What is the link between knowledge, science and right-wing politics?

I have no idea what you are going on about.

Get a hold of yourself.

When you say "The Right" has done this or that you are lumping all factions together.

The people who do push an anti-science agenda are a very large part of the Right. If a majority of the GOP opposes something, and pushes legislation opposed to the latest scientific findings, than it is not far off to say, The Right is opposed to something.

So what?

I accept the theories of Evolution, Out of Africa and the Big Bang.

I question the Climate Change "science" along with the late Michael Crichton and Freeman Dyson (to name but two)

As parados pointed out, the Left denies the science about GMO to go on and on about Frankenfood and Monsanto.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with recent history of US and attempts to teach creationism as science.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-evolution-of-creationism-in-schools-20151217-story.html

Then we have the climate change skeptics attempting to legislate science
https://ncse.com/taking-action/stop-kansas-climate-change-denial-bill

Surely you must be lumping everyone on the left together if we follow your own arguments.

(I don't believe you were but you are proving you are being a bit of an ass about my use of the term "the right.")

Quote Finn:

A majority of Republicans do not, and the GOP steers its political course listening to them, not you.

Fritjof Capra (The Web of Life) made the point that mainstream science aimed at control is ostensibly chauvinistic, and therefore could be described as 'right wing'.He considers that the ecology movement is a counter to that. Obviously, the funding of research in a particular direction will be governed by vested interests whether from the 'left' or 'right'.

The right just invents their own science. But the left misinterprets science. So they both fail.

I think the question needed rewording. I'm not saying that the left is anti-science, but I'm actually promoting the left.
The essence of the question is addressing whether the right creates the laws of physics.

I imagine the Laws of Physics existed before Homo Sapiens first came on the scene 195,000 years ago, (or possibly more). So nobody created the Laws of Physics. Do you mean that the Right discovers the Laws of Physics?

No, but I accept the possibility that left and right have nothing to do with physics.

The 'laws of physics' are a human convention the applicability of which is confined to specific contexts and subject to paradigmatic limits.



In short 'the laws of physics' are about the interaction of humans with what it is useful for them to define as 'the world'.

...and what is 'useful' could sometimes be deemed a matter of 'politics'.

If the laws of physics didn't exist before humans, ( I assume you mean Homo Sapiens, who came into existence 195,000 years ago), then it seems to me you are saying the Moon didn't circle the Earth and the Earth didn't circle the Sun according to the present day laws of physics until 195,000 years ago. Do you believe that?

I suggest you think a bit more deeply about that word 'believe'.

The 'is-ness' or 'was-ness' of any picture we can conjure up in our minds in order to explain what our minds are comfortable with in terms of our current existence is 100% predicated on that current existence. Existence of anything is conjectured by what humans want to call "a thing". The fact that what I am comfortable with images of "things" we call "the earth" and "the moon", and the mathematical rules which predict and post-dict their behavior does not detract from my awareness that such rules have been and still are subject to modification, or that they may be irrelevant to other species who have no use for such 'things'. The brief history of what we call 'science' is littered with discarded 'things' (the humours, phlogisten, etc) which once had a prominent role in our understanding of the world. Even the concept of time has undergone shifts in interpretation by humans such that ideas of 'before' and 'after' are no longer as clear cut as they once appeared. So the very concept of 'the world before humans' is a construction made by current humans on simplistic assumptions about the nature of 'time'...such assumptions being further functuional constructions ...'and that is all 'facts' amount to.....functional constructions. (FACT from the Latin facere - to make or construct)

The politics comes in with respect the negotiation of such functionality. You only need to think about Galileo and the then Pope as an example of that. The Nazis and eugenics is a more recent illustration.

Yes. Well. The laws of physics, however imperfectly we understand them now, or were unaware of them previously, still governed the movement of the Moon around the Earth, and of the Earth around the Sun.

Think a bit deeper ! Nothing is governing anything unless you want to bring 'a deity' into the picture. What we call 'physical laws' are consistencies with respect to prediction limited in their application.(Einstein's limitation of Newton is an example of that, and we might note that the original rejection of relativity by the Nazi's is relevant to this thread). But most importantly, The very concept of 'causality' has no satisfactory meaning in either philosophy or physics.
By the way, regarding the motion of the moon and earth, which 'law' do you favor ? ....Newton's 'Law of Gravitation' or Einstein's 'Space is Curved' ?

Whatever mathematical relationships which predict the movement of the Moon around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun, whether it was the relationships originally discovered by Newton, modified by Einstein, and possibly modified by somebody in the future, were in effect before the Homo Sapiens came into existence.