There’s an idea floating around of trying to set up a Presidential debate on science issues. I was gonna post some snarky thing about the lack of any qualifications whatsoever of the presidential candidates on either side about science, and how silly (yet informative) a debate on such a thing would be, but how it would still be a good idea, as long as they got real scientists to moderate and not let the candidates get away with any spin, and then PZ beat me to it.
Figures.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. | |
 | Open Lab 2008 is a collection of the best blog posts of the year, all in one place. Are you a science junkie? Yeah, you want it. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
November 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I agree on one condition: I want “technology” to be covered as well.
Examples:
Laws concerning the internet (see Slashdot for many postings a week on these issues).
The idiocy of a patent system which produces people/companies who produce NOTHING in this world other than lawsuits based on vague patents the Patent Office was broken enough to issue.
ISPs telling me what I can and can’t view.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Oddly, Hillary gave a speech on science policy, a month ago, accusing the Bush administration of starting a war on science: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3570
Now, if she could just pluck up the courage to step off the religious platform she shares with every other candidate in both parties, it might get interesting.
(No, I’m not a Clinton supporter. I’m not even American!)
November 7th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I want to know when people lost the ability to distinguish between a political debate, and a presentation of platform positions.
The ‘debates’ haven’t had any debating in them! Getting a group of politicans together in one room and have them give short stump speeches in response to queries isn’t a debate.
It’s like we’re actively encouraging the adoption of Orwellian speech ourselves, instead of having it opposed upon us.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Maybe they should have a segment on map reading…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309212,00.html
November 8th, 2007 at 2:12 am
if politicians like the limelight so much then maybe it would be a good idea to stick all the candidates in a “Big Brother” house scenario, for a few weeks; THEN you would get a debate, even if it was about: who should empty the bins or who should do the washing up etc.
It might be quite enlightening.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Big Brother house, after one week:
No survivors!
End of debate!
GAry 7
November 8th, 2007 at 9:06 am
The “Big Brother” scenario would really simplify the primary process. Of course, Iowa would insist on getting to call in its vote first.
Maybe we could do the debate as a science quiz show, hosted by Al Gore!
November 8th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I just find it really amusing that a scientist who expresses political opinions several times a week will say something about “lack of any qualifications whatsoever of the presidential candidates on either side about scienceâ€. As a somewhat skeptical person, I thought about a few questions:
1. What would constitute a qualification? Taking a science class? Working professionally in the field? Having an interest in the topic?
2. Do ALL the candidates “lack… any qualifications… about science� Was any research done to verify their lack of qualifications? Is this a fact or an opinion? (I know, I know, I’m being skeptical…)
3. What qualifies a person to talk about politics? Taking a Poli-Sci class? Being registered to vote? Being a scientist? Being a blogger? Having an opinion?
4. Throughout their education, do Political Science/Law students take more science classes than scientists take Poli-Sci classes?
OK, time for a quick quiz: Name the candidate that has an Bachelors Degree in Biology. Bonus: What is their graduate degree?
November 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Detached Observer:
Here’s a start; how about first of all understanding evolution is real and creationism is wrong. That eliminates half the Republican candidates immediately.
How about understanding that you cannot suppress scientific results you don’t like?
How about understanding that UFOs are mundane objects misinterpreted?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Yeah, and I hope they use “hard science” scientist like (physicists, chemists, mathematicians and computer scientists) rather than “soft science” scientists who have an obvious political or religious bias.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:36 am
A presidential debate on science is more or less akin to a scientist debate on international politics. Inherently silly.
A presidential debate on scientific policy, on the other hand, could be informative even if it were what debates now are, which are exchanges of polemic intended to batter the opposition into submission and ‘rally the troops’ rather than actually convince anyone of anything. Why do I say it’d be informative?
First candidate who says “whatever the scientists agree upon goes because I know as much about their field as they know about mine” wins.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Actually, politics IS the oldest profession, probably even predating prostitution. Every time we scratch someones back, in expectation they’ll scratch ours, that’s politics. Observe the give and take in ape societies. The formation of power groups as one ape supports another. It’s ALL politics. Politics has occasionally been described as the art of getting what you want from someone, while they walk away thinking they came out on top in your negotiations. Some are really gifted at this. Most are inept, but trying. Politics is ancient, predating the rise of humanity. Canines do it all the time. As such, everyone is qualified to be a politician but some are bound to be better at it than others.
Science, on the other hand, requires a highly developed prefrontal cortex, to anticipate the consequences of our actions. It’s a fairly recent development in human evolution, consistant with the ongoing evolution of our brains. I would hope that the best politicians might be intellectually developed enough to also comprehend science, at least, in principle.
GAry 7
November 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
>> I would hope that the best politicians might be intellectually developed enough to also comprehend science, at least, in principle.
Or recognize because they don’t know universal gravitation from the sucking noise all their sycophants make that perhaps they need to leave science to the experts and trust their judgment. None of this ‘teach the controversy’ or other such twaddle.