Slashdot Log In
Science Debate 2008
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Feb 09, 2008 01:43 PM
from the good-luck-with-that dept.
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.)"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
How ironic (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why a so-called "editor" can't be bothered to read through a summary before hitting the "approve" button.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll find that those two (the ability to choose good stories, and the ability to pay attention to detail) are strongly correlated, since they both come from a more general desire to "get it right."
I realize it's popular to bash such a criticism on the basis that it's too "nitpicky" s
That's why you need to RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
The article mentions several times the number 12,000, that is "twelve thousand", the submission has an extra zero, not a misplaced comma.
"man" is the Japanese word for myriad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we should stop the petty i'm better then you are because I do or don't believe in a god stuff before it stops the debate on science. I know it will be difficult because the article grabbed stuff from their ass and mentioned that creationist are anti science which isn't an accurate or logical conclusion.
But seriously, lets move on to more important things then who's subhuman makeup is better.
"The Republican War on Science"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Something makes me think, this will not be an entirely objective undertaking...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"The Republican War on Science"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Disagreeing with a scientist is not "anti-science" in itself. One may claim, that Republicans disagree with disproportionally many scientists, and that that is the evidence of contempt for science itself. However, that argument falls apart, when one realizes, that the vast majority of scientists work for the government and need government subsidies to do their work (and support their lifestyles). This provides them with a strong bias (for the scrupulous) and an even stronger incentive (for the less scrupulous) to support the political party, which stands for more intensive "wealth redistribution" (Democrats) and, consequently, to attack its opponents (Republicans).
The debate on climate, for example, still rages on, so I'll give you an example from an earlier era.
For decades the fans of Socialism/Communism among historians were dismissing "rumors" of Soviet atrocities as unsubstantiated attacks on the country of "workers and peasants". This was, in fact, the dominant opinion among professional historians (most of them were also government-paid)... Assistance by (Soviet-duped and/or Soviet-sponsored) journalists [wikipedia.org] did not help either. Boy, did this "intellectuals" have a stinking rotten egg on their collective mugs, when the Soviet archives were (briefly) opened up to researchers in the early 1990ies, and the extents of Soviet crimes turned out to exceed, what even the most vicious "right wing" accusers have suspected!
Were those "right-wingers" anti-science? I don't think so... Were they called that on occasion by exasperated professional historians, pinko-journalists, and actual communists [wikipedia.org]? Of course!
So, please, excuse me, if I'm skeptical of a scientist's opinion, when I'm implored to just believe him/her... They have "cried wolf" in the past.
Parent
Re:"The Republican War on Science"? (Score:4, Interesting)
While I, personally think that there is ample evidence that human caused global warming is a real threat, I also recognize that you are completely correct in questioning the motivations of scientists as a whole in the manner you describe.
I've been reading Scientific American for a long time. There is a certain smug underlying attitude expressed there that scientists really know best for everybody. And they're wrong. Being a scientist does not better equip you to be able to make better ethical or moral decisions. It doesn't tell you where people want to go. It can tell you how people are and why they make decisions and a whole host of other interesting things. It can even tell you that people have an ingrained sense of morality that transcends all cultures and languages. But it can't tell you what is moral or what isn't.
Describing me as an atheist would be fairly close to accurate. I believe that the scientific method is the most useful tool we have for accurately discerning various facts about the world. Science as a whole is extremely valuable and useful. But its domain isn't politics and it never should be.
There was a time in the late 90s and early 00s when Scientific American was much more aggressively political than it is now. One issue in particular that I remember was all about how incredibly evil land mines are, complete with detailed pictures of the results. And it blamed and shamed the US for the problem, completely ignoring the despots, tyrants and military actions that put the land mines there in the first place. I nearly canceled my subscription over that. Luckily they changed and are only a little political here and there now.
And I recognize this danger in the global warming debate. But in the long run, we must develop ways of using resources that are sustainable. We must pay attention to ecological cycles and make sure that what we do works with them, or add cycles of our own. Ultimately our economy must be completely based on a net input of energy and a conscious knowledge of how to recycle every single waste product we produce.
So, in the larger context, I don't really care if the global warming is caused by humans or not. We need to get a handle on the carbon cycle, a thing we've been almost completely ignoring until now. If worrying about a possibly (though I don't think likely) fictitious danger to our continued comfortable existence here is what it takes, then so be it.
There is ample evidence we've been ignoring this cycle. Just look at the rising trend in atmospheric CO2 levels. There is no natural explanation for it. The activity of humans is the cause of this. Whether or not this will result in a climate catastrophe is open to debate (though I know which side of that I'm on) but the fact we've been ignoring this and not making sure there is a cycle is clear and something should be done about it. Sustainable development is in our long term best interests.
Parent
Re:Social or physical sciences? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also due to the stereotype of Republicans being religious zealots who refuse to believe in evolution. And while these types of people are doubtless more common amongst republicans than amongst democrats, it's hardly a fair accusation against the party as a whole.
Parent
Re:Social or physical sciences? (Score:4, Insightful)
Second: Lab reproducible abiogenesis? No. Lab reproducible evolution? Yes.
Third:
At some time t0 no life existed on earth.
At some time t2 life existed on earth.
Therefore, at some time t1 between t0 and t2, life came into existence (-genesis) on earth where there was no (a-) life (-bio-) prior.
Saying abiogenesis hasn't happened is exactly the same as saying that biological life has always existed, which is patently absurd.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I doubt their interpretation, because I doubt their integrity. This particular aspect of science has immediate and vast political implications, which creates bi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is everything unscientific about simply not believing them because you don't want to. Nor does it suffice to have no understanding of how climatology works, apply the claim "it's complicated", and then leap to whatever conclusion you happen to like.
"Which is exactly, what established and professional historians were saying about the history of Soviet Union"
This still has nothing to do with science. I'm glad you've figured out that simply liste
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not know of a single sane and honest scientist that believes that humanity did not *contribute* to the current global warming. Any argument is WRT the degree of contribution. As measurements and models have gotten more sensitive, the degree of contribution has been appearing more significant as a major factor.
I'll admit that there are still uncertainties, but the major ones are WRT "How rapidly will the sea le
Re:"The Republican War on Science"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right to analogize the current science reporting with 50's reporting on communist regimes, but history isn't science. Most events examined by historians are given numerous incompatible explanations, and evidence is reported in a very selective fashion. Although there are many controversies in science, most hypotheses are fairly well resolved in a few decades. No phlogiston here!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And much of the spending choices are independent of party. For example, fu
Obama and patents (Score:5, Interesting)
At least one sane guy there, reading about Obama:
Seems like that one is the geek choice.
Re:Obama and patents (Score:5, Informative)
Clinton wants
Too bad Kucinich is out, he supported
Actually, both Richardson (D) and Thompson (R) seem to be the geekiest, they both want to spur kids to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math! Richardson even had numbers to back his proposal up!
Parent
Re:Obama and patents (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/14/barack-obamas-google-friendly-technology-platform/ [techcrunch.com]
But the media hardly mentions it; focusing instead on Hillary's tear.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry, the press is fair and balanced - if she or Obama farts, they'll talk about that, too.
Common Man (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [xkcd.com] to make the point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any way that you can scientifically say that "Bill is a human; Mary is not, and her death is of no consequence"? I know the Nazis tried, but I didn't think their science stood the test of repeatability. Though heaven knows that there are enough crazed people to have tried.
Which does draw me to another point... that Naziism tried to justify extermination of humans based upon pseudo scientific and pseudo economic values,
A mystery revealed (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
Tragically... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The word evolution -when referring to the Theory of Evolution- is extremely specific. While deniers try to muddy the water, in scientific circles, it's definition is anything but vague.
If you question theory, good for you, but you better have data. If you deny evolution, you probably don't care about data, or about the scientific process at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you question theory, good for you, but you better have data. If you deny evolution, you probably don't care about data, or about the scientific process at all."
That is a very interesting set of statements. On one hand, you seem to be glad someone is doing some "free thinking" in the area of origins, but on the other hand you seem to be unwililng to really listen to data. Basically, from your statement, I would surmise that if I actually said "I deny evolution," you would immediately do several menta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, biological evolution is extremely specific, and you are clearly not qualified to argue otherwise.
Science Position (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pro-science can be bad too (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pro-science can be bad too (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, those who use this argument show an extremely poor understanding of biological science. In general, genetic diversity is a good thing. By taking our ideas about what are "good" traits within our current environment and breeding selectively for those, we open ourselves to biological disaster when the environment changes. Not to mention that these traits are usually chosen for aesthetic, and not particularly biologically utilitarian, purposes. 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.
Parent
Re:Pro-science can be bad too (Score:5, Informative)
The idea of racial purity predates Darwin and Mendel by millennia, my friend. This comment of yours is asinine. What made the Holocaust possible was technology. I can well imagine if the Spaniards had had Zyklon-B in the 15th century, they would have got rid of the Jews that way, rather than forced conversion and exile.
It is, in fact, evolutionary biology and genetics which has made a lie of every single racist claim made in the last two or three centuries. The "races" that the Europeans saw are not even logical ways of dividing human populations, they're just simply artifacts of a mariner cultures skipping thousands of miles of intermediate populations.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's funny how completely different justifications can so swiftly act as substitutes, but do you blame the emotion behind it or the ideas that have been twisted into a justification? I'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is, in fact, evolutionary biology and genetics which has made a lie of every single racist claim made in the last two or three centuries. The "races" that the Europeans saw are not even logical ways of dividing human populations, they're just simply artifacts of a mariner cultures skipping thousands of miles of intermediate populations.
Talk about letting political dogma get in the way of science. You just replaced the word "race" with the term "population". Let's see what evolutionary biology and genetics have said: that populations evolve to adapt to the specific conditions they find themselves in, that different populations in different geographic areas have different genotypes and phenotypes giving them an advantage in their native area, and that there is a strong correlation between geography and genetics. Almost no serious scientis
Scientific method? (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you mean by "Science"? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Stem cell research (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Compelling reason for fetal stem cell research (Score:3, Informative)
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 informatio
Re:Science privatization (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a very narrow view of research. Almost all research that is done on government funding is invisible to you, the layman. They are fundamental topics that will see applications only YEARS down the road from now. The trick with private research funding is that they ensure only short-term success, since being investment-based that's all they can be.
Not to mention that private funding will always focus on the topics that will lead to business-applicable technologies soonest, as opposed to general research that will open up entirely new segments of science altogether, which is a long term benefit.
Government research support is absolutely critical. My brother is a researcher in the field of evolutionary genetics, something that few private companies will think about funding. But the knowledge is important, and in time has led to real advancements in our knowledge and our technology.
So please, keep up government scientific funding, it's the only competitive advantage the USA has ever had, and the only hope it has of maintaining its supremacy as a superpower.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And where is AT&T Labs now? Xerox PARC? Businesses believed it before, but it would seem they no longer do. Also, think outside of the world of computer technology - our research is a bargain compared to fields like genetics and biology.
Not to mention even when we invented the transistor, we already could see applications for it - after all, it's immediately obvious that we can replace vacuum tubes and make a better computer. Computer research ALWAYS has a short-term application, it's easy to justify
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I t
Re:Science privatization (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone says that all research should be publicly funded, but to dismiss the overarching importance of basic research, or to pretend that the private sector would ever pick up the ball in areas such as biology, physics, archaeology, anthropology and so forth is absolutely naive.
Parent
Re:Science privatization (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent