Science Debate 2008
February 5, 2008 2:29 PM Subscribe
"Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy."
This post was deleted for the following reason: Been there, called for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of that. -- cortex
They dodge! They swerve!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 2:38 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by uncanny hengeman at 2:38 PM on February 5, 2008
I still want a standardized presidential competency exam. You have to take a test to get into your mediocre local state university, but we let a man with an IQ below 70 into the White House. Never again.
posted by mullingitover at 2:42 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by mullingitover at 2:42 PM on February 5, 2008
Cool Papa Bell writes "I propose a science quiz for the candidates ..."
Ah nice provocation, you know they would rather violate laws of physics just because violating laws is so sweet. But I argue that they showing a solid scientific background would impress a 20% of population at very very best, while sadly 80% are more likely to be impressed by their
a) smile
b) rethoric
c) values
Doubt but few would be impressed by knowledge of what a normal distribution is and why it's so damn sexy I can't get my eyes away from one.
Fuck fuck fuck I so much miss Carl Sagan, we need more of them because Dawkins, polite and delicate as he is , just doesn't seem to resonate with "i am agnostic cause I don't want to go to mass" masses.
posted by elpapacito at 2:44 PM on February 5, 2008
Ah nice provocation, you know they would rather violate laws of physics just because violating laws is so sweet. But I argue that they showing a solid scientific background would impress a 20% of population at very very best, while sadly 80% are more likely to be impressed by their
a) smile
b) rethoric
c) values
Doubt but few would be impressed by knowledge of what a normal distribution is and why it's so damn sexy I can't get my eyes away from one.
Fuck fuck fuck I so much miss Carl Sagan, we need more of them because Dawkins, polite and delicate as he is , just doesn't seem to resonate with "i am agnostic cause I don't want to go to mass" masses.
posted by elpapacito at 2:44 PM on February 5, 2008
Well this is a debate, so it's more about their plans for science and policy issues related to science than what content they have memorized.
I think this would be better than the questions not getting asked at all, elpapacito. It would still be a debate, so it would be subject to the usual political shenanigans.
posted by Tehanu at 2:55 PM on February 5, 2008
I think this would be better than the questions not getting asked at all, elpapacito. It would still be a debate, so it would be subject to the usual political shenanigans.
posted by Tehanu at 2:55 PM on February 5, 2008
I want to know the candidates' position on the Fools Gold Loaf.
posted by suckerpunch at 3:05 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by suckerpunch at 3:05 PM on February 5, 2008
Interesting post!
posted by andretheus at 3:06 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by andretheus at 3:06 PM on February 5, 2008
National Academies to Co-Sponsor ScienceDebate2008
posted by homunculus at 3:14 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by homunculus at 3:14 PM on February 5, 2008
Mm, I dun trust dem smart fuck'rs up thar on th'Hill! No spine, always up t'somethin sneaky!
posted by secret about box at 3:19 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by secret about box at 3:19 PM on February 5, 2008
Tehanu writes "I think this would be better than the questions not getting asked at all, elpapacito."
I was just pointing out that a questioning of any kind wouldn't be welcomed by any politician, unless they knew the "right" answer, and I mean right politically speaking..and not knowing how comes there is , for instance, day and night is not good if your base is made of scientists or people who like "science" a lot, as it makes you look exactly like an ordinary fool.
I certainly would welcome any opportunity for politicians to show what they "really" are made of in a context that isn't uberpopular, with a target audience that is a little more focused and less distracted by showmanship and "big words" ; from a politician point of view, it don't think it would be very hard to obtain consensus of these "intellectual elites" by sparing some money for their research , and it would be some good consensus to have.
It seems to me that "science" is nowhere nearly as popular as in the recent past, even if we have the very fruits of years of research under our nose. It's painted as boring, hard, unpopular, requires all this "difficult" math and it also has the dangerous side effect of helping developing critical tought, something religion doesn't.
posted by elpapacito at 3:40 PM on February 5, 2008
I was just pointing out that a questioning of any kind wouldn't be welcomed by any politician, unless they knew the "right" answer, and I mean right politically speaking..and not knowing how comes there is , for instance, day and night is not good if your base is made of scientists or people who like "science" a lot, as it makes you look exactly like an ordinary fool.
I certainly would welcome any opportunity for politicians to show what they "really" are made of in a context that isn't uberpopular, with a target audience that is a little more focused and less distracted by showmanship and "big words" ; from a politician point of view, it don't think it would be very hard to obtain consensus of these "intellectual elites" by sparing some money for their research , and it would be some good consensus to have.
It seems to me that "science" is nowhere nearly as popular as in the recent past, even if we have the very fruits of years of research under our nose. It's painted as boring, hard, unpopular, requires all this "difficult" math and it also has the dangerous side effect of helping developing critical tought, something religion doesn't.
posted by elpapacito at 3:40 PM on February 5, 2008
Ops forgot to mention : National Academies to Co-Sponsor ScienceDebate2008 , as above by homunculus, seems like exactly what is needed. Something that seems to be and maybe is popular as well....politz should find a nice vote pool in scientists, wannabe and cum laude.
posted by elpapacito at 3:43 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by elpapacito at 3:43 PM on February 5, 2008
« Older The Most Frightening Sandwich In The World | Pictures by Cat Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:34 PM on February 5, 2008