Slashdot Log In
Call for a Presidential Debate on Science
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 29, 2007 01:09 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This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Republican answer (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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!
Parent
It'll never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.)
Parent
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.
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
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
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?"
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent