Given GWB's known propensity for junk science (most on Slashdot are familiar with the two "letters of concern" his administration has received from a coalition of top US scientists, right?), I wouldn't be surprised if he ducks this.
If he agrees to take part, though, I expect there will be some pretty tough questions... and although I don't live in the States anymore, I'd sure like to follow the exchange. The sad thing about such a Q&A, though, is that most people are so science-illiterate that (a) they
I realize that you're probably either joking or trolling, but nonetheless I should clarify what I wrote. In fact, you've correctly identified the malady - but the patient is Dubya's administration.
Simply put, science is not - in itself - political. Scientists may be political, but science is just an idea (well, lots of them, including some really big ones we call theories, but you probably know what I mean) of how the universe works. That's it, that's all.
There are of course disagreements between scientists and their respective ideas, but that's generally in the rather early stages of turning ideas into theories. The thing that astounds me about Mr Bush and co. is his willingness to ignore generally accepted scientific conclusions that (as you so aptly put it) disagree with his politics. To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented in modern US politics.
After following for some time the decline of rational discourse in US politics, I have come to believe this is a natural extension of the same phenomenon. Because genuine political debate has been replaced by a shouting match, certain people seem to have made the fundamental logical error of thinking that science works the same way. Sadly for them, it doesn't; sadly for the rest of the world, it doesn't seem to matter to most of the electorate.
I'd close with my customary "Cheers!" here, but that last thought is a tad too depressing.
This could get interesting! (Score:3, Interesting)
If he agrees to take part, though, I expect there will be some pretty tough questions... and although I don't live in the States anymore, I'd sure like to follow the exchange. The sad thing about such a Q&A, though, is that most people are so science-illiterate that (a) they
Re:This could get interesting! (Score:1, Troll)
Junk science (Score:2)
Simply put, science is not - in itself - political. Scientists may be political, but science is just an idea (well, lots of them, including some really big ones we call theories, but you probably know what I mean) of how the universe works. That's it, that's all.
There are of course disagreements between scientists and their respective ideas, but that's generally in the rather early stages of turning ideas into theories. The thing that astounds me about Mr Bush and co. is his willingness to ignore generally accepted scientific conclusions that (as you so aptly put it) disagree with his politics. To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented in modern US politics.
After following for some time the decline of rational discourse in US politics, I have come to believe this is a natural extension of the same phenomenon. Because genuine political debate has been replaced by a shouting match, certain people seem to have made the fundamental logical error of thinking that science works the same way. Sadly for them, it doesn't; sadly for the rest of the world, it doesn't seem to matter to most of the electorate.
I'd close with my customary "Cheers!" here, but that last thought is a tad too depressing.