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."
How about instead.
Which is better for science:
1: Publicly funded science where scientists are encouraged to seek grant funding from the state.
2: Privately funded science where Universities would be encouraged to fund research through licensing.
Then answer the same question with respect to society.
Deleted
My understanding is that Einstein was actually offered the presidency of Israel. http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishleaders/a/aeinstein.htm
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."
That's crazy talk. The only thing about science that is apolitical is a repeatable result of a given experimental condition. Everything else, from conclusions, interpretations, recommended course of action is political, and can certainly be edited by the White House, no matter who is elected.
What, do you think scientists don't lie?
This is my sig.
What's needed is a rule like the one the US Army has: If your superior rewrites your report, you have the right to attach a copy of the original when the report goes up to a higher command. This discourages internal coverups.
(External coverups are another matter, but the Army tries reasonably hard to insure that bad news makes it to higher commanders. Historically, when it doesn't, battles are lost.)
Why is a discussion about a scientific debate under the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post?
It sounds like a "science-only Presidential debate" is code for "asking the Presidential candidates whether or not they accept the Theory of Evolution."
For instance, some questions could be asked on subjects like...
- 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 basic problem would be that the Rebublican candidates would never want to try to compete in a debate like this. It practically seems like a matter of party idealogy to ignore science, and respond with appealing to the public's feelings, or religious alternatives, rather than admitting the value of science, and the facts it delivers to us. When it comes to global warming, evolution, and stem cell research-- the biggest science-related issues up for discussion this cycle-- the Democrats clearly side with the science.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
You can debate theory. You can debate the impact and correlation of facts, but facts are facts and should not be "debated."
The current U.S. administration has been very effective at creating FUD around fact. Facts are those things that have been documented as 100% true. (not "truth" which is, of course different)
Once you allow "facts" to be debated, you allow any discussion of the result of those facts to be derailed. Any discussion then focuses on whether or not the "facts" are true. So the standard M.O. the last 7 years is to question the validity of facts, stall any discussion of the facts because there is question about the fact, and then politicize and censure scientists based on the FUD about the facts.
Debate science? no thanks. Take a science quiz/test, sure. We already have these idiots debating science, I'd like to see some measure of their understanding of science.
Politicians have gotten scientific about saying they are steadfastly for or opposed to an idea because that sells, but votes are about making compromises. And in a complicated bill with multiple topics, the reasons for the compromises are lost, so there's always something to cling to in explaining why you're for X but voted against it, since there's always a Y that was in the bill that you said you opposed.
The problem is that politicians have caught onto, but journalists have not, the notion that they can arrange questions to be "are you in favor" or "are you against", but no real world question is of this form. So there is no relationship between what they say and what they do. The real world presents choices between multiple things you want but cannot have all at the same time. The real world puts penalties on getting the things you want.
A single-issue debate will never do it. Let's see an Socratic inquiry. Each politician locked in a separate room, with a Faraday cage to prevent transmitting data, and asked the same questions at the same time, unable to know what others are answering. A fixed set of questions. As much time as they need to answer them all. Then we can play the results for people to compare. Let's ask them if they had to choose between health care and saving the environment because we just didn't have the money, which would they think was more critical? Ask them if we had to choose between letting terrorists into the country and investing in education, where would they think the money best spent?
If you're going to talk science exclusively, let's make sure to talk science policy and philosophy, not just science fact. Presidents aren't scientists, but they need to be good managers who will create sound policy capable of representing us without saying "gee, you elected me, but I delegated it and have no responsibility."
Here's an example question: "You're the president. A recent report suggests that the environment is going down the tubes in ten years unless we stop using fossil fuels altogether. How would you verify the truth of this claim? What would be the next step in determining policy? Would you make this policy or would you delegate it? How would you decide who you could delegate it to? Would you inform the American people that it worried you and why or why not?" Now the reverse, "You're the president. You've been telling people not to use fossil fuels at all, but a recent report says that's hogwash." Same set of questions: "How would you verify the truth of that? What would be the next step in determining policy? Would you make this policy or inform the American people that it worried you and why or why not?"
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Let's have the candidates debate the freakin CONSTITUTION. You know... that withered old piece of paper they're sworn to defend?
Sadly, only one candidate knows anything about the subject.
"What I would like is for someone to say "The White House no longer has the power or authority to rewrite scientific reports made by agencies." "
Absolutely. "Only Congress should have the power or authority to rewrite scientific reports made by agencies."
Oh, wait a minute.
"Only the Courts should have the power or authority to rewrite scientific reports made by agencies."
No, that's not right...
"Scientific agencies should be free from all oversight."
What the fuck am I saying?!
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Federal support for basic research, in the form of the NSF (National Science Foundation), NIH (National Institutes of Health) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has helped (along with private industry, which capitalizes on these advances) to make the United States the world leader in scientific research, and I would argue that this has been critical to the economic and military strength of the U.S. over the past fifty years. It was DARPA, a federal agency, that came up with the Internet after all.
But the Bush Administration does not appreciate the importance of science to the continued success of the nation. The current administration has cut the budgets for the NSF and NIH and pushed DARPA away from its basic research mission, even as they spend tens of billions on foolish schemes like missile defense and invading Iraq. And they refuse to listen to science when it doesn't agree with their agendas on issues like climate change or sex education. They're killing the goose that lays the golden egg, refusing to fund the basic research that helps make the country a success while wasting tens of billions of dollars on missile defense, the Iraq war, and tax cuts for people who make $200,000 a year or more. Meanwhile, China has massively expanded its spending on universities and research.
I've talked to one scientist who has expressed anything like support for the Bush administration. One. And I'm a scientist, so I talk to a lot of scientists. I think that's pretty goddamn telling. Admittedly, scientists do tend to be fairly left-wing as a whole, so they'd probably bitch even about a sane, moderate Republican, but Republican or Democrat, I think the next president has to realize that basic research is an investment in the future of our country.
Presidents don't need to know anything more about science than your average joe. They APPOINT people with that knowledge when and where they are needed. Contrary to popular belief, presidents don't need to be subject matter experts on everything.
Without actually believing that any of this is likely, possible, or even possibly effective in helping guide the population pick their next 'leader of the free world'. It is interesting in its intent. However, I'm not certain that a knowledgeable leader effectively leads to being a 'good leader'. Don't get me wrong, an ignorant leader can do horrible things and it is not my intent to suggest complete ignorance. I'd be more interested to see WHO they would pick as their 'science advisor' and have an interview with both the Potential Candidate and their selected 'Science Advisor'. Since a good leader is able to 'delegate' and should pick the most appropriate people for the job, that would perhaps tell more about their potential term than answers to questions would. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of them preselecting their appointments before running for President. This way there would be less 'recent campaign favors' to pay back and everyone would know who is 'actually' going to run the country, make decisions, etc.
Just my $.02
As an atheist (and moreover, a rational human being), I believe that people who deny evidence presented before their very eyes should never be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck.
I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God. What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening". The earth is not young. Evolution happens. It's your problem to reconcile this with your religion.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
Each candidate could send the person to the debate who they would appoint as National Science Adviser.
Us freedom loving libertarians ought to be ecstatic about such a debate. Ron Paul would be the most knowledgeable candidate at the debate. His education and his ability to study and form policies as he encounters information, along with his excellent moral framework of interpreting things through the constitution and limited government, would enable him to give the best answers. Yes, he does believe in God, but I have never seen him let that interfere with his views on administration of government. I'm an atheist and I support him. He understands the need for protection of freedom of speech on the street and the internet (net neutrality included).
Ask any of the other candidates about biology and you'd get a "huh?", but Ron Paul would definitive answers with excellent understanding of the subject matter and he would actually formulate his own conclusions. Not "my advisor/campaign manager told me that global warming is [blank] because [blank] number of Americans actually care enough or know enough about it."
"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
How's that? A reasonable person should have no more trouble making fun of the absurdities of islam (that would be everything about it) as the absurdities of christianity (also all of it).
Ridiculous people deserve ridicule, but that doesn't mean you have to ridicule all of them all of the time. It'd take too long anyway.
Now if it'd been an unfunny joke about islam, then you'd know he was a republican.
I'll take my +1 flamebait and/or troll from the religofascists now, if you don't mind.
The Farewell Tour II
Well, Since Hydrogen has but one newtron, Oxygen has 8 and Carbon has 6, you could do it a number of ways with a cyclotron:
Since D/R is fiscally (ir)responsible duopoly of parties, first the R's will spend $2 Billion of taxpayer money building of a SuperConducting Supercollider in Texas to help offset the economic ruin caused by a oil and housing bust, then D will promptly cancel it when it is 90% complete. Then D will occasionally send money to Switzerland to collaborate on their SuperCollider. R will try to destroy funding for that off chance the Swiss come up with fusion or something else that could ruin revenue for R's friends in the oil industry. Once the collider is more than 200% funded (i.e. ~ 50% built), you should have enough science or magnets or whatever it takes to smack a Hydrogen into the Oxygens at energy sufficient to occasionally cause a Helium 2 to fall off, leaving a few Carbon 6 atoms and a hell of a lot of radioactive waste which you send to Nevada and bury for a couple of million years.
Next question????
Faux populist appeals aside, evolution is the best answer science has (meaning the best answer we have), and since science has given us air conditioning, the internet, medicine, sanitized food/water, etc, we can probably agree that science is important. If someone dismisses science because it conflicts with their personal religion, that matters.
This isn't really to see if Hillary or Mitt have an informed opinion on quantum mechanics or different types of speciation--it's to see if they are actually plugged into objective reality. It's a kook identifier. Sometimes people who appear to be perfectly normal reveal themselves to be just about crazy if you let them talk long enough.