Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Debate 2008

Posted by kdawson on from the good-luck-with-that dept.

bhmit1 writes "BusinessWeek is reporting about Science Debate 2008, an attempt to put the scientific issues front and center in the US Presidential race. After 12,000 scientists signed on in support of the idea of a debate focused on science, no campaign has replied to an invitation to such a debate. The article notes that only one candidate has said much about science issues in the campaign, and that some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. There is a link to a comparison of the candidates' positions on issues informed by science. (Yes, Ron Paul is included.)"

2 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. No bias toward one party by tomhath · · Score: 1, Redundant
    FTA: He linked up with Chapman and two other proponents, journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, and screenwriter Shawn Lawrence Otto.

    Well, I see right there this will be an impartial "debate".

    Reading the summaries of each candidate I also notice that the Democrat's summaries are roughly twice the length of the Republicans, and are formatted in a much easier to read, bullet-point style.

    Nothing to see here...

  2. Social or physical sciences? by mangu · · Score: 1, Redundant
    You have a valid point on science being a consensus thing, but one should be careful to differentiate between historians and physicists.


    No one can do research on history unless one has access to documents, and these are too often carefully guarded by governments. OTOH, a phenomenon such as the absorption of infrared waves by carbon dioxide can be performed in any physics lab.


    Global warming and the Holodom are entirely different things, disagreeing about the magnitude of historical facts may be a matter of opinion, but disagreeing about the magnitude of easily measurable physical facts is a matter of stupidity.