Regular readers know that I will sometimes fume and gnash about politics and science. I’ve been active about this for some time now, and while I hope that making noise will help, I have longed to do more.
Now I can.
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum (from The Intersection) have started up what may be an incredibly effective grassroots campaign to get the Presidential candidates to debate science. A real, actual televised debate on real, actual science.
Right now, the effort is mostly getting signatures, but once a critical mass is reached a more proactive stance will be taken (some things apparently are happening sotto voce as well). So far, they’re doing very well: the list of scientists is impressive. They also have a nice list of bloggers supporting them, including one or two Best Science Blog winners you may recognize.
Update: D’oh! Chris just sent me a note reminding me that there is a Facebook group for the Science Debate too. If you’re a member of Facebook, sign up!
I think this would be a fantastic opportunity. I suspect a lot of the candidates would do quite well in such a debate, while others… well, remember when three Republican candidates raised their hands and said they thought evolution was wrong? Wouldn’t you like to see a debate with some, ah, interesting follow-up to that?
Yeah, me too. Support the cause. Get these candidates to publicly state their stance on science. The country — the world — needs this.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
This seriously needs to happen. If anything we can appeal to the vast areas in modern life where quality science effects us and help show that the candidates should have at least a basic grasp of science but also a platform.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Phil, do you WANT me to hate all the candidates?
But seriously, I think this would be good for those of us who have a real understanding of science, but I’m not sure how much good it would do for the general public. People are so mislead that they would most likely completely ignore any candidate that disagreed with their religious foundation.
Despite that, I still support such a debate.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I’m glad to see, or rather, NOT see blogs such as climate audit represented there.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Well, we quite well know whence Huckabee goes.
Obama stated he would cut or freeze NASA $ for education $.
However, it will still be the Christian conservatives vote.
It might have helped if a Chinese, Russian, Indian, ESA, or Japanese
manned mission to Luna or Mars to colonize and claim it were
occurring right now.
Or ET invading Earth.
Yes, I would definitely support a science debate.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I think this would be a great idea. I both want to know what the candidates think, and I want the general public to hear why they are wrong. Good scientists should be asking selected questions. When a candidate says something stupid, they should be publicly told what the truth is with a bit of explanation. This is a great opportunity for education. If a scientist says someones hated candidate is wrong, they may be motivated to find out why. They may listen. We know how the brain works, use it.
Unfortunately no candidate in their right mind would agree to such a debate, it is a loose, loose proposition for them. If they know enough to answer right they will loose votes, if they purposely answer wrong, they will get humiliated. Too bad we do not have a large enough voting demographic to make it happen. I am still all for the attempt. Show that we are a voting demographic, and keep pushing at every election. It is the way things are done in America. Make ourselves heard.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
My input: “We are at the beginning of the 21st Century. By the 22nd Century, will the USA be the 21st Century’s Science and Technology Renaissance Leader or follower?”
December 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I’d be satisfied with a decent debate on the future of the internet. These idiots don’t even seem to understand the technical problems with some of their proposed regulations. Teenagers who can’t write whole sentences without using sms speak apparently seem to understand better. If politicians are at that level of technical competence, I wonder whether society would be adversely affected by realising how little their representatives understand the world.
Kinda like a child realising their parents aren’t all authoritative. It’d certainly make it harder for those leaders to implement policies you might support, such as expanding NASA’s funding or protecting the environment. Opposition could too easily point out quotes from a prior debate as proof the legislator doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. From there the media and the public would have their day of whining and science would still lose in the end.
Ah cynicism, my guardian angel.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
John, I am a member of the general public who would love to see such a debate. Unfortunately, as revmonkey boy states, candidates would probably have to be dragged into such a debate by their ears. However, I support the idea and would be glad to listen to the debate. I hope there are others like me out there.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
“John, I am a member of the general public who would love to see such a debate. Unfortunately, as revmonkey boy states, candidates would probably have to be dragged into such a debate by their ears. However, I support the idea and would be glad to listen to the debate. I hope there are others like me out there.”
Well, I wouldn’t consider you part of the general public if you come to a science blog.
I’m talking about people who have absolutely no interest in science.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
Carl Sagan
December 11th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
— I suspect a lot of the candidates would do quite well in such a debate
You need to back that up with a reason, Phil. I don’t get that read from ANY of the candidates.
Some say they will not allow politics to impede science, but that’s just words. We have anti-evolution Republicans to watch out for, but then we have folks like John Edwards who got rich on junk science lawsuits. He’s a classic “THINK OF THE CHIIIIIIIILDREN!” type of politician.
Our system weeds out everyone but the slickest and oiliest characters: people who play on emotions and will exploit anyone and anything to gain more power.
Cynical? Yes, but anyone not overflowing with cynicism at this point is *NOT* paying sufficient attention.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
You know what? this is a capital idea!
I’ll even put it on my silly blog and make my readers pay attention. (shouldn’t be hard, they already loves them some science).
It makes me cry to hear the nonsense that comes out of the republican party regarding science.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I suspect that all candidates would quickly realise (after being told by their handlers) that the safest thing to do in such a debate is answer every question with the most anti-science bit of rhetoric they could muster.
Face it, the majority of people (and I’m not just America bashing, although we seem to have it a bit worse than some other countries) are drooling idiots without the ability to count change. The only logical course for any politician, even a relatively bright one, is to seem to be as ignorant as possible.
Anyone who is above average can only appeal to the majority by acting less able than they actually are.
If you doubt my pessimistic assessment, how many of your neighbors buy lots and lots of lottery tickets, spending tens of thousands of dollars every year, hoping to win a few thousand dollars?
December 11th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Lubbock TV news report on Creation/Evolution
This features Harvey Madison of the Center for Critical Thinking.
Harv and I appeared together to rebut the Moon hoax-hoax on our local Fox affiliate a few years ago.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Somewhat off topic, but did anyone notice the Mormon.org ad that’s appeared once or twice at the top of the main blog page? I wonder if it was the words “Republican candidate” that brought it up?
December 12th, 2007 at 2:16 am
Elsewhere, the Kansas State Board of Education voted to teach evolution in public schools, with the six human members of the board outvoting the four monkeys.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:38 am
I also agree that this is a great idea. And when the candidates answer questions, a follow up would verify a fact or reveal an error. A panel of scientists would ask pre-selected questions, including of course topics that have a political dimension such as stem cell research, global warming or teaching evolution. It would be nice to also unmask the artificial right-wing political agendas both applied to and deliberately distorting these areas of science,
December 12th, 2007 at 2:50 am
I actually worry about about the message this will send to the world when some candidate starts talking about the godless Darwinists and then you elect them anyway…
December 12th, 2007 at 3:16 am
As an Australian, I offer several comments:
We have recently completed a national election and tossed out the Prime Minister, a Conservative John Howard. His Ministers (all drawn from elected parliamentarians) consisted of 70% lawyers and the remainder possibly even less connected to reality;
The new governing party, while sporting fewer lawyers, still has its share of religious nuts.
Both sides of our government seem to think that what they do is enormously important and to view themselves (when in power) as demi-gods.
This is a fairly accurate replica of the state of affairs in USA – except that your lot appear to consider that the USA is the only country of importance in the whole world.
Get a grip – your population is about 5% of the world’s and Australia’s is far less than 1%. We all need to become better listeners, as well as basing opinion on fact rather than religion.
Keep up the great work, Phil – the whole world needs you.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Most of the Republican candidates are too ignorant to debate science.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Yes, I was floored when Obama stated a freeze on the NASA budget with funds going to education! He dropped 10 rungs on my presidential ladder with that one. What a way to cut our throats: stop basic research that has metric tons of spinoffs! Let’s just stop buying a few “contractors” in foreign lands for a week!
I would think that Edwards and Kucinich would do well in such a debate.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Such a debate would be largely pointless in a country where one must follow unseen voices and bad translations of old copies of stories originally passed by word of mouth in order to hold public office. Candidates know it would be political suicide to go public with radical ideas like “the earth is old and round”.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:51 am
I attended an early attempt at such a debate in 2000. This was in the general election season. Both candidates sent a proxy (The Bush camp sent former Rep. Walker [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Smith_Walker], I don’t remember who represented VP Gore), decreasing the importance of the event, and I see the same sort of thing going on in 2008. I still think it’s an important effort.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Test comment
December 12th, 2007 at 6:23 am
This sounds like a great idea, until reality sets in. Once the TV producers get hold of it they will make sure no scientist is involved in any way and that it is moderated by Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, or someone else that won’t hold the candidates to the issue. I can see the exchange already…
Moderator: Mr. candidate, studies show that American children are falling behind in science when compared to children from around the world. What policies and procedures do you think are necessary to reverse this trend?
Candidate: Well thank you for bringing up this important issue Anderson. I do believe science education is important, and I’ve said this consistently throughout my campaign. I believe it is almost as important as health care for children. Did you know there are 85 kagillion children in the U.S. without healthcare? Isn’t that terrible? What is a single mother to do? I want all the single mothers out there to know that I feel their pain, and that if elected I will make it my mission to see that you are able to take your children to the doctor and get them whatever medical care they need. So in conclusion I do think science education is important. Thank you.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:39 am
ST, of course, that’s for a Democratic candidate. The exchange from a Republican candidate might go something like this:
Moderator: Mr. candidate, studies show that American children are falling behind in science when compared to children from around the world. What policies and procedures do you think are necessary to reverse this trend?
Candidate: Well thank you for bringing up this important issue Anderson. I do believe science education is important, and I’ve said this consistently throughout my campaign. I believe it is almost as important as securing our borders against the invasion of illegal aliens, and AlQueda terrorists. Did you know that the all of the 9-11 terrorists came across the border illegally, along with 4.5 bazillion illegal immigrants, who are – even as we speak – draining our tax rolls? Isn’t that horrible? I want the Amurricun people to know that I have their safety and security at heart, and I will do whatever is necessary to root out evil wherever it may be found. So in conclusion, I do think science education is important, provided we balance one theory with any other theory that people wish to believe in. Thank you.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:59 am
At a quick glance, I see 3 names from my home state of MN, including my own Republican State Rep, so I HAD to sign.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Hmm, does anyone know of a good blog about astronomy…? One that preferrably doesn’t even mention politics and never, ever rants about stupid american cretinism?
December 12th, 2007 at 8:22 am
A science debate by the candidates would be better than any reality show. I can imagine both the republican and democratic party candidates tap-dancing around hard science issues as opposed to the “soft-science” and touchy-feely stuff that they love. First question ought to be: “How will your god (or God) deal with or stop the rising seas” What a treat — finally, the possibility of “good” television viewing.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Yeah, I have to agree that this is going to be one of those “should happen, but never will” events.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am
If you haven’t seen it you will probably enjoy the YouTube clip below of President Kennedy speaking at Rice University 45 years ago about space exploration. Wish we had more political leaders like him. This is part 1 of 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI
Roy Crawford, forensic engineer, Whitesburg, Kentucky
December 12th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I completely support this, along with a debate solely focused on education.
Heck, I may have found it here, but there’s a good article on space policy of the various candidates spelled out in a Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201359.html
Barack Obama lost any shot of getting my vote after reading it, quite frankly.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Disclaimer: I’m a Ron Paul Fanboy.
I agree with most of the people here that a good portion of the candidates would fall flat on their faces when asked about a serious scientific question. The 3 Republican candidates who don’t “believe” in evolution seem to take the fairly standard position of sticking their fingers in their ears when it comes to reality. I’d really not have another one of those put into office. That being said, let’s look at the Republican Lineup (sorry, not a democrat. I don’t know much about their candidates, as I won’t likely vote for any of them).
In no particular order you have:
Romney – He was an industry captain. His knowledge lies in economics, not science.
Huckabe – He’s a minister. This doesn’t automatically make him anti-science, but he’s come out for teaching ID in schools, so he’s right out.
McCain – He’s a soldier. I don’t know much about his stance either way, but usually the military isn’t overly interested in scientific research unless it can build bigger guns (Thor project anyone?)
Guliani – Typical politician. Won’t fund anything that doesn’t pay him back in votes/perks.
Ron Paul – Doctor. Must be well versed in at least Biology, Chemestry (probably evolutionary theory steming from those two). Granted, he’s likely against providing federal funding for scientific research, but at least he won’t be actively *fighting* reality.
Out of the Republican field only one really has a significant scientific background. Now, such a background doesn’t garuntee anything (Carter was a nuclear engineer and he singlehandedly disarmed our nuclear power program), but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Oh, i forgot to mention Tancredo. He claimed a manned mars mission was a huge unnecessary expense that he would kill. (I tend to agree about a manned mission to mars at this stage in the game. There are other space missions we can spend our money on better, but that’s not the point here.)
December 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I think it would be interesting, but I’m afraid I couldn’t watch a bunch of politicians speaking about science. I’d suffer too much empathic embarrassment. Now, I’d watch if it was in the form of asking them some questions like ‘What is science?’ and anyone who got a question wrong was ejected from the debate like Sir Robin at the Bridge of Death.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Ryan,
Bill Frist (R-TN, Senate) is also a physician and panderer to ID and other evangelical concerns. The fact that he is a physician does not make him an expert of science or an honest man, you choose which one.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Charles
I wasn’t trying to say he was an expert, nor honest. Merely that he must have taken, passed and (presumably) understood some rather high level scientific courses in his past. Presumably this would mean he should have some grasp of the basic tennents of science, unlike the majority of politicians.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
They wil probably make so much mistakes that the moderators will be debating for them. It is also weird how they think science budgets are expensive, when it is the cheapest.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:15 am
[...] the push for a Sci/Tech Presidential Debate in ‘08 A solution to the stem cell restrictions Science and the Presidential candidates Think outside Schrodinger’s box Support the push for a Sci/Tech Presidential Debate in [...]
December 13th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Great idea!
As an outsider sitting in Oz (just one of the many nations in America’s empire – though hopefully that’ll change to slightly more independent than the previous slavish following now Rudd’s in ..) here’s my take on your candidates given what I’ve read /heard ’bout ‘em :
—— —————————————————————–
& yes I am trying to be well at least a bit wryly amusing in places here ..’kay? Opinionated & proud of it – that’s me! But read on, you may laugh, you may even agree … I’m hoping so.
It should go without saying that this is all my personal opinion and my judgement based on .. well what _I_ know & think – but to be sure I’ll say it anyway -wait I just did.
———————————–
In preference order :
1. Kuchinch (Spelling?) : Funny name but from what little I’ve heard about him probably the best of your candidates when it comes to science and vision and your best choice generally – unless Al Gore decides to run & its probably too late for that. Unfortunately, I gather he’s unlikely to win … which is typical – the one guy who does seem to have a clue seems least in sync with the clueless majority esp. in Bible-bashing brain-belting redneck KKK areas.
2. Hilary : Another Clinton? Why don’t Americans just declare themselves a monarchy switching between two families? Mind you, it really is time – well overdue – that you had a female President after all if Pakistan and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have had them (they have) surely an “enlightened” Western nation can have one? I don’t mind Hilary but I do worry that she’s too close to the Extremist Israeli lobby that’s been running your nations foreign policy at the world’s expense for decades now. Also she voted for invading Iraq and hasn’t totally apologised for that disgraceful piece of either bad thinking or gutless appeasement. She should have stood up harder longer ago …That goes for almost the entire Democratic Party – where’s your backbone folks – call for Bush’es impeachment, heck, call for his hanging for war crimes, most intelligent people do y’know! Still rather her than most others. Now Nancy Pelosi -_she’d_ be a good first female Pres for y’all!
3. Obama : Sounded great early, a smart personable, charismatic African- American with a positive attitude and a historic opportunity. It was all going so well .. & then he said he’d cut NASA back and put the money into education. D’oh! You idiot, Barak, NASA is education(al), it is visionary, it is worth funding – and if money needs to be cut anywhere its in military adventurism overseas. “Stop throwing money into the hellhole you’ve made of Iraq. Invade asteroids & the Moon and Mars not Iran!” That’s what you should have been saying. Now you’ve blown it mate. Pity.
4. Guiliani (spelling?) Well, he’s a Republican. That alone should be enough to disqualify him far as I’m concerned. But, for a Republican, he’s not too bad. Rudy’s not super-whacko-religo, he can handle a crisis and he was pretty inspirational post 2001 sept. 11th. He’s pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage which shows he’s not the sort of unthinking bigoted ideologue most of that party seem to be. If you must vote Repub – & please think 500 times before you do or better yet don’t, he’s the best of the worst party.
5. McCain : Ah McCain you’re running again .. (non-Aussies may not get that one, heck non-South Aussies may not. Never mind.) Well, he’s persistent -hasn’t he done this quite a few times before nearly beating Bush the Lesser for nomination once? POW, old, frankly uninteresting. Doesn’t seem too good, doesn’t seem too bad ..Well for a Republican.
That ain’t saying much. Very pro-War though & that you do NOT need in another clown, sorry, commander in chief.
(Yes I mock the office of President, its a tradition in Australia to laugh at our leaders. Looking at the last few of yours its an Aussie tradition worth importing into your land too. Well, the worst thing about political jokes is that too many of them get elected.
)
6. Romney : A speech of his was quoted and discussed in an Aussie paper recently – & yeuk! Mitt hates science & detests atheists. Trying to be smooth, he’s really intolerant, and fundamentalist, slick, oily & disgusting. The sort of candidate I’d scrape from my shoe or pretend not to be at home too. Suppose he coulda been a Jehovah’s Witless instead .. About the bets thing I can say about him is that at least he’s not :
7. Huckabee : What a nutjob! The worst candidate out there .. so of course he’s currently winning I gather. Come on Americans you are smarter than this. Surely, surely, surely even if the worst anti-American sentiments of some of the folks around the world are right even the Bible Belt no-necks are smart enough to see how bad this loon is for your county -and yeah if you want “full spectrum dominance” maybe you might want to listen to what those you’d like to dominate and claim to lead are actually saying. Well, its this – Anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti-intelligence really should equal anti-electionable. Huckabee is as bad as Bush the Mad. Well, okay, as bad, nothing can be worse. He hates science, he’s a fundamentalist and he will bring shame and torment not just to America but to every country America affects or touches -ie. the planet. Can I be any clearer? Lets see :
AMERICA, THE WORLD IS BEGGING YOU :
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
DO NOT VOTE FOR A FASCIST MORON …!!!
…. NOT AGAIN!
Summary :
Republican – you’d be mad to vote for them! They’re a party of fundamentalist loons that are a disaster for the entire planet not just your American 5% of it. If you rally ,really must vote for one of these ignorant clowns then Guiliani is least bad & Huckabee the worst of the worst.
Democrat -they’re still pretty right wing fasco-capitalist but they’re not as bad. The lesser of your two evils. Since Obama’s anti-space, Hilary’s too hawkish & too close to the Israeli lobby I’d have to say vote Kucinch. From what I know he’s the best of your bad bunch.
————————————————–
+ The Israeli lobby’s domination of American policy has been at the whole world’s expense esp. Israel’s and America’s – you could have had peace in SW Asia (what you may call the Middle East) long ago if you’d cut off funds and support to Israel unless &until it ceased its illegal occupation of Palestinean lands seized in violation of internat’l law since 1967. Yes, Israel does have the right to defend itself -so too do the Palestineans & so does Iran. Israel does NOT have the right to attack its neighbours and no nation has a “right to exist” much less to discriminate against others based on religion or ethnicity as the Jewish state does.
All this is of course : In My Humble Opinion Naturally & based on my knowledge and perspective…
December 13th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Given that the word “fascist” has become a cringe word with no real meaning, I’m going to come right out and say that I generally discount any opinion or statement in which said word plays a prominent role.