Slashdot Mirror
Why Scientists Should Have a Greater Voice On Global Security
Lasrick writes "Physicist Lawrence Krauss has a great piece in the NY Times today about the lack of influence scientists wield on global security issues, to the world's detriment. He writes, 'To our great peril, the scientific community has had little success in recent years influencing policy on global security. Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II. The problems scientists confront today are actually much harder than they were at the dawn of the nuclear age, and their successes more heartily earned. This is why it is so distressing that even Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world’s most famous living scientist, gets more attention for his views on space aliens than his views on nuclear weapons. Scientists' voices are crucial in the debates over the global challenges of climate change, nuclear proliferation and the potential creation of new and deadly pathogens. But unlike in the past, their voices aren't being heard.'"
An increasing number of politicans will only listen to the scienticians if what they're saying supports the conclusions they've already arrived at.
They're not interested in facts, just their own ideology.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
To much politics in science today to trust them with decisions.
There is a lot of junk out there being passed off as science.
Many scientists are available for sale to the highest bidder.
This has caused a loss of trust in the scientific community by the general public and the leadership.
- "hackers" would be called "tireless researchers"
- finding security flaws would be called "peer-review"
- there would be a lot more 14-year-olds leading new scientific advances
and...
- people who put their own self-interests aside to disseminate paywalled scientific research for the betterment of humankind would be labeled "heros," and be awarded posthumous honors
Sent from my ENIAC
Scientists promote Godless evil ideas such as global warming, evolution and birth control. They also seem to think you should believe something based on the evidence for it, sound methodology, and peer review. If every idea had to be scrutinized thusly, do you realize how difficult it would be to get every new idea about aliens and conspiracies onto talk radio? Then how would we are to be learning about these important topics?
--
Necessity is the mother of invention. Greed is the mother of patents.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
-- Isaac Asimov
It has been a long time since anyone existed who could only call himself (or herself) a "scientist." The term is now a generic way to refer to people whose actual work is in any of a staggering number of highly specialized fields. There is some acknowledgment of this in TFA, which states (correctly) that many of today's greatest scientific minds don't work directly in the fields related to the things that affect our security. To use the article's own example, Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist: he doesn't work on nuclear weapons.
But for a given question, what grounds are there to privilege the viewpoints of those whose expertise is not in a field of direct relevance to that question? On questions concerning nuclear weapons, for example, why should Stephen Hawking's viewpoint be held as equivalent to a nuclear physicist's viewpoint? For that matter, why should his viewpoint be held as superior to the viewpoint of anyone else who is not a nuclear physicist?
there's money to be made!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Scientists are specialized brains who devote a significant majority of their life and time to one discipline or sub-discipline. A specialist is good for explaining how something works in layman's terms, a generalist is better at integrating this information into other specalist's explanations to mesh out something that works. A scientific council with general recommendations and upper/lower bounds to possible solutions? Great. A scientist deciding the solution outright? No sir.
The writer wants greater influence from scientists who agree with him.
I suspect that given the chance to have given Edward Teller or William Shockley greater influence on global security, he might decline.
On the other hand, he might have wanted more influence by someone like Linus Pauling.
All three mentioned were good scientists in their fields. So, the criterion becomes what their positions are rather than just that they are good scientists.
Scientists don't have a good track record on setting policy. They tend to get too focused on their own little area and end up making bad decisions. And that doesn't even take into consideration what can happen when the wrong scientist gets in control, if you remember the Russian horrors of Lysenkoism.
Any time you create a process whereby people can acquire power, that process will be abused. Remember the fighting between Oppenheimer and Teller? It can get much, much worse than that.
If scientists have more power than average people, then everyone will rush to redefine themselves as scientists, like this guy. Instead of marketers, we'll have "social researchers." Instead of accountants we'll have "capital flow researchers." And I'm not going to stay out of the game, I'll definitely be a computer scientist, not a programmer. Soon the term "scientist" will lose its meaning.
If scientists want to affect policy in a democratic society, they need to get better at explaining. Albert Einstein reportedly said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." It may sound excessive, but remember that's what Feynman did with advanced theoretical physics. You can do it. Of course, in a democratic society, if everyone collectively wants to shoot themselves in the foot, there's not always much you can do about it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But nuclear warfare isn't random, it's not like Putin and the President throws a dice every day to decide whether or not to launch. The chance in this case came from lack of knowledge, which over time has disappeared. By your analogy, after rolling 20s for decades, it's safe to say that the dice is loaded.
The major power structures, church and state, are formed around blind faith.
They know what is best and will do it for you. You just have to believe.
Science is based around inquiry and questioning what is going on.
To accept science you must be open to doubt.
The major power structures are based on doubt and questioning being a very very bad thing.
If we want science to go up we must become free of the current power structures.
Perhaps that indicates a problem with politics rather than scientists.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Science should have a greater voice on policy at all levels. Laws are intended to accomplish goals. They should be tested regularly to see if they accomplish those goals, and repealed if they do not. Evidence based legislation is a good idea for the same reasons evidence based medicine is.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
An increasing number of politicans will only listen to the scienticians if what they're saying supports the conclusions they've already arrived at.
They're not interested in facts, just their own ideology.
It's not just politicians, it's everywhere - even on Slashdot.
If you look at the gun control debate and only consider the evidence, the answer is obvious. It's been obvious for a long time - there was an article in Scientific American decades ago which explained the evidence and statistics. The conclusion hasn't changed since then.
And yet, people go back and forth on this very website arguing storylines instead of facts. Both sides continuously cite heartfelt stories in an attempt to sway others that what they believe is correct. The statistics are there, there's some attempt to mislead the debate by framing the numbers in specific ways, but overall it's clear-cut.
Being a scientist means you make evidence-based decisions. I may not like the decisions, and it may feel wrong to me, but at the end of the day I know that basing decisions on evidence is the most likely path to success.
If you don't form your beliefs based on evidence in the gun debate, why bother using evidence at all? If you can believe stories over evidence, then vaccinations cause autism, cell phones cause cancer, a little inflation is good, and a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat an apple from a magic tree.
There are cases where we don't have enough information, and "best guess" and "expert opinion" can probably serve; however, many times the evidence is overwhelming and the path is clear.
We would all do well to stop talking "pathos" in our posts and concentrate on facts.
That's what we should be doing, really: keep the debate focused on evidence. When there's a clear indication from evidence, don't let the other side wander off into storyland.
(I chose gun control as an emotionally-charged topic that's fresh in people's minds. I claim the point is valid for many issues discussed on Slashdot.)
their tests for success and advancement are radically different than those in the political space
This is exactly why they are supremely qualified to work on policy. Scientists and politicans have different tests for success because only scientists are concerned about truth and effectiveness. Politicians are concerned about getting reelected and doing favors for their cronies. It is actually politicians who are hoplessly unqualified to work on policy.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Four years ago a candidate for President promised to "restore science to it's rightful place" - why hasn't it happened? He got elected (and re-elected) to office on that pormise (among others)?
Ken
Effectiveness being a weasel word. Effective based on what criteria?
Obviously those criteria should be set out in the law itself. Every law should have a goal, and specify a way for evaluating progress towards that goal.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Why is compromising with people who are demonstrably wrong a desirable feature?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Why is compromising with people who are demonstrably wrong a desirable feature?
Because it enables you to actually accomplish something.
Because you can't always demonstrate that they are wrong to everyone's satisfaction. Experimentation *may* clarify outcomes, but often the political battle is whether to do the experiment to begin with, because experiments have their own effects.
How do you think climate scientists would be doing if they had the same PR budget as many of the forces trying to discredit their work do? How would you feel about it if they spent 5 or 10% of their grant money on PR? Should scientists spend more time schmoozing and thereby reduce the amount of science they end up doing? Some scientists are good at that sort of thing but many are not. Scientist's jobs are to study reality and publish their findings and to pass their knowledge on to the next generation of scientists.