Slashdot Log In
Call for a Presidential Debate on Science
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:09 PM
from the platitudes-and-geralizations-wont-cut-it dept.
from the platitudes-and-geralizations-wont-cut-it dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Republican answer (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Republican(+Democrat)= answer (Score:4, Interesting)
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????
Hillary's answer (Score:5, Funny)
*whisper*
What? You can't produce carbon from hydgrogen and oxygen?
Well, I'm not anything if tough on crime! We'll make sure that anybody caught putting hydrogen and oxygen together to make carbon will get the justice they deserve!
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Pressure: something in the neighborhood of 40 PPa
Of course, you can trade one against the other to some extent, I don't have the formula handy.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Screw that, I want YOU for president.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Funny)
BBH
It'll never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Catch-22 (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll never happen as long as the religious anti-any-science-that-my-holy-book-says-is-wrong crowd continues to hold any real weight in American politics.
And without that segment, what would there be to debate?
Science is not politics (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some things you SHOULD delegate.
Science is either settled or debated.
Settled science is just memorization. Debated science is pretty much already publicized.
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."
Re:Science is not politics (Score:5, Insightful)
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." With all due respect, I don't want to take their fucking word for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Science IS politics (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Science is not politics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Fair and Balanced (Score:5, Insightful)
Host (Score:5, Funny)
cordial and fun (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure if this was meant as a joke, but Brownback of Kansas has already dropped out. There goes about half of your fun factor. The rest of the Republicans will hem and haw around the edges of the Creationism issue like a complex number approaching the Mandelbrot set, but Brownback came from the state so bold they redefined pi. The Democrats will try (and fail) to evoke Kennedy's passion for a moon launch while simultaneously explaining how scientifically advanced the latest V-Chip self-censoring technologies are getting.
Can't happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
You get the candidates you deserve. The voters and the media have made it impossible for candidates for major office (who are almost by definition smart, personable people) to do anything but recite polished talking points.
C'mon, do you think if any candidate stumbled on the tiniest fact, or said something that could be taken out of context to sound silly, the loudmouths here would ever let it slide? Go ask poor Ted Stevens about why it's 1337 to refer to Internet connections as "pipes" but you're a retard if you say "tubes"...
How old is the Earth? How old is the Universe? (Score:5, Funny)
"How old is the Earth? How old is the Universe? Answer both questions with a number."
Jesus freaks can vote for the guy who says "6,000 years".
Scientists can vote for the guy who says "4.5 billion years, 13.7 billion years, respectively, give or take a few hundred million"
And both the Jesus freaks and the scientists can agree on one thing: that any candidate who answers "they're both the same age, 4.5 billion years", or "both the same age, 13.7 billion years", or who splutters out something on the order of "millions" of years was so ignorant as to be wrong by at least three orders of magnitude.
President on power (Score:5, Funny)
Why would they agree? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are all sorts of great ideas for debates (including an actual debate instead of the charade debates we have now), that will never happen for the same reason. People, and the media, aren't willing to hold candidates accountable for refusing to hold a real debate, so it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why aren't they obligated to answer a set of questions? Simple; it's because people are willing to vote for them without them answering a set of q
Science AND TECHNOLOGY (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it is nice to know a President's stance on Stem Cell Research and the accelerating rate at which National Science Foundation budgets are being cut...
But equally important would be having a president who understands basic internet technology and whether they have intelligent opinions regarding the regulation thereof. It seems like there are a shortage of ladies and gentlemen in Washington who understand the latest technology. This would be helpful in Congress, too... because the aging Senators don't seem to be able to keep up with the time and young "with it" 20-30 year old candidates would help with adding much needed diversity in that branch of government.
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
If done straight up in a science only, non-political debate, it would be an hour of 'uhh, I don't know's. With only a touch of bias it would quickly turn into a series of loaded questions (Science X will destroy the world and kill babies, do you support Science X?). At best you'll get the candidates up the talking about the importance of science, technology and invention in the US and how they'll pledge to fund it. Which is great and all, but they'll all just sit there agreeing that science is good and should get funded.
So what's the point?
If you give them a list of topics in advance, and change the questions to a political nature, ie: Topic X, how do you feel X is going to effect the environment, and with that concern how do you intend to minimize/maximize it's effect on the economy and working class?
THAT would be a bunch of questions worth listening to answers from a would-be president.
Unfortunately, it would take a huge amount of the candidate's time to stage such an event, and to be honest, they'll get more votes shaking hands and giving passionate speeches on the steps of some historic land mark while preaching to the choir about security, war, and money.
-Rick
Asking politicians science questions is dumb. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Doomed from the start (Score:4, Insightful)
The author pretends to want a debate, but then goes on to claim evolution as a fact, ridiculing those candidates who believe otherwise including the current president of the US of A.
DOn't get me wrong, I think bush is a looney and that evolution is self-evident HOWEVER if you already go into it with an opionin that evolution is true AND global warming (and related stuff) is true, then what is left to debate?
It is an intresting idea, but sadly it won't happen.
this is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
there's a tendency amongst the politically ignorant that every problem in the world, every pot hole, heart attack, lost job, lost football game, barking dog, homeless drug addict, etc., is the fault of the guy at the very top: "the president should be deeply involved in what matters to me, me, me" pffft
1. as if he knows
2. as if he cares
3. as if he should care
the point of government and real leadership is to delegate responsibility: the local public works department of your local city are the people to go to, not the president of the united states
the exact same logic applies with science. the president doesn't need to know ANY science
in fact, if the president were really into science, i'd be worried: he has better things to spend his time with. he should delegate the scientific inquiries to subordinates and departments. with all of the problems in the world, you really want our president spending hours exercising his mind on the homeobox gene or the source of cosmic rays?
i for one don't
seriously, this debate is a really stupid idea
You can't debate fact (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The Science of Politics (Score:5, Interesting)
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?"
An even more novel idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd rather see a debate on the Constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for the list (Score:4, Informative)
Taxes
The option to tax is not the requirement to tax. The income tax was temporary on the wealthiest 5% to pay for WWI, the entry into which by the U.S. has parallels to the unethical invasion of Iraq. Repealing the income tax would just put the U.S. back to between the founding of the Constitution and WWI.
Congress taking abortion out of the Supreme Court
Ron Paul explains the Constitutional basis directly in the bill [gpo.gov]:
where the Constitution [usconstitution.net] says:The balance of power between the Legislative and Judicial branches has been debated since the founding of the country, but according to the wording of the Constitution too much power has been afforded to the Supreme Court for most of the country's existence.Health Care
There is no need for this to be handled at the federal level -- states can handle it just fine.
Global warming
I personally would stretch the commerce clause to cover the environment since air and water do not know state boundaries, but I can go with Ron Paul's approach of first having the federal government "do no harm", such as by eliminating corporate welfare to big oil. Boulder is suing [democracynow.org] the federal government over global warming due to its OPIC and Imp-Ex agencies, which do things like pay for oil pipelines in third world countries under the premise of providing economic development to the countries. Ron Paul has long stated he would like to eliminate OPIC and ImpEx.
Income disparity
Going on a gold standard, as Ron Paul advocates, would eliminate the hidden tax of inflation. As I've mentioned here before, I make 4x now as a seasoned professional than I did 20 years ago when I just graduated. Yet when using CPI computed [shadowstats.com] according to pre-Greenspan formulas, it's 8% per year and I make less now than I did 20 years ago. Under a gold standard, wages would not automatically fall every year, and things like the minimum wage (which BTW should be at the state and local level, not the federal level) would not lag behind real prices.
In short
Ron Paul is for personal liberty, including the Iraqis and the pre-born. He does not believe liberty should be extended to illegal immigrants, but would like to expand legal immigration somewhat once the incentives for illegal immigration are removed: welfare, education, healthcare, and birthright citizenship.
8th Grade Biology (Score:4, Insightful)
While I admire Chapman's request, it's impractical. Imagine a candidate being asked a biology question that an 8th grader would know, but not understanding some of the basic terminology. They would look foolish in front of millions of Americans. Could you or I remember all of our 8th grade biology? I think not. Therefore, no politician would agree to such a debate: it would only hurt them, not help them.
Plus, most Americans simply aren't concerned with science. National security and the economy are the pressing matters of the day.
Perhaps the candidates possible apointees (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"
- 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 responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths"... why restrict this to scientific truths? what about fiscal, legal, and ethical truths... #2 belongs in a general debate because if you'll lie about scientific data you'll lie about employment data *and* vice versa..
"The impact and possible solutions to global warming" this impacts Business, Environment, and even states rights and that is the aspect the is actually important to from the citizens perspective General debate
"The direction for institutions such as NASA" NASA also has other aspects to it other than scientific, this is again economic and the like
"Stem cell research" Science can be morally and ethically neutral, this issue can not as much as some want to separate this from the Abortion / Life debate it cant be done
Yore left with science funding and evolution in education (and even that has a serious states rights aspect to it)... You really want a debate focused on those two things?
Frankly I find issue centered debates to be a tad worthless its nice to make candidates say in the same debate 'Im going to do X and Y and Z' where the law of limited resources has some importance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, you've got an inalienable right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
I've never supported the right to vote among those, though.
If you move to the United States from another country, you have to pass a test before you can vote. Passing said test will put you far ahead of the average high school graduate in knowledge of American government and history. I've got no problem with requiring the same test even of those born here.
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
Wisdom and Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
For the simple reason that in order to be wise you need not have been exposed to a particular doctrine.
Suppose, for instance, one had absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution, but was well versed in philosophy; Sartre and Kant and Plato and so on. One could recite the Magna Carta from memory (which, despite being foundational to the US Constitution you fail to mention). One was versed in economics and math and biology and psychology and some parts of history - saving anything U.S. related. Let us further suppose that one is even secular. Such a person could easily exist in today's world - it's unlikely in the U.S., but there are many well-developed countries in the world for which all of that could be true.
But what you're saying is that such a person is unfit to have a say in their government, if they happened to, of a sudden, be a citizen here. Simply because even though they may have been exposed to the principles of a document, they're not familiar with that document. And it's simply not true.
In the end, I think what counts is the desire to learn, and the passion to make a difference. If you're going to have a dividing line, it should be one based on service, which is quantifiable, not on merit, which is qualitative. But we live in a democracy, under common rules, because those rules affect us all. It is a very dubious moral prospect to suggest someone should be governed by laws they have no say in. If you're not familiar with that concept, one wonders if you're actually familiar with the basis of the US form of government.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Yes, and no (Score:5, Informative)
"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."