Recently Roger Pink (remember him?) posted a series of articles that he entitled 'The Anti-Science'. These articles were mostly complaints about how the U.S. in general, and the current Congress in particular, had an anti-science stance - in Roger's opinion.
I just ran across this info in Wikipedia and thought to myself, now here's a real example of Anti-Science.
(All taken from Wikipedia with only minor editing to remove some internal links.)
Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (also Antoine Lavoisier after the French Revolution); 26 August 1743 - 8 May 1794, the "father of modern chemistry" was a French nobleman prominent in the histories of chemistry and biology. He found and termed both oxygen (1778) and hydrogen (1783), helped construct the metric system, put together the first extensive list of elements, and helped to reform chemical nomenclature. He was also the first to establish that sulfur was an element (1777) rather than a compound. He discovered that, although matter may change its form or shape, its mass always remains the same.
He was an administrator of the "Ferme Générale" and a powerful member of a number of other aristocratic councils. All of these political and economic activities enabled him to fund his scientific research. At the height of the French Revolution he was accused by Jean-Paul Marat* of selling watered-down tobacco, and of other crimes, and was guillotined. [After his death he was exonerated.]
.
.
*Jean-Paul Marat (24 May 1743 - 13 July 1793) was a Prussian-born physician, political theorist, and scientist best known for his career in France as a radical journalist and politician during the French Revolution.
How's this for Anti-Science?
Re: How's this for Anti-Science?
