Science Debate 2008 322
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.)"
"The Republican War on Science"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Something makes me think, this will not be an entirely objective undertaking...
Re:How ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
I read through the summary and totally missed it. Some people are better proofreaders than others. I care more about the 'editors' ability to pick decent stories than their ability to proofread nitpicky details like that. It should be corrected, sure. It might be that there's an extra 0, not a misplaced comma. It's ambiguous as it stands. But it's not that bad and the article is interesting.
It's all about the funding (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:"The Republican War on Science"? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not unscientific to reject evolution. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Science privatization (Score:3, Insightful)
Science Position (Score:3, Insightful)
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:"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.
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.
Re:Science privatization (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 funding.
As opposed to the guys who discovered DNA. If you went up to a private company and told them you wanted millions of dollars so you can poke around inside a cell and figure out what's inside... I doubt you'd get much of the funding you wanted. But it's unquestionable that the discovery of DNA has led to real and HUGE leaps in medical technology.
Re:Obama and patents (Score:2, Insightful)
My geek vote goes to Uncle Ron [youtube.com]
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.
Re:Social or physical sciences? (Score:1, Insightful)
It follows very quickly from the theory of global warming (more specifically from the human responsibility for it), that the industrialized countries have to go through large pains and expenses to alter their behavior and lose some of their competitive advantage in the process. Inside those countries, "the rich" are also made to undertake the most changes to their lifestyles. It is not beyond reasonable to suspect, some of those conclusions are produced with "social justice" and similar crappy theories in mind... Facts? Yes, those are objective in themselves (unless fabricated), but their compilations usually aren't — a skillful omission here and there and you are good...
They are easy to measure, but hard to interpret. Physics does not (yet?) have all the answers. The Earth has undergone drastic changes in climate and otherwise long before humans even existed and some when we did exist, but were unable to affect the planet in a noticeable way. There is no proof, we are responsible for the warming weather today. Whether that is true or not, the debate has long ago gone political...
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!
Re:Tragically... (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:Common Man (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, and the abortion industry does the same. So arguably abortion should be a prime topic if ever there is a "Nazi debate", but I doubt that you'd get any respondants for such an offered debate either. Those who favored Nazi principles still would not want to be associated with the name.
So... I just don't get it. How would it be a topic in a scientific debate?
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.
Re:Tragically... (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 mental categorizations of me:
So, then, I've been written off before I've begun. Interestingly, this is my experience. Yes, I'm religious; yes, I deny evolution in the general use of the term; yes, I care about data and the scientific process; and yes, I am, in fact, somewhat intelligent and can use big words.
And, for the record, "evolution" or even "theory of evolution" is very vague. Scientists don't agree on it universally - because there is a huge amount of data, and it doesn't all agree, and it doesn't even all fit into even the general Darwinian idea of origins. Example of fuzziness on the term "evolution:" does that mean pure atheistic evolution, including a theory like the Big Bang? Does it mean Darwin's theory of evolution, the current theory of evolution, or the theory of evolution back in the 1950's? Is it referring to biogenesis?
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." Well, with this definition, I'd partially agree. It's obvious that genetic mutations do get carried on to the next generations; however, exactly how far these genetic mutations can go is what is debated. This is why the terms macro and micro have been applied to the theory of inherited characteristics.
so. The word "evolution" is extremely specific? I really don't think so.
[This post will be a test: will this post be modded based on my religion or on the post's logical and argumentative quality/content!]
Re:Science privatization (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I think Libertarians are among the most historically ignorant people to be found. For a rather good example of how diminished state funding can lead to decline, look what happened in Rome. Virtually all the great public works projects, all the engineering innovations and the like were made early on. BY Constantine's time, Rome's technical abilities had fallen to the point where craftsmen would actually have to loot older monuments.
Private industry needs returns on investments that can be measured in years. There's nothing wrong with that, people want to make money on their investment. Basic research, however, is absolutely critical to long-term scientific advancement. Those big, expensive particle accelerators that open up the secrets of the universe will never be built by private industry, because there's almost zero chance of any meaningful financially-rewarding application. And yet, in the timeline of decades or perhaps even centuries, basic physics research may open up technologies we can't really imagine now.
Unless you turn it all over to the private sector, in which case it won't be Americans landing on Alpha Centauri or getting instantaneously transported from the Moon to Mars. Americans will be the people cleaning the ashtrays and vacuuming the floors.
To very loosely paraphrase Asimov, never let your ideology prevent you from doing what's right.
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.
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.
Re:Tragically... (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, biological evolution is extremely specific, and you are clearly not qualified to argue otherwise.
Re:"The Republican War on Science"? (Score:3, Insightful)
And much of the spending choices are independent of party. For example, fusion research funding tracks not political party, but the price of oil. The Republicans are generally pro-nuclear research, the Democrats are generally opposed to it. Objectivity demands you point that out instead of saying the Republicans are "at war with science" because they choose nuclear over solar.
Re:How ironic (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.
Re:Pro-science can be bad too (Score:2, Insightful)
The science of ethicstology?
Science is descriptive, not normative. You're claiming the a 'strictly scientific viewpoint' makes moral claims. It doesn't. Science doesn't say 'we should work on strengthening the gene pool'. It merely says that's what happens naturally, which some nutcases--not science--think means 'good'.
Re:Social or physical sciences? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Social or physical sciences? (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 levels rise?" Recently glaciologists have been seeing results, not currently included in the models, that seem to imply that a rise of 30 feet in a few decades time from now is not totally out of the question.
It's quite true that there is no certainty that this is the correct interpretation. Further measurements are needed, and these need to be included in the models. Then the models need to be run with a range of plausible parameters. But it would be wise to start making preparations. Some reasonable preparations include to cease increasing the rate of CO2 accumulation, but others would include studying how to build and maintain dikes, and investigating where they might reasonably be installed. Large investments should probably wait upon the results, but initial studies should have already begun. But the lack of 100% certainty is a hoax. One never gets certainty. Certainty is a limiting case, that doesn't even apply to the Sun rising tomorrow. That one might get 99.999999%, or possibly another 9 or two. This is *close* to certainty. And that's the best one can EVER do.
Re:Social or physical sciences? (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 bias."
This is a black-box view of research: the claim that the results of research are readily tainted by the researcher's bias. Any level of scientific training will teach you otherwise -- while data can be manipulated, putting bias on your interpretations is obvious to a large enough group of educated readers. Findings can be easily verified by measurements of your own -- which is exactly what is done.
"Climatology is not a precise science, a lot of stuff is open to interpretation"
It is much more precise than this sentence. It belies a lack of understanding about important and basic scientific principles. All scientific principles are capable of conveying to you the limitations of their accuracy. While biased and uneducated naysayers love to deny it, anthropogenic climate change has long passed into the realm of "confirmed".
Re:Pro-science can be bad too (Score:3, Insightful)
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 scientist disputes that lighter skin is better adapted to the climates of northern Europe and that darker skin is better adapted to climates closer to the equator, and that the human populations (or, to put it less euphemistically, races) native to these regions have these traits.
Racism is a moral view: it is the opinion that some human beings, due to their racial origin, have less worth than others. The proper response to racism is individualism: human beings should be judged on their individual merits rather than on the aggregate merits of any group they may belong to. The problem is that certain leftists are so committed to collectivism that, rather than solving the problems of racism, sexism, etc. all in one stroke, they try to hector scientists into reaching certain conclusions, not because those conclusions are empirically valid, but because those conclusions support a certain political end.
To a collectivist, conceding that on average, Kenyans are better genetically suited to running marathons than Anglo-Saxons is already a concession to racism. That's because they're incapable of seeing people as individuals, but rather, as members of races, genders, sexual orientations, nationalities, and so forth. An individualist may very well note that, on average, Kenyans have a genetic advantage in running marathons. But just knowing a particular individual is Kenyan doesn't settle the issue: there are individual Kenyans who have lost marathons to Anglo-Saxons, and it's folly to judge a marathon runner based on race instead of their marathon times. The individualist, thus, is unbiased to whatever the scientific reality may be because they know population averages are simply population averages. It's the leftist who bends science to fit some social goal, and it's double-talking scientists who say "race doesn't exist" who concede honesty, clarity, and truth to some political end. It's a lot easier for scientists to ignore creationists--the ethnic studies department across the street is better at agitating and is the bigger threat to science.
Contrary to what the postmodernists claim, and what cowardly scientists like Jared Diamond have conceded, the purpose of science isn't to come to conclusions that are non-racist--it's to come to conclusions that are true, or likely to be true. Racism is a moral view to be battled on moral grounds: there is no need to pervert empirical science to that goal.
Re:Social or physical sciences? (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 listening to the establishment will not necessarily get you the right answer. Scientists don't give a shit about listening to establishment. Only if you have no understanding as to how the scientific process works can you confuse the matter and simply think that there is some cabal called "science" which makes unsubstantiated -- and likely to be wrong -- claims by virtue of authority.
"Why don't you just say it, the way king's dress-makers did -- whoever doubts it, is a moron?"
There's no doubt that you're a moron. It has nothing to do with the fact that you doubt, but the way in which you do so.
I think you're over-reacting a bit. (Score:1, Insightful)
So, what is the scientific reason why we shouldn't pursue the other research they did? You know, finding out the limits of human endurance by subjecting people to hypothermia and whatnot, which they also did? So I think that should establish that we do need morals, if not necessarily theistic ones.
But then you get into an entirely different argument over which morals. Science does not provide any of those answers, nor can it. I believe you may be familiar with "Hume's Fork" which completely prevents science (which reveals to us "what is") from telling us what ought to be. Astute readers may also note that Hume was an atheist.
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.
Nope (Score:1, Insightful)
People without science are at a severe disadvantage.
Re:How ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
'th' is very different than 'd'
*runs and checks bank statement*
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!