Slashdot Mirror
Science Debate 2008
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.)"
What if science is God Applied?
OR
What if science is a not?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Something makes me think, this will not be an entirely objective undertaking...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Which candidate is the most in favor of science privatization? In other words, they see no need for the government to fund programs through taxation when the private organizations are capable of seeing where public demand exists and filling that demand through scientific research. While I'm a huge fan of NASA and space exploration, I believe the space station in particular has been a huge waste of money. Almost no scientific research is done. Has anything besides the Tempurpedic Sleep System (certified by the Space Foundation!) come out of these billions of dollars of people's money?
At least one sane guy there, reading about Obama:
Reforming the U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeSeems like that one is the geek choice.
c++;
I've been part of their mailing list for a while, and now that some major groups have joined the effort, it's good to see it finally getting some press. Hopefully this will explode, it's just too bad it didn't come to head early enough for most of the primaries.
Whether anyone wants to admit or realize it, scientific issues are exceptionally at the heart of most of the current debates. The article points out some cases, such as the "evidence" for Iraq, that would never have passed a scientific board of inquisitors. Stem cells and evolution are the obvious, but science plays a major role in the abortion and gay rights debate (assuming people think instead of react). Threats of terrorist attacks and various influenza worries are right alongside global warming and environmental concerns as being hugely public issues that basically come down to scientific discussion and knowledge. That some people have the gall to dispute all of evolution or climate change is a sign of a serious and, IMO, disgusting ignorance on the part of the American population. Scientific innovation is also at the heart almost everything we care about: social issues, healthcare, military innovation, prevention of disease, education - it's about time we got our public interested.
Then again, as the SD08 guys point out, we need the leaders to acknowledge this as well. I need only point to xkcd to make the point.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
If I were president I would swap the defence budget and NASA's budget.
Pity there were no mathematicians on board.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The summary mentions that only one candidate has spoken about science issues during the campaign, without mentioning who it is. I'm sure you'll be as surprised as I was:
"It's hard to get 12,000 scientists to agree on anything," says Alan Leschner, chief of AAAS and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "But science is the biggest issue facing modern society, and we are concerned that only one candidate--Hillary Clinton--has so far devoted any energy to science."
I came here for a good argument
Over the years our use of the term "evolution" became so vague that I'm not even sure what it means to say that someone "denies evolution" **sniff*sigh**
It's unscientific to do so based on faith instead of systematic and repeatable observations which contradict the theory of evolution. Instead of asking them if they reject evolution, ask them why they reject or accept evolution.
Am I the only one who realised with surprise after looking at TFA that Mike Gravel was still running?
I mean, why??
You just got troll'd!
The only proper position for a presidential candidate to make on science is, "It's none of the government's business!" Once you make science the province of government, it becomes subjective and political. In centuries past we had royal courts funding alchemists who always said what the king wanted to hear. Today we have government departments funding researchers who always say what the politicians want. What's the difference?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Everyone talks about creationists trying to have the government force their views on society (e.g. teaching creationism in schools). I agree with that.
However, overly pro-science people can be just as bad. I'm just going to Godwin this right now: the Nazis killed a lot of people who had genetic imperfections (low IQ, susceptibility to some diseases) in order to improve the gene pool. If you go by a strictly scientific viewpoint, such actions are defensible. Eugenics programs are immoral, but they do improve the gene pool. It's safe to say the Holocaust would never have happened if Darwin and Mendel hadn't been born. This is why I don't want an overly pro-science candidate in office. Someone who believes the government should strictly adhere to scientific principles will ultimately attempt another Holocaust.
And then you have the fact that genetic determinism is an excuse for racism. Most modern racists are strong supporters of science, genetics, and evolution, as they claim it validates their immoral beliefs.
I don't want an anti-science creationist. I don't want a pro-science eugenicist. I want separation of science and state.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Why no concern that some of the candidates are wholly ignorant on the latest information on the testability of String Theory?
Not merely are they unaware of a specialized area of study, no, not at all. They -reject all of science- by their stance! All of their policy decisions then, we can be thus assured, will not only reflect persistent ignorance of all scientific processes in all domains, but will actively hinder its pursuit in all cases.
Get real. You're concerned about "anti-evolution" solely and specifically because of the non-sequitur metaphysical inference you want to make, but know is too irrational for you to state directly.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The article mentions several times the number 12,000, that is "twelve thousand", the submission has an extra zero, not a misplaced comma.
There's so much interest invested in defense industry that you won't have a chance of becoming president by having such a plan.
On the other hand, I suppose DoD funds a lot of scientific research/projects, maybe most of the time not for the purpose of saving lives, but still some good stuff come out of it, eg. the Internet.
Wouldn't it be nice just to hear the candidate's position on the scientific method? I'd bet several of the candidates would be against the scientific method, and most everything else on those position statements is dependent on their belief in using observable and measurable data to form a hypothesis.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
A popular conception of what it means to be scientifically informed is to swallow the party line given to you by popular sources of so-called scientific knowledge. There is precious little involvement from the actual scientific method, no better than just accepting on faith everything the pope says. The fact is, many people feel mistreated and mislead by this nebulous thing we call "science" and made to feel stupid when they question the status quo. That's ironic because science should be all about questioning the status quo. But when I was a child, questioning evolution and asking for more support for it (I was a kid in high school; I had no clear definition of it) was not met with the knowledge I asked for but derision for so stupidly questioning the God-given truth handed down by our priestly scientists.
Skepticism should be the default position of everyone who studies science, even skepticism of those things that are very strongly established. Yes, it is often the case that someone who is questioning a position may question it less if they have more knowledge in the area. But no one can be an expert in all areas of science, and it should ALWAYS be okay to question what we're told. (ObSlashdot: If we here weren't the questioning sort, we'd all be using Windows instead of Linux.)
So I put it to you that, by taking a skeptical position, some of these anti-science people are in fact more faithful to the underpinnings of science than those people who arrogantly call themselves scientists.
To the masses, "science" (much like "politics" or "medicine") is defined purely in terms of the output of those people who practice it, and not by the principles those practitioners are supposed to follow. Scientists are often full of shit. Plus, most of the science that people are exposed to is the stuff they didn't pay attention to in high school and the stuff they watch on Discovery Channel, both of which are utter crap. So what do you expect people to think?
Oh, and one other thing. Don't think anything's going to be fixed by improving science education. Yes, the education is crap, but science can be unintuitive even when taught well. The solution is to fix the scientists and their massive egos.
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...
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.
The Japanese divide numbers into four order of magnitude groups like that.
Of course, I think it's more likely that someone added an extra 0 to the end of that figure.
Then you really need to study science. LOTS of science. Let that Bible of yours aside for a while and pick a whole lot of science books. Start at the beginning, and keep going, until you find that the word "evolution" is not vague at all.
Well, OTOH, your post makes perfect sense if you put it like this:
How about just swap a fraction of it?
What exactly does `secure [your] borders' mean? Has any country ever in history achieved it?
Of course, if there are compelling arguments to be made for the use of foetal tissue, I wouldn't mind hearing them. But I'll be very skeptical about "it'd make stem cell research way easier". Sometimes human dignity has to outweigh purely scientific advancement or we're making only a very narrow form of progress.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
I guess a shuttle could be packed with explosives and made into a huge ICBM.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
No, of course no one has achieved it totally, but we can at least try. Building a wall/fence and shipping people back that are caught ( instead of making excuses for them ) would be a good start.
Once fundamentals like this are in the works, then 'nice' things for the future like science can be discussed. Our priorities are seriously out of whack here.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If the government doesn't support science, then how does science get done?
Are there any examples of nations that have high science production without government support?
You consider the idea of building a wall sane and think that immigrants are a security problem. Oh well...
Looked at the site. Unfortunately science is nowhere to be found. It looks like the standard political "debate" crap, focused mainly on vague pledges to handouts. Science is about specific solutions to specific questions/problems. Some of us who believe in it would like to see it applied in government. Otherwise it's just another special interest asking for a handout. Science is NOT a special interest, it's the sole means we have to elevate ourselves above the tired fear-mongering, chest-beating rhetoric we've been suffering under for the past 10,000 years. Initiatives like this only cement a sad reality where science lives as an industry, in a compartment where any discoveries it makes are sure never to change anything.
For an exercise, go to the official websites of all the candidates. Click on the "issues" links (easy to do since they apparently all use the same CMS). Now try to find any differences. Try long enough, and blood will start shootin' out your nose.
In 2012, let's insist these sections contain lists of papers (in economics, game theory, developmental psychology, nuclear engineering, materials science, etc.) the candidates endorse. Let's have the candidates name the PhDs working for their campaigns their too.
-Carl
Yes, i do feel *illegal* immigrants are a security problem, and building a valid wall is a step in the right direction. By calling them simply 'immigrants', you are part of the problem. They are criminals, and should be treated as such.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How tall a wall would be satisfactory?
Science without Ethics is sociopathology.
We've become a country that produces NOTHING. We do nothing. We sell nothing. We just consume what other people send us. All the science jobs, programming jobs, etc. are getting shipped over seas. They're obviously not important enough to keep so why talk about it?
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank
Oh, yes, let's emulate the Soviet Union even more and build a huge wall! That will definitely work.
> That religious moralists always trot out this chestnut as an argument that "we need religion" shows both their biological ignorance and their desire to "Godwin" the debate.
So, what is the scientific reason why we shouldn't pursue the other research they did? You know, finding out the limits of human endurance by subjecting people to hypothermia and whatnot, which they also did? So I think that should establish that we do need morals, if not necessarily theistic ones.
But then you get into an entirely different argument over which morals. Science does not provide any of those answers, nor can it. I believe you may be familiar with "Hume's Fork" which completely prevents science (which reveals to us "what is") from telling us what ought to be. Astute readers may also note that Hume was an atheist.
http://origin.theonion.com/content/node/29351
Nobody in office gives a crap about what the people who actually know think.
I'm a perfectionist but I'm trying to cut back.
Evolution is simple, it builds on two observations:
At this point, it is just a question of keeping in mind that, by definition, those that will survive will be the fittest to, duh, survive. The reasoning is elegant and sound, and the hypotheses are fairly obvious to verify (there is no animal whose female stops reproducing after exactly two kids, and animals in nature get killed on a pretty routine basis).
Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence so big you could make it round and call it a a planet. Thousands and thousands of paleontological excavations have yielded an obvious evolutionary sequence, with animals and plants gradually changing into each other. Evolution is a theory that is very easy to falsify: you only need to find a bunny in the Cretacean layer. Guess what, no one ever found neither the bunny nor any other equivalent inconsistency.
Nope. Science is not about questioning the status quo for the sake of questioning, but open-mindedness in questioning it when facts are found contradicting it. You can't just start saying that entropy in the universe decreases instead of increasing just because you can question the status quo. Well, you can, but you will likely treated like Granpa Simpson. You can say that if you find evidence contradicting the theory, or if you have an alternative (preferably simpler and/or more elegant) theory explaining the data.
Yeah right. Some religious nuts are contesting science because it contradicts their scripture, which they by stupid blind faith believe to be infallible, and they would be skeptics and true to the spirit of science? Or are you thinking of those lawyers in the White House rewriting the scientific reports of climatologists? Or pseudo-scientists like Bjørn Lomborg, who make a job of faking statistics in fields they know nothing about, and then raking in the money from big business?
It is alright. But before questioning, you have to RTFM.
Right, the solution is not to study and understand science, the solution is to get scientists back in line. Sounds an awful lot like Lysenkoism.
Cheers,
an arrogant, full-of-shit scientist.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Fighting disease in adult humans is only one possible application of what can be learned by studying stem cells. And you're right that the possibility of creating stem cells from adult cells would be a big step in this direction.
But stem cell research was originally (and some still is) just one aspect of wide-ranging pure research into human genetics and biology. The main reason to study fetal stem cells is that it is the only way to understand the biology of how humans reproduce, and how genetic information is expressed to create a human. Some aspects of the basics of genetics can only be studied in naturally developing fetal stem cells. Artificially created stem cells skip these steps.
Unfortunately when Bush prohibited federal funding, his order covered ALL fetal stem cell research, not just the research that was aimed at fighting adult diseases. It would be like prohibiting all research involving neutrons just to fight nuclear weapons proliferation.
In terms of remains vs. resources, there is a ton of precedent for this approach to biology. Almost everything that is known about human anatomy was originally discovered by dissecting corpses. Medical students to this day dissect real human corpses in their anatomy and physiology classes. So even if we believe that embryos are essentially human, I don't think that automatically precludes their use in research.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Oh, yes, let's emulate the Soviet Union even more and build a huge wall! That will definitely work.
I think the soviets were trying to keep people in.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
That's *people* without ethics is sociopathy.
People without science are at a severe disadvantage.
A couple of examples: The Bush Administration's conviction that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons might not have survived had the White House heeded scientists who pointed out that the aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq (cited as evidence of weapons building) were actually the wrong size for uranium enrichment, says Krauss. Or perhaps the Administration wouldn't have started its $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative if it had asked the National Academy of Sciences for advice first, instead of after. (The NAS was tepid on the idea, feeling its contribution to solving the nation's dependence on oil wasn't as great as the Administration claimed.)
There's no guarantee, of course, that any Presidential Administration will follow the science when the politics point in a different direction. Rice University professor and former White House science adviser Neal Lane recalls how President Bill Clinton backed away from expanding needle-exchange programs, even though the approach had clearly been shown to reduce transmission of AIDS and other diseases from dirty needles. Scientific illiteracy among the "deciders" of this country is not new. Our most recent Democrat President didn't feel that solid statistical evidence of humanitarian benefit in the form of reduced spread of AIDS, among users and to non-users, would trump public superstitions about "encouraging" or "validating" drug use, for which there was never any evidence. He was probably right. The problem is not only with the honesty of the politicians, but the honesty and literacy of most of the voters. The politicians, I suspect, all know better, but well over half couldn't be elected in their districts while being forthright about what they know about science and what statistically would be better for all of their constituents than the campaign promises they want to hear.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
About 10 ft higher than is required to keep "nurb432" where he is right now.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
If you go to wikipedia, you will see that
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.
In this particular case, the root poster had brought in a genocide issue, and also one that makes use of pseudoscience, which was a mainstay of the Nazi regime. Therefore, Godwin's Law does not apply here.
However, if we dig deep enough, I suspect that intentionally and falsely claiming Godwin's law is probably an extension of Godwin's law. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure you weren't doing that, since you chose to continue the discussion.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's