Science Debate 2008

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.)"

Obama and patents

[pipatron]

At least one sane guy there, reading about Obama:

Reforming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Seems like that one is the geek choice.

Common Man

[Amorymeltzer]

I've been part of their mailing list for a while, and now that some major groups have joined the effort, it's good to see it finally getting some press. Hopefully this will explode, it's just too bad it didn't come to head early enough for most of the primaries.

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:How ironic

[causality]

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.

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" since this goes a long way towards excusing one's own inability or unwillingness to pay attention to details, but being an editor is detail work. The editor knows that before they apply for the job. Additionally, the mistake was made with a quantity; it was not just a misspelled word or a less-than-ideal use of grammar. Whether "12,0000" was intended to mean "12,000" or "120,000" or neither does impact the degree of support shown by said scientists.

This is just a poor job of editing. It's not very useful to dismiss valid criticism when that criticism did not occur in a vacuum. Rather than look at the reaction to a cause, look to the cause itself if you don't like the chain of events that followed.

Scientific method?

[John3]

Wouldn't it be nice just to hear the candidate's position on the scientific method [wikipedia.org]? I'd bet several of the candidates would be against the scientific method, and most everything else on those position statements is dependent on their belief in using observable and measurable data to form a hypothesis.

Re:Science privatization

[MightyMartian]

A large chunk of the computer revolution can be attributed to NASA's need to miniaturize onboard systems for Apollo. Materials like Teflon come out of the space industry. NASA has been responsible, directly or indirectly for an enormous number of technical innovations. So while the space program is costly, there is a tangible payback to the taxpayer.

Re:"The Republican War on Science"?

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:Pro-science can be bad too

[ChromeAeonium]

Correct. For example, in pre-Darwinian days, it was believed that God had created blacks separately than whites (or that blacks were the result of Lot's curse, or some curse), therefore blacks were inferior. Post-Darwin, however, blacks were closer to monkeys and whites were more evolved, therefore blacks were inferior.

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'd say the former, because regardless of justification, the results are the same. Just something to think about.

Science without Ethics

[MBraynard]

Science without Ethics is sociopathology.

Re:"The Republican War on Science"?

[Pendersempai]

Scientific American is not a good way to take the pulse of scientists. It measures science aficionados -- those who are interested in science but not smart or dedicated enough to read journals like Nature directly. It's not written for a very sophisticated audience. I think even the Science section of the New York Times is better.