned for their safety. They worry about opening envelopes with handwritten addresses and answering phone calls from unfamiliar numbers. Anonymous emails that try to entice a response cause agitation.

Why are some evangelicals so threatened by female climate scientists?

Online harassers have called her a “sad, little mediocrity,” an “ugly fake scientist” and an “old thin-looking hag.” They’ve gone after Hayhoe for sharing her climate research and for her outreach to the evangelical Christian community.

.This goes way beyond people being tired of "science crying wolf"

As Climate Scientists Speak Out, Sexist Attacks Are on the Rise

Female researchers have faced everything from personal insults to death and rape threats

www.scientificamerican.com

sjastro · Jul 11, 2023

Halbhh said:
Ah, perhaps it's good that I do the weather update I intended to post... Have a look in a minute in the news forum.

Some meteorologists such as Jane Bunn are very careful in their choice of words.

69b18f5f094250d12cb1684f75c7a234655b151c

For the past nine months, Channel Seven's Melbourne weather presenter Jane Bunn has been inserting a subtle message into her nightly bulletins. She never uses the words "climate change" but instead gently introduces the TV audience to the idea that the world is warming up.

Who knows it may have saved her from threats of being raped and murdered.

adrianmonk · Jul 23, 2023

JohnEmmett said:
Kali Yuga is ending

According to some…

Still have around 426,876 years left in it.

JohnEmmett · Jul 23, 2023

adrianmonk said:
Still have around 426,876 years left in it.

The end of the Kali Yuga in 2025: Unraveling the mysteries of the Yuga Cycle

sjastro · Saturday at 7:06 PM

An update focussing on the anti-intellectual/anti-science activities of the Trump administration.

ChatGPT-5.5 provided the information.

I’ll use “anti-intellectual against science” to mean actions that reduced scientific independence, expert review, public access to data, research funding, or evidence-based policy-making. A literal list of every incident is not practical because trackers record hundreds of incidents; the table below lists the major documented categories.

Major documented anti-science / anti-intellectual activities

Trump administration Activity What was done Why it is criticised as anti-intellectual or anti-science
First: 2017–2021 Climate-science deletion from government websites References to climate change were removed or reduced across multiple federal websites, including EPA, USDA, DOE, DOT, State Department and the White House. (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law) Publicly funded scientific information was made harder to find, especially evidence contradicting the administration’s climate agenda.
First: 2017–2021 Disbanding climate advisory expertise The administration did not renew the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment. (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law) Removed expert help translating climate science into practical guidance for governments, businesses and the public.
First: 2017–2021 Withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement Trump announced the U.S. would cease implementation of the Paris Agreement and later formally withdrew. (State Department) Treated climate policy as mainly an economic/political burden while sidelining the scientific consensus on climate-risk mitigation.
First: 2017–2021 EPA advisory-board purge and industry tilt EPA removed or did not renew academic scientists on advisory boards and sought more industry-linked advisers. (Time) Reduced independent academic input and increased concern that regulated industries would influence science advice.
First: 2017–2021 Disbanding air-pollution expert panels EPA disbanded panels reviewing particulate matter and ozone science. (Science) Removed specialist expertise needed for setting health-based pollution limits.
First: 2017–2021 “Secret science” / transparency rule EPA adopted a rule giving less weight to studies when underlying data were not publicly available. (Environmental and Energy Law Program) Critics argued this would exclude important epidemiological and public-health studies where raw patient data cannot ethically be released.
First: 2017–2021 Suppression or delay of scientific information A peer-reviewed review concluded the administration suppressed, downplayed or ignored scientific research relevant to public health and environmental regulation. (PMC) Policy decisions were made by discounting inconvenient evidence rather than engaging with it.
First: 2017–2021 Political interference in CDC COVID reporting Political appointees sought to change, delay or block CDC reports on coronavirus, including reports that conflicted with Trump’s public messaging. (PBS) Public-health science was subordinated to political messaging during a pandemic.
First: 2017–2021 COVID testing and school-guidance pressure CDC testing guidance discouraged testing asymptomatic exposed people, reportedly despite scientists’ objections, and school-reopening guidance was pressured politically. (The Guardian) Scientific guidance was altered or pressured to fit reopening and political goals.
First: 2017–2021 Weakening scientific-integrity safeguards GAO later found HHS agencies needed stronger procedures for reporting and addressing political interference in scientific decision-making. (GAO) Scientific staff lacked robust channels to resist political alteration of science.
First and second Reclassification of civil servants / Schedule F-style policy Trump created Schedule F in 2020 and reinstated it in 2025, aiming to make policy-influencing career officials easier to remove. (Trump White House Archives) Critics warn this threatens expert civil servants, including scientists, with political loyalty tests rather than merit-based independence.
Second: 2025–present Removal of health, climate, DEI and gender-related data Thousands of web pages and datasets were removed or altered across federal sites; a judge ordered restoration of some health-related pages and datasets. (Wikipedia) Publicly funded data used by doctors, researchers and policymakers became inaccessible or politically edited.
Second: 2025–present HHS/CDC/NIH/FDA communications freeze The administration halted public communications, reports, website updates and some scientific meetings pending political review. (AP News) Scientific communication was delayed or filtered through political appointees.
Second: 2025–present Research-grant freezes and cancellations Nature reported 5,844 NIH grants and 1,996 NSF grants were cancelled or suspended during the first year of the second administration. (Nature) Peer-reviewed science was interrupted after approval, often for ideological criteria rather than scientific merit.
Second: 2025–present NIH grant terminations ruled illegal A federal judge ruled that more than $1 billion in NIH grant terminations were “void and illegal,” citing unlawful racial and anti-LGBTQ discrimination. (The Guardian) Research was targeted because of politically disfavoured topics rather than scientific quality.
Second: 2025–present NIH/NSF indirect-cost caps NIH and NSF moved to cap indirect research costs at 15%; courts blocked the policies, with one NSF ruling calling the policy arbitrary and capricious. (Nature) Would have damaged the infrastructure that makes laboratory, clinical and university research possible.
Second: 2025–present Political control over federal grants Trump signed an order giving political appointees more control over grantmaking; later proposed rules would require political review of research awards for alignment with presidential priorities. (The White House) Undermines peer review by inserting ideological review into research funding.
Second: 2025–present NSF budget cuts and proposed elimination of research areas The administration sought very large NSF cuts; NSF’s FY2026 request was $3.9 billion, and White House budget documents targeted climate, clean energy and social-behavioural-economic sciences. (NSF - U.S. National Science Foundation) Devalues fields because of political content rather than scientific merit.
Second: 2025–present NASA science and climate-monitoring cuts The administration moved to defund NASA missions monitoring carbon dioxide and plant health. (AP News) Climate-observation data central to Earth science and agriculture were targeted.
Second: 2025–present NOAA and climate-research cuts The administration proposed eliminating much of NOAA climate research and cutting the agency budget. (The Washington Post) Weakens weather, ocean and climate science capacity used for disaster preparation and risk assessment.
Second: 2025–present EPA research-office elimination EPA planned to eliminate its scientific research office, potentially affecting more than 1,000 scientists and technical staff. (AP News) Removes the independent research capacity behind environmental and public-health regulation.
Second: 2025–present Mass termination of science advisory committees Nature reported that more than 100 science advisory committees were terminated or made less transparent. (Nature) Reduces independent expert advice and public transparency in science-based policy.
Second: 2025–present Firing the National Science Board The administration dismissed all 22 members of the National Science Board, which oversees NSF. (AP News) Removed independent scientific oversight of a major science-funding agency.
Second: 2025–present Firing vaccine advisory experts HHS removed all 17 members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. (HHS.gov) Replaced long-standing vaccine expertise amid concern over politicised or anti-vaccine influence.
Second: 2025–present Dismissing National Climate Assessment authors Nearly 400 contributors to the Sixth National Climate Assessment were dismissed. (Reuters) Threatens a congressionally mandated, peer-reviewed climate-risk assessment used by governments and emergency planners.
Second: 2025–present Removing National Climate Assessment access The online portal for National Climate Assessments was removed or went dark, and the support contract was terminated. (The Guardian) Makes authoritative climate-risk information harder for the public and local governments to access.
Second: 2025–present Education research cuts The Department of Education terminated research contracts and DEI-related training grants. (Politico) Reduces the evidence base for education policy and treats certain research areas as ideologically illegitimate.
Second: 2025–present Repeated Paris withdrawal Trump again signed an order withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. (AP News) Again rejected international climate-science coordination in favour of ideological and economic framing.

Condensed pattern

Pattern Meaning
Censorship / deletion Removing climate, health, gender, DEI or public-health data from government websites.
Politicisation of expertise Replacing independent scientists and advisory boards with politically aligned appointees.
Attacks on peer review Grant decisions moved away from expert review and toward political review.
Defunding research capacity NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA, EPA and education-research cuts reduced the institutional machinery of science.
Suppression of public science communication Communications freezes and political review delayed or filtered scientific information.
Climate-science rejection Climate assessments, climate data, Paris participation and greenhouse-gas monitoring were repeatedly targeted.

So the overall argument is: the Trump administrations did not merely disagree with some scientific conclusions; they repeatedly weakened the institutions that produce, review, preserve and communicate scientific knowledge.

AP News

AP News

AP News

AP News

AP News

AP News

Akita Suggagaki · Saturday at 8:01 PM

Even permafrost is no longer “perma”

https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/permafrost-thaw-warming-world-arctic-institute-permafrost-series-fall-winter-2020/

Trump administration	Activity	What was done	Why it is criticised as anti-intellectual or anti-science
First: 2017–2021	Climate-science deletion from government websites	References to climate change were removed or reduced across multiple federal websites, including EPA, USDA, DOE, DOT, State Department and the White House. (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law)	Publicly funded scientific information was made harder to find, especially evidence contradicting the administration’s climate agenda.
First: 2017–2021	Disbanding climate advisory expertise	The administration did not renew the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment. (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law)	Removed expert help translating climate science into practical guidance for governments, businesses and the public.
First: 2017–2021	Withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement	Trump announced the U.S. would cease implementation of the Paris Agreement and later formally withdrew. (State Department)	Treated climate policy as mainly an economic/political burden while sidelining the scientific consensus on climate-risk mitigation.
First: 2017–2021	EPA advisory-board purge and industry tilt	EPA removed or did not renew academic scientists on advisory boards and sought more industry-linked advisers. (Time)	Reduced independent academic input and increased concern that regulated industries would influence science advice.
First: 2017–2021	Disbanding air-pollution expert panels	EPA disbanded panels reviewing particulate matter and ozone science. (Science)	Removed specialist expertise needed for setting health-based pollution limits.
First: 2017–2021	“Secret science” / transparency rule	EPA adopted a rule giving less weight to studies when underlying data were not publicly available. (Environmental and Energy Law Program)	Critics argued this would exclude important epidemiological and public-health studies where raw patient data cannot ethically be released.
First: 2017–2021	Suppression or delay of scientific information	A peer-reviewed review concluded the administration suppressed, downplayed or ignored scientific research relevant to public health and environmental regulation. (PMC)	Policy decisions were made by discounting inconvenient evidence rather than engaging with it.
First: 2017–2021	Political interference in CDC COVID reporting	Political appointees sought to change, delay or block CDC reports on coronavirus, including reports that conflicted with Trump’s public messaging. (PBS)	Public-health science was subordinated to political messaging during a pandemic.
First: 2017–2021	COVID testing and school-guidance pressure	CDC testing guidance discouraged testing asymptomatic exposed people, reportedly despite scientists’ objections, and school-reopening guidance was pressured politically. (The Guardian)	Scientific guidance was altered or pressured to fit reopening and political goals.
First: 2017–2021	Weakening scientific-integrity safeguards	GAO later found HHS agencies needed stronger procedures for reporting and addressing political interference in scientific decision-making. (GAO)	Scientific staff lacked robust channels to resist political alteration of science.
First and second	Reclassification of civil servants / Schedule F-style policy	Trump created Schedule F in 2020 and reinstated it in 2025, aiming to make policy-influencing career officials easier to remove. (Trump White House Archives)	Critics warn this threatens expert civil servants, including scientists, with political loyalty tests rather than merit-based independence.
Second: 2025–present	Removal of health, climate, DEI and gender-related data	Thousands of web pages and datasets were removed or altered across federal sites; a judge ordered restoration of some health-related pages and datasets. (Wikipedia)	Publicly funded data used by doctors, researchers and policymakers became inaccessible or politically edited.
Second: 2025–present	HHS/CDC/NIH/FDA communications freeze	The administration halted public communications, reports, website updates and some scientific meetings pending political review. (AP News)	Scientific communication was delayed or filtered through political appointees.
Second: 2025–present	Research-grant freezes and cancellations	Nature reported 5,844 NIH grants and 1,996 NSF grants were cancelled or suspended during the first year of the second administration. (Nature)	Peer-reviewed science was interrupted after approval, often for ideological criteria rather than scientific merit.
Second: 2025–present	NIH grant terminations ruled illegal	A federal judge ruled that more than $1 billion in NIH grant terminations were “void and illegal,” citing unlawful racial and anti-LGBTQ discrimination. (The Guardian)	Research was targeted because of politically disfavoured topics rather than scientific quality.
Second: 2025–present	NIH/NSF indirect-cost caps	NIH and NSF moved to cap indirect research costs at 15%; courts blocked the policies, with one NSF ruling calling the policy arbitrary and capricious. (Nature)	Would have damaged the infrastructure that makes laboratory, clinical and university research possible.
Second: 2025–present	Political control over federal grants	Trump signed an order giving political appointees more control over grantmaking; later proposed rules would require political review of research awards for alignment with presidential priorities. (The White House)	Undermines peer review by inserting ideological review into research funding.
Second: 2025–present	NSF budget cuts and proposed elimination of research areas	The administration sought very large NSF cuts; NSF’s FY2026 request was $3.9 billion, and White House budget documents targeted climate, clean energy and social-behavioural-economic sciences. (NSF - U.S. National Science Foundation)	Devalues fields because of political content rather than scientific merit.
Second: 2025–present	NASA science and climate-monitoring cuts	The administration moved to defund NASA missions monitoring carbon dioxide and plant health. (AP News)	Climate-observation data central to Earth science and agriculture were targeted.
Second: 2025–present	NOAA and climate-research cuts	The administration proposed eliminating much of NOAA climate research and cutting the agency budget. (The Washington Post)	Weakens weather, ocean and climate science capacity used for disaster preparation and risk assessment.
Second: 2025–present	EPA research-office elimination	EPA planned to eliminate its scientific research office, potentially affecting more than 1,000 scientists and technical staff. (AP News)	Removes the independent research capacity behind environmental and public-health regulation.
Second: 2025–present	Mass termination of science advisory committees	Nature reported that more than 100 science advisory committees were terminated or made less transparent. (Nature)	Reduces independent expert advice and public transparency in science-based policy.
Second: 2025–present	Firing the National Science Board	The administration dismissed all 22 members of the National Science Board, which oversees NSF. (AP News)	Removed independent scientific oversight of a major science-funding agency.
Second: 2025–present	Firing vaccine advisory experts	HHS removed all 17 members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. (HHS.gov)	Replaced long-standing vaccine expertise amid concern over politicised or anti-vaccine influence.
Second: 2025–present	Dismissing National Climate Assessment authors	Nearly 400 contributors to the Sixth National Climate Assessment were dismissed. (Reuters)	Threatens a congressionally mandated, peer-reviewed climate-risk assessment used by governments and emergency planners.
Second: 2025–present	Removing National Climate Assessment access	The online portal for National Climate Assessments was removed or went dark, and the support contract was terminated. (The Guardian)	Makes authoritative climate-risk information harder for the public and local governments to access.
Second: 2025–present	Education research cuts	The Department of Education terminated research contracts and DEI-related training grants. (Politico)	Reduces the evidence base for education policy and treats certain research areas as ideologically illegitimate.
Second: 2025–present	Repeated Paris withdrawal	Trump again signed an order withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. (AP News)	Again rejected international climate-science coordination in favour of ideological and economic framing.

Pattern	Meaning
Censorship / deletion	Removing climate, health, gender, DEI or public-health data from government websites.
Politicisation of expertise	Replacing independent scientists and advisory boards with politically aligned appointees.
Attacks on peer review	Grant decisions moved away from expert review and toward political review.
Defunding research capacity	NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA, EPA and education-research cuts reduced the institutional machinery of science.
Suppression of public science communication	Communications freezes and political review delayed or filtered scientific information.
Climate-science rejection	Climate assessments, climate data, Paris participation and greenhouse-gas monitoring were repeatedly targeted.

Anti intellectualism directed against science.

Reconstruction 3 will come

inquisitive

Reconstruction 3 will come

inquisitive

Newbie

Everything You say is Life to me

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Newbie

Recursive Algorithm

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Major documented anti-science / anti-intellectual activities​

Condensed pattern​

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Major documented anti-science / anti-intellectual activities

Condensed pattern