Call for a Presidential Debate on Science

Writer Matthew Chapman recently wrote a piece for the Washington Post calling for a science-only Presidential debate. While I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the candidates to embrace such a potentially difficult series of questions, a bit more emphasis on modern science and technology certainly couldn't hurt. "None of the candidates should know in advance what questions they might face. Not knowing the questions in advance would force them to study as much science as possible, and this in itself would be a marvelous thing. However, a statement would be read at the start stating that no one expects politicians to understand every aspect of the many scientific disciplines. The debate's tone would try not to be adversarial, but cordial and educational. It could even be fun."

Comments

Re:Here's an idea

[Convector]

A temperature of around 10^8 K should suffice, such that the hydrogen not only fuses into helium, but the triple-alpha process becomes efficient, fusing helium into carbon. The oxygen is largely irrelevant, unless T approaches ~10^9 K, when the C-N-O cycle can happen. The pressures are not so important as the relative abundance of He to H which determines whether triple-alpha takes place. Stars much smaller than the Sun are unlikely to undergo He burning, so a pressure of at least 10^15 dyne cm^-2 is recommended. Vote Robot Nixon!

Yes, and no

[Nexus7]

Maybe sooner (than pigs will fly), because the candidates are already being asked questions that need scientific knowledge, such as global warming, or analytical skills, such as terrorism. But I don't know if anything useful can be determined from their answers, because the answers are about attracting voters, not about showing knowledge or grasp. Consider the following answer from Mike Huckabee...

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Re:Can't happen...

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

I can't speak for anyone but me, but if Stevens had simply referred to "tubes", I would have let it slide. Referring to "tubes" is simply a shorthand to the whole dumbassed speech, which included him "getting an internet from an aide". An "internet" that didn't reach him for days, because the "tubes were clogged up".

Thanks for the list

[michaelmalak]

I think you know everything I'm going to say, and after reading your post I think your dislike of Ron Paul stems from his pro-life stance, and as you know the issue of when life and civil rights begin is intensely held differently by different people, but here goes anyway:

Taxes

The option to tax is not the requirement to tax. The income tax was temporary on the wealthiest 5% to pay for WWI, the entry into which by the U.S. has parallels to the unethical invasion of Iraq. Repealing the income tax would just put the U.S. back to between the founding of the Constitution and WWI.

Congress taking abortion out of the Supreme Court

Ron Paul explains the Constitutional basis directly in the bill:

(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make "such exceptions, and under such regulations" as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

where the Constitution says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The balance of power between the Legislative and Judicial branches has been debated since the founding of the country, but according to the wording of the Constitution too much power has been afforded to the Supreme Court for most of the country's existence.

Health Care

There is no need for this to be handled at the federal level -- states can handle it just fine.

Global warming

I personally would stretch the commerce clause to cover the environment since air and water do not know state boundaries, but I can go with Ron Paul's approach of first having the federal government "do no harm", such as by eliminating corporate welfare to big oil. Boulder is suing the federal government over global warming due to its OPIC and Imp-Ex agencies, which do things like pay for oil pipelines in third world countries under the premise of providing economic development to the countries. Ron Paul has long stated he would like to eliminate OPIC and ImpEx.

Income disparity

Going on a gold standard, as Ron Paul advocates, would eliminate the hidden tax of inflation. As I've mentioned here before, I make 4x now as a seasoned professional than I did 20 years ago when I just graduated. Yet when using CPI computed according to pre-Greenspan formulas, it's 8% per year and I make less now than I did 20 years ago. Under a gold standard, wages would not automatically fall every year, and things like the minimum wage (which BTW should be at the state and local level, not the federal level) would not lag behind real prices.

In short

Ron Paul is for personal liberty, including the Iraqis and the pre-born. He does not believe liberty should be extended to illegal immigrants, but would like to expand legal immigration somewhat once the incentives for illegal immigration are removed: welfare, education, healthcare, and birthright citizenship.