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."
...in .pdf format is here if you don't want to hassle with the Flash presentation.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Why the hell did they need to make this into Flash? There are no animations, no images, just hyperlinked text which is rendered too small... or not at all at first actually, as I normally use Firefox with adblocker.
With regards to the questions, wouldn't it have been more fun if they had asked B and K unprepared questions on science directly in person, without any speechwriters to hide behind?
"The HIV virus is a retrovirus. Can either of you tell us what that means?"
"Give us the strongest arguments pro and con for the existance of man-made global warming."
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
I really hope you guys elect Dubya again. We in Europe need all the help we can get competing in science, so Bush is our man.
Oh no... it's the future.
I was amused that most of Kerry's responses mentioned John Edwards, but Cheney is not mentioned ONCE in Bush's answers. I suppose that makes sense for the questions about energy policy...
Its clear that the candidates don't ever plan on using these responses verbally. I'd love to see W try and pronounce "carbon sequestration". (In the Bush response to question #12.)
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
It should be noted that the current ban on stem-cell research actually only prevents funding research on the topic. Has anybody else seen that piece on 60 Minutes about the Howard Hughes research center that has been able to research it anyway because of its massive private funding?
That said, I'm still against the blocking of research funds. More eyes can be useful on this subejct, obviously.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...
It already has. One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."
an ill wind that blows no good
In fact, why not expand this to other issues? Why not require an on-the-spot literacy and basic knowledge test? I think that this would be a great idea, no leader left behind, and all. I may sound snarky, but i mean it. I'd love to see them have to answer some basic stuff. Things they really ought to know if they've got their hands on the purse strings and their finger on the button...
1. Which country does the US currently owe the most money to?
2. How much is one trillion, in millions?
(If you can't answer this, i don't want you spending my taxes. The English answer is often different from the American answer, too.)
3.a. What's the basic standard treatment for radiation sickness?
3.b. How thick should the walls of a fallout shelter be?
***
What else should be on the test?
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that science can replace religion. The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.
Only if you have to take the Bible literally. For example the Roman Catholic church reformed in the 60's to become much more liberal by normal Christian attitudes. Basically they say that if the Bible says "the Earth is flat" and then someone proves that it isn't, then the Bible was wrong. That's ok because it doesn't have to be taken for literal truth, or maybe someone messed up copying things along the way, or whatever. I have a fundamentalist geologist friend and he said "due to the abundance of evidence I can only say that the Earth is several billion years old." (I forget if it is billion or billions, sorry). Some religions and people are anti-science. But don't assume that Christians are all as shallow as you make them out to be. To semi-quote Neil Stephenson in Snowcrash - "Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Talking to oneself ain't good, but so is the lack of line breaks...
On ITER:
Question6, Bush: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"
July 13th 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham [energy.gov]: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"
Firstly, ITER as a source of hydrogen? I know ITER might spur the hydrogen producers, but then could this equally say ITER would be a source of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium (heavy-heavy hydrogen). Huh?
Secondly, are these the words of our much loved Mr. Bush or did he just copy and paste some of Spencer Abraham's memos? This looks more like a 'whole party' thing.
Not so. I am Catholic, and fairly well-versed on apologetics.
Vatican II changed nothing of the faith. It was a pastoral council that changed only the expression of liturgy and language used to make the Faith more understandable to the modern world. Nothing of the faith changed.
The Church has always realized that Sacred Scripture is not a science textbook. The Bible is the story of how God relates to man and man's response. Many literary devices are used that seem to be non-sensical in modern English, but are in harmony and make perfect sense when you understand Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek prophetic language.
A perfect example is the whole "Left Behind" group nowadays which states that Christ will come not two times but three. (When He comes back the second, He will only be "in the clouds", so that's not a "real" coming back). What they neglect to notice is that the phraseology of "coming on clouds" in the Bible represents God's judgement. Ergo, when Christ comes back the second time it will be as Judge.
Many things in scripture use Hebrew prophetic language, and you have to understand the culture to understand the message. The Bible was not written outside of its culture as a message only for those 2,000 - 6,000 years later. It had relevance to the people each part was written to at the time, and you have to know the background to get a true sense of what Scripture is saying.
If you are really interested in this, check out a book entitled "Making Sense Out Of Scripture" by Mark Shea.
SYS 64738
I think you've got a good point here, but that you're being unnecessarily confrontational and that your point risks being lost in that.
Allow me to paraphrase:
Religion and Science are mutually exclusive because Science is built around the Scientific Process. Through this process of hypothesis and conclusion a theory can be disproved and shown to be wrong. Observable evidence from the physical world can be applied to a conjecture about the physical world and can be used to show that conjecture as true or false.
Religion does not have what are called "falsifiable" hypotheses. In other words, Religion puts forth explanations for which no evidence can be collected.
A Scientific Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because of a force called gravity which acts on all things."
A Religious Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because the Gods want it to and they reach out and pull it to the floor."
I can collect evidence for or against the Gravity hypothesis. We can argue over it and come to a meaningful conclusion. The Gods hypothesis is unfalsifiable because no matter what evidence I bring to the table you can say "The Gods didn't want your ball to fall" and that's the end of the discussion.
As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.
That's a bit misleading. It's not that Science doesn't have room for morality; it's that Science doesn't address the issue. I'm sure that somewhere someone has compiled a sociological study of what behaviors are required of the individual in a utopian society. These could be considered a scientific moral code if you wanted to think of them that way. Religion fuses moral judgments with an attempt to explain the world. These are better separated. If you have thoughts on how a person should treat another person or thing, those thoughts are your own. There is nothing unscientific about your willingness to live by those beliefs or to encourage others to live by them. We can even scientifically demonstrate which beliefs make the people around you happy and angry and by extension which are more suited to the social community we live in (a Scientific pursuit). What we can't do is say that behavior X is desirable because a deity requires it. Morality is about how you interact with yourself and your world. If you don't want to eat pork, fine, don't eat pork. Don't tell me it's because God doesn't like pork though. Even God's gotta have a reason not to like bacon.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
I have been paying close attention to science policy since the Nixon years. Every administration, Republican and Democrat has had serious problems with its science policy, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of many of us old enough to have been there, there has never been an adminstration where Science was so badly distorted for ideological reasons. From climate change to missile defense to abortion to environmental toxins to the teaching of evolution, the Bush administration has made science subordinate to its ideological positions.
As others in this thread have noted, the actual printed responses in the Nature article are mostly unhelpful canned PR blurbs (and it is a scary sign of ideological polarization to see Nature, the world's most prestigious general scientific journal, described as "far left"), but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this is not just politics as usual. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who are friends of good science, but there is nothing conservative about the Bush administration in this regard: they are radicals, in favor of science only when it supports their ideology.
This is terribly dangerous. To paraphrase the great physicist, Richard Feynman, (whom I first heard make statements like this when I was a student at Caltech): For any technological society to succeed, sound science must take precendence over ideological conviction, because nature cannot be fooled. In my opinion, the Bush administration's failure to understand this concept presents a grave danger to our country and to the world.
I had posted this in a previous story. This newer story seems to be more "on topic". This expresses the sad state of democracy these days.
---
Since I recently moved, I tried re-registering to vote in the new district. My wife (hardcore Republican) said not to bother because I usually side on the independent and I would be "wasting my vote". Funny thing, when I pass by the political party tents at the local Fair, they all ask if I'm registered to vote. I say, "No". I let them speak their piece about registering to vote, and I'm usually ready to fill out the paperwork they provide as a convienience. When I mention the fact that people tell me I'd be wasting my vote because I side with Independents, they get all quiet and move on to the next person. I guess their mottos are, "Please support Democracy and register to vote (as long as you vote for us)"
Every time that happens, I see why I side with the independents.
It behooves us to stay ahead of the curve.
Well, the point is that our nuclear weapons are pretty "good". We can, quite easily, use them to nuke cities or islands full of civilians if we so desire.
What do you want to do? Nuke them harder?
Tactical weapons research...taking out military targets. That's worth researching. It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.
But I don't see any advantages in having nuclear weapons more devasting than what we already have.
Well, maybe for attacking space aliens or something.
I believe I speak for many of us when I say that we like to read stuff that doesn't agree with our political viewpoint as long as it is well reasoned and doesn't claim to be the absolute truth but acknowledges that it's only an opinion.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
And even though the tax rate is lower the exponential increase in the amount of capital moved more than makes up for the reducion in the tax rate. And as such the income of the government increases.
And thus the increases in federal income tax revenue that happened in the 80's under Reagan and the 00's under Bush. Except that neither happened--tax rates were lowered, and tax revenues--surprise!--lowered also. Read about it at Wikipedia.
There are some arguments for supply-side economics, but no (or incredibly few) serious economists believe that reducing marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. It might reduce tax revenue less than one would expect, but it doesn't increase revenue.
From both candidates, I want to get solid answers to the following questions, among others:
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I do hear it in the popular media, and the implication is there in many campaign speeches (not pointing at Kerry). The biggest talk, though, is from Joe Schmukatelli. A large number of people have the impression that this stuff would be a cure-all if only Bush would let scientists work on it, and this is simply not true. It's not even true that the research isn't done. The guys across the hall that I mentioned have literally ten times the money we have. And we're a very well-funded lab.
Maybe I hear more because people around me know I'm in the field, so perhaps my experience is skewed. But I do get that exact impression (ES==Fountain of Youth) from the general populace.
The problem is not that scientists are overblowing their claims. The problem is that when newspapers & TV report on research, they leave out a lot of the qualifiers that we throw in. It's a problem that we have had in science for a long, long time. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just that reporters use hyperbole a bit too much in order to make the story more interesting. And this gives the wrong impression.
Very few people listen to scientists, most listen to journalists. Very few people read JBC, or even know what it is. Some people at least know what Cell is, more have perhaps read a Xeroxed commentary article from Nature. Most people don't even get their science from Scientific American or even Popular Science. They get it from the WSJ, the NYT and the local news. And I have not yet seen a report in the popular media that doesn't blow discoveries way out of proportion.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.