Comments on: Science debate 2008 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/ Just another WordPress weblog Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: KEn http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473280 Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:14:38 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473280 There should be a panel of scientists in the next room with those Frank Luntz dials. Anytime one of the candidates stray into BS, obfuscation, and/or outright lying, the dials get turned up by the expert panel. It would be great to see Huck in the red the whole time. There should be a panel of scientists in the next room with those Frank Luntz dials.

Anytime one of the candidates stray into BS, obfuscation, and/or outright lying, the dials get turned up by the expert panel.

It would be great to see Huck in the red the whole time.

]]> by: Samantha Vimes http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473207 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:10:20 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473207 Maybe it's because I live in California, but I do believe the general public cares about science AND would be interested to know which politicians pay attention to it and which ones would push policy on science instead. Actually, I believe a study was done on people reading science articles and over 50% do, and discuss what they've read in conversations. (Which also means badly done science writing is reaching and influencing a fairly wide audience). A debate on science issues would only help to increase public awareness of very important issues, and help uncover flaws in candidates the corporate media glosses over. Maybe it’s because I live in California, but I do believe the general public cares about science AND would be interested to know which politicians pay attention to it and which ones would push policy on science instead.
Actually, I believe a study was done on people reading science articles and over 50% do, and discuss what they’ve read in conversations. (Which also means badly done science writing is reaching and influencing a fairly wide audience).

A debate on science issues would only help to increase public awareness of very important issues, and help uncover flaws in candidates the corporate media glosses over.

]]> by: paul http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473180 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:44:21 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473180 I would settle for each candidate having to explain just one of the basic facts of the universe, from f=ma to why the double helix is important... I would settle for each candidate having to explain just one of the basic facts of the universe, from f=ma to why the double helix is important…

]]> by: NancyP http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473178 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:35:21 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473178 The public in general does not think that science is important. They like technology, but think it comes from thin air. I think that candidates should be forced to admit that decreasing numbers of Americans become high-level scientists, that increasing numbers of foriegn-born scientists are returning to their own countries to set up real research, and that the USA is in danger of being left in the dust should trends continue. No science - no technology - no saleable products for export. The public in general does not think that science is important. They like technology, but think it comes from thin air. I think that candidates should be forced to admit that decreasing numbers of Americans become high-level scientists, that increasing numbers of foriegn-born scientists are returning to their own countries to set up real research, and that the USA is in danger of being left in the dust should trends continue. No science - no technology - no saleable products for export.

]]> by: Chris http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473149 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:23:33 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473149 I should probably add that I realize that science has already been made a political issue, for all the wrong reasons, but I worry that if we play into that -- if, in a sense, we operate with their framing of science -- we can only do more harm to science. I should probably add that I realize that science has already been made a political issue, for all the wrong reasons, but I worry that if we play into that — if, in a sense, we operate with their framing of science — we can only do more harm to science.

]]> by: Chris http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473148 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:21:37 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473148 Amanda, thank you for answering. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would, as the thing seemed to have gathered so much momentum. My biggest worry, which I express in the second post on the debate, is the intermingling of science and politics. I think science should in many cases, inform politics (politicians should be aware of the science on global warming, for example), but the one question I'd like to see candidates asked is, "Will you leave science the fuck alone?" Because that's what I want them to do. The problem with the Bush administration has been politicians trying to dictate what scientists can and can't say about the science, or misrepresenting what the scientists are saying. Let the scientists speak science, and the politicians decide policy based on that information. Republicans will still screw it up (and so will the Democrats much of the time), of course, but at least they won't have fucked with the message science is giving us, and the public can see the disconnect between fact and policy. Scientists shouldn't be determining policy, of course, and I'm a little afraid that some scientists want to do that, but politicians sure as hell shouldn't be determining what questions scientists can or can't ask and what answers they can give to those questions. And by making science a political issue, I worry that the two will get too tied up together and it will be easier for politicians to influence science. Amanda, thank you for answering. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would, as the thing seemed to have gathered so much momentum.

My biggest worry, which I express in the second post on the debate, is the intermingling of science and politics. I think science should in many cases, inform politics (politicians should be aware of the science on global warming, for example), but the one question I’d like to see candidates asked is, “Will you leave science the fuck alone?” Because that’s what I want them to do. The problem with the Bush administration has been politicians trying to dictate what scientists can and can’t say about the science, or misrepresenting what the scientists are saying. Let the scientists speak science, and the politicians decide policy based on that information. Republicans will still screw it up (and so will the Democrats much of the time), of course, but at least they won’t have fucked with the message science is giving us, and the public can see the disconnect between fact and policy.

Scientists shouldn’t be determining policy, of course, and I’m a little afraid that some scientists want to do that, but politicians sure as hell shouldn’t be determining what questions scientists can or can’t ask and what answers they can give to those questions. And by making science a political issue, I worry that the two will get too tied up together and it will be easier for politicians to influence science.

]]> by: teac http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473073 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:01:23 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473073 <i>whackadoodles</i> Heh. whackadoodles

Heh.

]]> by: deep6 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473045 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:55:19 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473045 <i>Conservatives are unwilling to engage in any kind of debate about science that is not pre-stacked in their favor.</i> Agreed. It would be a Democratic debate only. I think it would work well before the primary though, if only to vet the Dem candidates' understanding of the many, many important scientific issues their administration would have to deal with. I don't think any of the Republican candidates believe the world is 6000 years old, though I'm sure the Anti-Evolution Three (now Two) support Intelligent Design. For people who need deities, the idea that gods aren't to be found in the cracks of human knowledge or past the limits of what is provable via the scientific method, ID *becomes* default science. I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of wingnut ignorance if people weren't hypocrites about it. The same scientific method that established the faculties of evolutionary biology and genetics and provided valuable contributions to all sorts of other faculties is the same scientific method that gave us the atom bomb, chemotherapy and heart transplants. So if they deny the truth of the scientific method in one aspect, they should deny it in all. No cherry picking allowed. Next time Cheney needs a heart transplant??? Nope, sorry, got that via the scientific method. Next time Bush wants to drop napalm on some civilians in Fallujah? Nope, sorry. Scientific method. This could work out well for us. Conservatives are unwilling to engage in any kind of debate about science that is not pre-stacked in their favor.

Agreed. It would be a Democratic debate only. I think it would work well before the primary though, if only to vet the Dem candidates’ understanding of the many, many important scientific issues their administration would have to deal with.

I don’t think any of the Republican candidates believe the world is 6000 years old, though I’m sure the Anti-Evolution Three (now Two) support Intelligent Design. For people who need deities, the idea that gods aren’t to be found in the cracks of human knowledge or past the limits of what is provable via the scientific method, ID *becomes* default science. I wouldn’t have a problem with this kind of wingnut ignorance if people weren’t hypocrites about it. The same scientific method that established the faculties of evolutionary biology and genetics and provided valuable contributions to all sorts of other faculties is the same scientific method that gave us the atom bomb, chemotherapy and heart transplants. So if they deny the truth of the scientific method in one aspect, they should deny it in all. No cherry picking allowed.

Next time Cheney needs a heart transplant??? Nope, sorry, got that via the scientific method. Next time Bush wants to drop napalm on some civilians in Fallujah? Nope, sorry. Scientific method. This could work out well for us.

]]> by: CBrachyrhynchos http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473015 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:43:28 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-473015 Well, it's exactly those reasons, why I think we are never going to see it, and why we probably should never see it. Conservatives are unwilling to engage in any kind of debate about science that is not pre-stacked in their favor. Well, it’s exactly those reasons, why I think we are never going to see it, and why we probably should never see it. Conservatives are unwilling to engage in any kind of debate about science that is not pre-stacked in their favor.

]]> by: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-472996 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:11:30 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/6426/#comment-472996 I'm still stunned that we can have candidates for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who believe in creationism and a 6,000 year old earth. I mean, really, WHAT THE FUCK? How can it be true that someone so ignorant can actually have a chance to be elected "leader of the free world"? In a related note, I'm kinda proud of my little boy. He's figured out there's no Santa, and now that mind is working on other "proofs". He's afraid of "dopplegangers" from his monster book, but he doesn't believe in God. His CCD-teaching grandmother is having a fit. She tried to tell him some claptrap about God protecting him from evil (some crazy pre-Vatican II shit, I'm sure. The Vatican II reforms never seem to have reached Chicago.) Boy wants some proof or evidence of this God. "I don't know what I'd do if I had a boy like him in my CCD class." she whines to my husband. Well, the typical response is to tell the kid to shut up, learn what you're teaching, and keep all independent thought to himself. I say it's good for her, b/c she has to *think* about her responses! I was always taught that God prefers a questioning faith anyway, and that one's conscience was primary. Which, while it is what the Catholic church is supposed to believe, is not what the hierarchy generally teaches. Patriarchal authorities prefer to be obeyed, especially by silent drones. Now, I have to teach him to respect his grandmother and her beliefs without succumbing to them, even though he's growing up in a world where whackadoodles who invent their own personal realities and try to force others to accept them are CONSIDERED VALID CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT. I’m still stunned that we can have candidates for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who believe in creationism and a 6,000 year old earth.

I mean, really, WHAT THE FUCK? How can it be true that someone so ignorant can actually have a chance to be elected “leader of the free world”?

In a related note, I’m kinda proud of my little boy. He’s figured out there’s no Santa, and now that mind is working on other “proofs”.

He’s afraid of “dopplegangers” from his monster book, but he doesn’t believe in God. His CCD-teaching grandmother is having a fit. She tried to tell him some claptrap about God protecting him from evil (some crazy pre-Vatican II shit, I’m sure. The Vatican II reforms never seem to have reached Chicago.)

Boy wants some proof or evidence of this God.

“I don’t know what I’d do if I had a boy like him in my CCD class.” she whines to my husband.

Well, the typical response is to tell the kid to shut up, learn what you’re teaching, and keep all independent thought to himself.

I say it’s good for her, b/c she has to *think* about her responses! I was always taught that God prefers a questioning faith anyway, and that one’s conscience was primary. Which, while it is what the Catholic church is supposed to believe, is not what the hierarchy generally teaches. Patriarchal authorities prefer to be obeyed, especially by silent drones.

Now, I have to teach him to respect his grandmother and her beliefs without succumbing to them, even though he’s growing up in a world where whackadoodles who invent their own personal realities and try to force others to accept them are CONSIDERED VALID CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT.

]]>