Call for a Presidential Debate on Science 610
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."
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."
Fair and Balanced (Score:5, Insightful)
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"...
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:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Science is not politics (Score:2, Insightful)
No one should require their President to be a scientific genius, but the ability to deal intelligently with matters of science is actually quite important.
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:Why would they agree? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Shit, if it wasn't for the racial history, a simple test to see whether or not your vote would count would be a great benefit to this country. They wouldn't even have to be hard questions, just things like "does America have an official language", "does America have an official religion", and so on.
Re:Science is not politics (Score:1, Insightful)
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."
(2) How about the White House sees agency reports at the same time I do? That seems to me how an open democracy should work.
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.
Re:Why would they agree? (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 questions. Worse, the media will punish them for answering some questions by picking the worst bits and playing them on a 24 hour loop. We actually reward our candidates for shutting up about all but the most divisive (based on belief, not fact) or irrelevant (the Supreme Court isn't going to change their mind, no matter who gets appointed) issues.
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do geeks even ask this kind of question? (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, there's a fantasy world aspect to this where "our" people are dreamily off in science debate land when there are real issues to engage with.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Republican answer (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Republican answer (Score:3, 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.
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?
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.
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.
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:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed [wikipedia.org]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html [lewrockwell.com]
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wisdom and Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It'll never happen (Score:3, Insightful)
By forcing religion upon everyone, you mean the Environmental Earth worshipping Wackos who are foisting the idea of Global Warming, right?
Here's another one you'll love: By forcing religion upon everyone, you mean the Pagans and Pro-Homosexual Secular Humanists who are foisting the idea of Evolution, right?
Taken a look in the mirror lately--if you can spare the time to take your head out of the sand?
Re:Science IS politics (Score:3, Insightful)
What does lying have to do with it?! If the review process is allowed to do its job and the competitive instinct between scientists are kept alive, lies are discovered. Of course, the conclusions drawn from findings in science is an human enterprise, but there are strict standards what are considered strong conclusions, standards developed over the last centuries of scientific discovery. The relativism from the USAian right about some of the main conclusions drawn from the different branches of science seems to have more to do with the liberal bias in the facts than the liberal bias in the scientists. (By the way, lying should not be the norm in politics either if the media does its job, but that is another sad story...)
New Rule (Score:3, Insightful)
good idea, start with government workers (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it quite disturbing that the ones with flags sewn on their shirts and the most rah rah rah you must "support us for your freedom!!etc" stuff are the first ones to always seriously break their "oaths". They usually show little to no actual understanding of the Constitution, get it confused with just a job they do and following orders to protect the elite status quo folks and their even weirder policies. If you could get the cops and military to stop disobeying the Constitution, and to really respect their oaths instead of just parroting them, then the insane politician/dictators wouldn't be able to promote their weird agendas. You look around the world, tyrannical regimes exist because they give orders to willing order followers who are armed, and you got to know that they know they are being jerks. If it was just the pipsqueak tyrants, they would have no power, they would get carted off to the looney bin or to jail, but once the system gets corrupted so that all orders are followed without fail, too bad, you have now crossed the line into a police state. Some police states are, at this exact time, obviously worse than others, but that is the dividing line, and eventually they all become heinous, history is 100% accurate on that score. When the official armed guys follow all orders, or have the intelligence and guts to say "no" en masse or at least in majority numbers when what they are doing is obviously hurtful and/or illegal to the citizenry is the exact definitive point between functional and fair governments and police states.
Unfortunately, in the US, that line was crossed a long time ago, and it is getting worse daily, and it certainly doesn't look like too many of them care one bit, that check and pension is just too important.
Re:this is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
And he probably doesn't need to know ANY economics, or ANY war theory, or have ANY morals, because he can always delegate those things to subordinates. Too bad if people vote for a "likable" president who doesn't have ANY common sense and picks horrible advisers who are bad at the things they should be masters at. After all, without ANY management experience or ANY critical thinking ability it will be impossible for the poor president to know anything about the true motives of his or her subordinates or even evaluate their competency.
Frankly, I think if one is competent enough to run a country, then one is more than capable of learning basic science, and should have done so in school for gods sake. That way the president might actually believe the scientists who predict hurricanes are going to fuck up New Orleans. I think most politicians are so used to saying the right thing to the right people at the right time that they imagine everyone else does the same thing. "Those scientists say a hurricane will overwhelm the levies? They just want more funding for dike research!"
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Voter disenfranchisement mean anything to you?
This time around are you going to write some grandfather clause to make sure you don't have to take the test, too?
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Democracy as we know is simply a horribly crude majority rule. Democracy has to have conservative mechanisms to protect the rights of minorities.
Re:Fair and Balanced (Score:1, Insightful)
A society gets the politicians it deserves.
Re:this is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
doesn't need to know anything about those strange foreigners,
doesn't need to know anything about finance,
doesn't need to know anything about the law,
doesn't need to know anything about diplomacy
doesn't need to know anything about policy.
Hmm. Seems like we've given your theory a try once or twice and it didn't work out.
Re:Republican answer (Score:3, Insightful)
[1] It's really not 'obvious' he's a Democrat. The only thing that's really obvious is that he's not a Christian extremist (the 'Jesus trumps everything crowd' as opposed to merely being a Christian). If being against Christian extremism is the same thing as being a Democrat, then that speaks highly of the Democratic party. However, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who are just as annoyed that Christian extremism has such strong control over their party.
Re:Republican answer (Score:3, Insightful)
There have also been buried alive tricks and euphoria-based faith healings that last long enough for the healer to leave town.
Note: Baptist ministers don't like statements like that, in my experience.
sounds nice, but worthless... (Score:1, Insightful)