Conclusion = not impressed.

I agree with the basic sentiment (encourage support for science in general), but was the comic seriously arguing that was sufficient reason to select a candidate? Science is extremely important, but so are plenty of other issues in politics. Regardless of party, I can’t take a suggestion that a pro-science position overrides all others seriously. I hope there’s some missing context, such as he’s hosting fundraisers for all the pro-science candidates. Though even then the implication is pro-science = get money, regardless of other factors.

Ah, but what if all policy-making were to be evidence-based . . . ?

“Science CAN tell us what is the *right* thing to do” — No it can’t and you have given no reason to support your assertion. I have given a reason why science can *never* tell one what one ought to do. It is because science is descriptive and normative. Tell me how facts can tell me what values I ought to have. Observing that most people do X for reasons A, B or C does not tell me why I ought to do X.

“Darwin says love thy neighbour for reasons of mutual advantage” — Darwin says nothing of the sort. Social Dawinism??? Really?? You mean the people who gave us scientific racism, eugenics, imperialism, Nazism and fascism? You need to do better than glib tropes and crap you read on some web site. You’re aware of course that Steven Pinker is a laughing stock and E.O. Wilson has repudiated his former beliefs, right? You also have to do better than argument from authority. Give *reasons* for your claims.

Actually, there is a whole field of science devoted to “Morality”, among other things, in the form of studies on Behavioural Economics by researchers like Dan Ariely.

Science CAN tell us what is the *right* thing to do, and often it is the opposite direction of where your moral “gut instinct” would mislead you.

(Darwin says love thy neighbour for reasons of mutual advantage)

Too bad there’s no genius billionaire superhero science-enthusiast IRL who could do this.

Mike Lazaridis, only recently dropped out of “billionaire” status, has created and donated huge amounts of money to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

The only reason that Liberals can get away with nonsense like “Facts have a liberal bias” is because the Right has gone so far overboard in their hatred for intellectual elites and paranoid conspiracy theories that they’ve become a laughing stock. But liberals can hold nutty ideas too, just… different ones than those on the right.

The truth is that science is completely unable to inform us about what is the *right* thing to do. It can only tell us, given one’s objective is XYZ you need to adopt policy A and reject policy B. Science cannot point you in the right moral direction, it can only tell you how to get there.

FAIR PLAY

My impression, right or wrong, as an observer from the other side of the planet, has always been that the Republicans are somewhat more pro-space exploration than the Democratic party. OTOH, the Republicans have also been more in favour of Creationism and have been adamant Climate Contrarians. The Democratic party side though tend to be more into New Age woo and Alt-Med nonsense and are less pro-”big” science incl. space exploration and development or so I gather.

Barack Obama is neither the Messiah nor the anti-Christ and the same applies to Mitt Romney and even Rick Perry. Time, I think that both political sides lowered the polarising rhetoric, cooled the debates metaphorical temperature, put hyperbole aside and recognised that politicans are all just flawed humans following particular, blinkered, fallible ways of thinking and acting.

If somebody thinks the best answer to something is a politician, politicial party or political ideology then I think they’re asking the wrong question and misplacing their trust. Unless its a quiz history question I guess!

As someone noted a few months ago in another thread here both parties have astronaut politicians such as John Glenn and Harrsion Schmitt in their ranks with the Republicans having more of them.

See :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/09/apollo-17-then-and-now/

&

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/09/apollo-17-then-and-now/#comment-416006

esp.

Thanks again to Vince RN for that.

Too bad there’s no genius billionaire superhero science-enthusiast IRL who could do this.

Richard Branson? Bill Gates? Until very recently Steve Jobs?

It’s the science in comic books that I love, from Bose-Einstein condensates (fact) to the ninth dimension (fiction, kinda)… and even to the politician who supports it (fact? Fiction? Hmmm).

What a politician who supports the ninth dimension?!

Or do you mean a polly who supports the science?

Well, I do think there’s a number of those in fact. On the Democratic Party side we have quite a few – Gabrielle Giffords being my favourite – and on the Republican side, well, John Huntsman? Mitt Romney? Maybe?

As someone noted a few months ago in another thread here both parties have astronaut politicians such as John Glenn and Harrsion Schmitt in their ranks with the Republicans having more of them. You’d think those politicians would have to be pro-science and have a positive influence, right? Or at least pro-much of science although former Moon-walker geologist turned Republican senator Schmitt has become a Climate Contararian so .. yeah, not necessarily positive for *all* fields of science.

It’s wierd because in the comics, gods exist like tables do. So in that context, it’s almost irrational for him to disbelieve when many of his companions have died, been resurrected, and in one or two cases served a stint as “god’s instrument of vengeance on Earth” (AKA the Spectre).

In the comics, unlike real life, you can meet god, go to heaven or hell, hang out, and come back. Maybe with the new DC Universe continuity, they’ll fix that.

Another graphic novel that gets it right is “Whatever Happened to the World of Tomorrow,” which really captures the spirit of growing up a child of the space age.

Also “Laika” by Nick Abadzis and “First in Space” by James Vining (about Ham the chimp), both good.

I’m going to show this to my comic-book-loving, completely-apathetic-re-science friend. Who knows? Maybe I can get him to start reading science blogs