Slashdot Mirror
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."
It'll never happen as long as the religious anti-any-science-that-my-holy-book-says-is-wrong crowd continues to hold any real weight in American politics.
Care about privacy? Read this!
There are some things you SHOULD delegate.
Science is either settled or debated.
Settled science is just memorization. Debated science is pretty much already publicized.
What I would like is for someone to say "The White House will no longer rewrite scientific reports made by agencies. If we believe something should not be 'promoted', we will move it to an appendix instead of removing it entirely."
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
That'd be cool with me. Let's make the reporters asking do the same. They're just as culpable for the shallow and sensationalist charades that that compose the election cycle. Actually, more so, since they hold themselves up as the self-appointed watchdogs.
You get the candidates you deserve. The voters and the media have made it impossible for candidates for major office (who are almost by definition smart, personable people) to do anything but recite polished talking points.
C'mon, do you think if any candidate stumbled on the tiniest fact, or said something that could be taken out of context to sound silly, the loudmouths here would ever let it slide? Go ask poor Ted Stevens about why it's 1337 to refer to Internet connections as "pipes" but you're a retard if you say "tubes"...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Think of this from a politician's perspective. This type of debate could really hurt them if they answer poorly, but it probably wouldn't help them at all with the vast majority of the population if they did well. So why would they agree to participate?
There are all sorts of great ideas for debates (including an actual debate instead of the charade debates we have now), that will never happen for the same reason. People, and the media, aren't willing to hold candidates accountable for refusing to hold a real debate, so it doesn't happen.
Exactly. If you want them to answer questions on science, DO prepare them with a list of topics ahead of time. At least that way you'll know when the question is asked who did their homework and developed an opinion, and who didn't. Their ability to develop an opinion on a topic is very important, as THAT is what they'll be doing as President.
Sure, it is nice to know a President's stance on Stem Cell Research and the accelerating rate at which National Science Foundation budgets are being cut...
But equally important would be having a president who understands basic internet technology and whether they have intelligent opinions regarding the regulation thereof. It seems like there are a shortage of ladies and gentlemen in Washington who understand the latest technology. This would be helpful in Congress, too... because the aging Senators don't seem to be able to keep up with the time and young "with it" 20-30 year old candidates would help with adding much needed diversity in that branch of government.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
This has all the makings of a bad idea.
If done straight up in a science only, non-political debate, it would be an hour of 'uhh, I don't know's. With only a touch of bias it would quickly turn into a series of loaded questions (Science X will destroy the world and kill babies, do you support Science X?). At best you'll get the candidates up the talking about the importance of science, technology and invention in the US and how they'll pledge to fund it. Which is great and all, but they'll all just sit there agreeing that science is good and should get funded.
So what's the point?
If you give them a list of topics in advance, and change the questions to a political nature, ie: Topic X, how do you feel X is going to effect the environment, and with that concern how do you intend to minimize/maximize it's effect on the economy and working class?
THAT would be a bunch of questions worth listening to answers from a would-be president.
Unfortunately, it would take a huge amount of the candidate's time to stage such an event, and to be honest, they'll get more votes shaking hands and giving passionate speeches on the steps of some historic land mark while preaching to the choir about security, war, and money.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The idiocy of the American public is the other half of the problem. The creationists deserve nothing more than unending ridicule and ostracism.
Shit, if it wasn't for the racial history, a simple test to see whether or not your vote would count would be a great benefit to this country. They wouldn't even have to be hard questions, just things like "does America have an official language", "does America have an official religion", and so on.
Care about privacy? Read this!
The author pretends to want a debate, but then goes on to claim evolution as a fact, ridiculing those candidates who believe otherwise including the current president of the US of A.
DOn't get me wrong, I think bush is a looney and that evolution is self-evident HOWEVER if you already go into it with an opionin that evolution is true AND global warming (and related stuff) is true, then what is left to debate?
It is an intresting idea, but sadly it won't happen.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
it is ironic really. the scientifically inclined poopooing the president's lack of knowledge on science... thereby revealing their own profound ignorance about what government and politics is all about
there's a tendency amongst the politically ignorant that every problem in the world, every pot hole, heart attack, lost job, lost football game, barking dog, homeless drug addict, etc., is the fault of the guy at the very top: "the president should be deeply involved in what matters to me, me, me" pffft
1. as if he knows
2. as if he cares
3. as if he should care
the point of government and real leadership is to delegate responsibility: the local public works department of your local city are the people to go to, not the president of the united states
the exact same logic applies with science. the president doesn't need to know ANY science
in fact, if the president were really into science, i'd be worried: he has better things to spend his time with. he should delegate the scientific inquiries to subordinates and departments. with all of the problems in the world, you really want our president spending hours exercising his mind on the homeobox gene or the source of cosmic rays?
i for one don't
seriously, this debate is a really stupid idea
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, locking people out of the voting process because they fall below some standard you set makes for a great defence of democracy. Whatever happened to the Slashdot support for the American ideal that all men are endowed with inalienable rights regardless of what some elite says?
Are we all in a fantasy world or what? Why even think about political candidates who have campaigns to run 18 hours a day, seven days a week cramming physics and chemistry for the benefit of slashdot readers and our like-minded friends?
Seriously, there's a fantasy world aspect to this where "our" people are dreamily off in science debate land when there are real issues to engage with.
These people are actively trying to destroy the separation of church and state. A simple test to see if people actually know the rules of the constitution would go a long way to ensuring that people stop getting elected on unconstitutional principles.
Care about privacy? Read this!
Good thing it wasn't muslims you were making fun of, because that would have proved you were a Republican. From your choice of jokes it is rather obvious you are a Democrat.
Ah, so the right to self-governance only extends to people who agree with your principles, then. Excellent.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Actually I probably lean more towards Republican side of the fence if anything but religious/superstitious intervention in science is one of my pet peeves.
I don't give a rat's ass about democracy. I care about freedom. Democracy is merely a means to an end.
Care about privacy? Read this!
Sure, you've got an inalienable right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
I've never supported the right to vote among those, though.
If you move to the United States from another country, you have to pass a test before you can vote. Passing said test will put you far ahead of the average high school graduate in knowledge of American government and history. I've got no problem with requiring the same test even of those born here.
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
It'll never happen as long as the religious anti-any-science-that-my-holy-book-says-is-wrong crowd continues to hold any real weight in American politics.
And without that segment, what would there be to debate?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Sigh... what a waste
"
- The place of Evolution in public education
- The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths
- The impact and possible solutions to global warming
- The benefits and moral implications of stem cell research
- The importance of spending money on pure science
- The direction for institutions such as NASA
"
"The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths"... why restrict this to scientific truths? what about fiscal, legal, and ethical truths... #2 belongs in a general debate because if you'll lie about scientific data you'll lie about employment data *and* vice versa..
"The impact and possible solutions to global warming" this impacts Business, Environment, and even states rights and that is the aspect the is actually important to from the citizens perspective General debate
"The direction for institutions such as NASA" NASA also has other aspects to it other than scientific, this is again economic and the like
"Stem cell research" Science can be morally and ethically neutral, this issue can not as much as some want to separate this from the Abortion / Life debate it cant be done
Yore left with science funding and evolution in education (and even that has a serious states rights aspect to it)... You really want a debate focused on those two things?
Frankly I find issue centered debates to be a tad worthless its nice to make candidates say in the same debate 'Im going to do X and Y and Z' where the law of limited resources has some importance.
A science debate is a good idea, but it would never happen. Most of the candidates would say something like, "it would be like a debate on religion, or a litmus test for presidency." They would reject the debate on those grounds alone.
While I admire Chapman's request, it's impractical. Imagine a candidate being asked a biology question that an 8th grader would know, but not understanding some of the basic terminology. They would look foolish in front of millions of Americans. Could you or I remember all of our 8th grade biology? I think not. Therefore, no politician would agree to such a debate: it would only hurt them, not help them.
Plus, most Americans simply aren't concerned with science. National security and the economy are the pressing matters of the day.
Health Insurance Quotes
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
For the simple reason that in order to be wise you need not have been exposed to a particular doctrine.
Suppose, for instance, one had absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution, but was well versed in philosophy; Sartre and Kant and Plato and so on. One could recite the Magna Carta from memory (which, despite being foundational to the US Constitution you fail to mention). One was versed in economics and math and biology and psychology and some parts of history - saving anything U.S. related. Let us further suppose that one is even secular. Such a person could easily exist in today's world - it's unlikely in the U.S., but there are many well-developed countries in the world for which all of that could be true.
But what you're saying is that such a person is unfit to have a say in their government, if they happened to, of a sudden, be a citizen here. Simply because even though they may have been exposed to the principles of a document, they're not familiar with that document. And it's simply not true.
In the end, I think what counts is the desire to learn, and the passion to make a difference. If you're going to have a dividing line, it should be one based on service, which is quantifiable, not on merit, which is qualitative. But we live in a democracy, under common rules, because those rules affect us all. It is a very dubious moral prospect to suggest someone should be governed by laws they have no say in. If you're not familiar with that concept, one wonders if you're actually familiar with the basis of the US form of government.
[Ego]out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html
I wish I had mod points, mod parent up! I for one would love to live under your benevolent dictatorship. To clear up than any ambiguity over if this post is sarcasm, let me reiterate the point the parent was making, Democracy isn't a goal, it's a means to an end, and that's freedom. It's the best tool to ensure freedom that we have today but let's not forget that it's just a tool to achieve freedom, don't enshrine it, and don't right off the idea that there may be better ways of achieving a free society.
A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.
What does lying have to do with it?! If the review process is allowed to do its job and the competitive instinct between scientists are kept alive, lies are discovered. Of course, the conclusions drawn from findings in science is an human enterprise, but there are strict standards what are considered strong conclusions, standards developed over the last centuries of scientific discovery. The relativism from the USAian right about some of the main conclusions drawn from the different branches of science seems to have more to do with the liberal bias in the facts than the liberal bias in the scientists. (By the way, lying should not be the norm in politics either if the media does its job, but that is another sad story...)
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Clinton's Law: As any political thread grows longer, the probability that someone will invoke the "Some member of the other party did something similar at some time in the past; therefore it's OK when someone in our party does it now" defense approaches 1.
0 1 - just my two bits
...especially the ones given some super citizen privilege of carrying guns and having life and death ultimate state sponsored violence "rights". "A simple test to see if people actually know the rules of the constitution". Yes, indeed. Apply it to cops *first*, ie, "free speech zones", etc, then to soldiers with regards to illegal wars based on provable lies and "following orders".
I find it quite disturbing that the ones with flags sewn on their shirts and the most rah rah rah you must "support us for your freedom!!etc" stuff are the first ones to always seriously break their "oaths". They usually show little to no actual understanding of the Constitution, get it confused with just a job they do and following orders to protect the elite status quo folks and their even weirder policies. If you could get the cops and military to stop disobeying the Constitution, and to really respect their oaths instead of just parroting them, then the insane politician/dictators wouldn't be able to promote their weird agendas. You look around the world, tyrannical regimes exist because they give orders to willing order followers who are armed, and you got to know that they know they are being jerks. If it was just the pipsqueak tyrants, they would have no power, they would get carted off to the looney bin or to jail, but once the system gets corrupted so that all orders are followed without fail, too bad, you have now crossed the line into a police state. Some police states are, at this exact time, obviously worse than others, but that is the dividing line, and eventually they all become heinous, history is 100% accurate on that score. When the official armed guys follow all orders, or have the intelligence and guts to say "no" en masse or at least in majority numbers when what they are doing is obviously hurtful and/or illegal to the citizenry is the exact definitive point between functional and fair governments and police states.
Unfortunately, in the US, that line was crossed a long time ago, and it is getting worse daily, and it certainly doesn't look like too many of them care one bit, that check and pension is just too important.
You realize that these were exactly the arguments made in favor of the Jim Crow laws regarding voting in the south after the Civil War, right? The laws that were written to ensure "voter competance" but were really designed just to exclude a whole class (and at that time, race) of people?
Voter disenfranchisement mean anything to you?
This time around are you going to write some grandfather clause to make sure you don't have to take the test, too?
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
Probably not a US citizen - He/she knows too much science and uses grammatically correct English.
All laws will only apply to particular groups of people. 'Criminals and such are fair game [to discriminating laws]' - criminals are defined by law so that argument becomes circular. Vehicle speed limit laws will only affect speeders. Homicide laws only affect murders. 'You must be Christian' laws only affect non-christians etc, smoking laws (as in ireland and the UK) only affect smokers, etc.
Democracy as we know is simply a horribly crude majority rule. Democracy has to have conservative mechanisms to protect the rights of minorities.
[1] It's really not 'obvious' he's a Democrat. The only thing that's really obvious is that he's not a Christian extremist (the 'Jesus trumps everything crowd' as opposed to merely being a Christian). If being against Christian extremism is the same thing as being a Democrat, then that speaks highly of the Democratic party. However, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who are just as annoyed that Christian extremism has such strong control over their party.
It could entail a little stage magic by dropping a wine-soaked piece of bread into a metal pitcher demonstrated to contain water while nobody's watching. Keep anyone from finding the bread, and you've got yourself some weak wine.
There have also been buried alive tricks and euphoria-based faith healings that last long enough for the healer to leave town.
Note: Baptist ministers don't like statements like that, in my experience.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
what would be good is if each municipality in the States, elsewhere too of course, would form a committee to evaluate their ecological/carbon/other footprint, like do we need to leave the lights on at city hall for 24 hrs per day or how much petroleum do we use collecting garbage and so on. this presidential debate sounds nice but the result will be some sort of binary pissing match of tastes great versus less filling. all politics is local and so is biology.