Slashdot Mirror
Bush vs. Kerry on Science
chrisspurgeon writes "The science journal Nature put 15 questions to Senator Kerry and President Bush. Read the candidates' responses on topics such as stem cell research, greenhouse emissions, and manned spaceflight to Mars."
Climate change
Throughout his time in office, President George Bush has been slammed by environmentalists for avoiding steps to reduce global warming. Climate experts recommend cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions - and John Kerry pledges to take a greener stance.
Yucca Mountain
Twenty years ago an act of Congress put forward Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for the nation's nuclear waste - but fierce disputes over whether the site might leak radioactive material have held up its construction ever since. Now the mountain, in the political swing state of Nevada, has emerged as a hot campaign issue in the US presidential race, and both candidates claim that sound science is on their side
Stem cells
Before President George W. Bush arrived in the Oval Office, most Americans had never heard of a stem cell - a microscopic biological entity that can transform into hair, muscle or other human cell types. But four years on, the issue has escalated into a divisive one in US politics, and looks set to attract continued attention in the forthcoming election.
Manipulation of science
George Bush's presidency has suffered a rash of accusations that he is either ignoring or manipulating science. Democratic rival John Kerry, meanwhile, pledges to follow impartial scientific advice - but observers say that they are yet to be persuaded.
Nuclear weapons research
Late in 2002, the Bush administration proposed controversial plans to begin work on new designs for nuclear weapons. The idea has prompted fierce scientific and political opposition ever since.
The fact that you missed in the funding ban is that if a research lab pursues embryonic stem cell research, they will lose ALL of their funding in ALL of their areas of research. The Bush administration has made it clear that they do not want to be tie to this in any way. Nearly every major research firm in America recieves federal funds to aid their research in one fashion or another. They are not going to pursue private funding for research in this area and risk losing all of their funding in others. It is a scare tactic used by the government to stop the research and it works pretty effectively.
Or, if you prefer plain HTML and JPEGs, the BBC has a summary of the major and more contentious issues here.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
On most of the questions the responses from the candidates were equally uninformative. Overall I was impressed with the use of actual figures and specific plans in the Bush responses, versus the vague generalizations and even clearly ambiguous answers on questions like Mars and ballistic missile defenses that Kerry gave.
For the slightly interesting questions, here is the summary of responses(I am sure that Bush did not write his responses personally; for Kerry I am unsure, but I suspect that he didn't either):
Stem cell research: Bush quotes amounts of federal money given for stem cell research, whereas Kerry promises to allow federal funding of stem cell research on new lines. Scientists interested in stem cell research will all prefer Kerry's response.
Nuclear weapons: Bush promises to fund development of new types of nuclear weapons, Kerry promises not to.
Ballistic missile defense: Bush promises to deploy a system within the next two years, Kerry promises not to deploy the system Bush proposes for immediate deployment. No word on whether Kerry plans to continue funding research or eventually deploy a different system.
Greenhouse gas emmisions: Bush quotes previously announced goal of 18% reduction in US greenhouse gas emissions. Kerry promises to join Kyoto protocol.
Space science: Bush quotes Mars mission plan. Kerry promises that NASA will be given sufficient support for any future missions he proposes. No mention of any planned mission proposals, and it implies that he will can the Mars mission plan, although it doesn't say that explicitly.
The Bible is not self-consistent. The Bible makes claims that contradict observable phenomenon. The Christian faith requires people to make assumptions against available evidence. The Bible is inherently anti-science.
Christians read the Bible as if it came from a teacher, not as a textbook. As a result, Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative, and which ones are meant to instruct philosophically or morally or theologically.
For example, no Christian reads the Hebrew Proverbs as if each one of the proverbs is always true in all circumstances, in all possible ways. Proverbs is a book of proverbial wisdom, that is, a book of instruction in how to live wisely. In general, following the proverbial wisdom will lead to a more prosperous life than living otherwise, and people understand that. The Gospel of Mark, however, is understood by all Christians to be a historical narrative. The book is clearly intended to be read that way, as it refers to specific people in specific places, many of which are historically verifiable. The book of Revelation, obviously, doesn't work quite that way.
The most-debated books with regard to historical narrativity are the first few chapters of Genesis, Job, Esther, and John. The rest are understood to be historical narrative. Whether or not you agree that it is true historical narrative, it is obvious that certain books are intended to be read that way (1/2 Kings, Exodus, Ruth, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts), and others not (Isaiah, Romans, Revelation, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon).
Despite your previous comments, the Old and New Testament Scriptures have shown themselves to be reliable in the vast majority of archaeological findings. Don't trust my judgment -- take a look at the Biblical Archaeology Society, hardly a bastion of evangelical fervor.
Jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Perhaps not coincidentally, the French also were involved in Vietnam, as its colonial power. Will John Kerry's nefarious weak-kneed continental foppishness never cease to disgust red-blooded Americans?
The "Wait a minute, don't you think he looks kind of... French...?" moment may have been as low a moment for the American electoral process as Karl Rove's South Carolina push polls implying John McCain had sired a mixed-race child out of wedlock. Hear all about it from McCain's own campaign people.
Not that the "Frenchie" thing was near as disturbing, as a tactic -- it didn't smack so outrageously of the most extreme possible "Southern Strategy." But it was if anything even more puerile, which has got to be a record.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
It is confusing, isn't it? Basically, only in a clean-room hypothetical, would 90% of voters choose a third party. In the real world, third party candidates either don't get very much media attention for potential voters to care or are considered a bit too extreme.
The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush. So, by voting for a third-party, you're effectively taking a vote away from Kerry.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Given how GWB has managed to turn a decent budget surplus into a record-breaking deficit in just four years, I'd say he knows how to spend as well.
A good starting point, in my opinion, is to read the opinion mags. The New Republic is a leading left-of-center opinion magazine. National Review is indispensible for those of us on the right. The Wall Street Journal provides the most insightful coverage of the major papers that I have seen, although they are obviously pro-capitalism and are therefore accused of being right-of-center. They require a subscription to read online, but I enjoy reading their editorial pages, which are free, and love their Best of the Web Today feature.
Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.
If you want insight into the candidate's views on science, you should look into views on basic issues, like Evolution.
Bush has made several comments supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools. But, given the radical religious beliefs permeating his administration, this is not really surprising.
Let me point out some fallacies I see being repeated over and over again throughout the threads on this topic:
Fallacy - The set of people who are scientists does not intersect the set of people who are Christians.
Fact - Many scientists are also Christians, including myself.
Fallacy - Bush does not allow stem cell research.
Fact - Bush does not support fetal stem cell research with my personal tax dollars. Dollars for stem cell research are still being spent by our government, and private institutions can perform their own embryonic stem cell research if they so choose. You can even donate your own personal money to support embryonic stem cell research.
That is all for now, thank you.
Dude, The New Republic is full of neo-conservatives and hardly qualifies as liberal. You want left/center-left, read The Nation or Dissent, or go to the Center for American Progress.
I'm more interested on why people assume that it has to be creationism OR evolution.
There's no such thing as "creationism" in science. Science is merely an epistomology that stresses experimentation, prediction, data gathering, and objective analysis. The fundamentals of science is simply this: an hypothesis must be falsifiable, or it is merely conjecture and flights of fancy.
I can assert there are invisible pink unicorns all around us, helping us every day. There are only two way to prove this assertion: present all these pink unicorns, or create an experiment that tests for the *nonexistence* of pink unicorns, and have that experiment present negative results. (That's a double-negative, which is a positive. Don't do that in English.)
Also, the ideal scientist will not set out to "prove" or "disprove" an hypothesis. They set out in search of the truth of the matter. An hypothesis is merely one step on the way to that truth, and they set out to test that hypothesis. As soon as they attempt to "prove" a particular hypothesis, their interpretation of the data becomes biased and skewed. (For example, check out Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.)
Evolution is a theory, yes; but in science, "theory" is a class of hypothesis that have passed experimentation. This means it has been backed up by evidence, not by personal belief or the assertions of ancient documents of questionable literal veracity. The basics of evolution by natural selection (generally what people mean when they talk about "evolution") have passed all tests so far. Since we can't easily directly test natural selection, these tests are mostly comprised of tests of the predictions and necessities of natural selection, such as the genetic relationships among species, or the filling-in of the fossil record.
The problem isn't a personal belief in creationism, or a higher being. (To have a creation, you must have a creator.) That is a very personal choice, and since there is no known way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, there is no way to prove or disprove creationism. And in this, I respect whichever side you choose.
However, to teach something that doesn't even rate the label of "hypothesis" as a competing theory to evolution is to ignore the fundamental philosophy of science: the doctrine of testability. This is why the proposition of teaching creationism in a science class is absurd.
Doing so would be a disservice to our children, our society, and our future.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The fact that you consider the New Republic left-of-center speaks volumes about your politics. Most Democrats (rank-and-filers, not idiot DNC consultants) can't stand TNR's foreign policy.
Conservatives: please do not take the New Republic as representative of left-of-center views. It is not.
For your left wing fix, consider Counterpunch. For something moderate, take a look at The Nation or the columnists for Salon.
PS Any slashdot story that includes the word "Bush" (notwithstanding those discussing plantlife) is flamebait and should probably go on flamebait central.
Here's a brief synopsis of Kerry's Senate accomplishments:
Instrumental in passing most recent minimum wage increase; introduced bill to significantly increase commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS; passed law addressing nurse shortage; expanded early childhood development efforts; introduced plan that expanded children's health insurance coverage; stood with consumers against big banks on the bankruptcy bill and led and won the fight to pass the anti-money laundering act to stop terrorist and drug financing; secured assistance for families of Agent Orange; and led inquiry into savings and loan cleanup.
To keep things fair and balanced, here's a view from a Kerry-Edwards site, and one from Fox News.