Check the latest polling numbers. Palin’s 15 minutes are up.

e.

We don’t need the daily “talking points” memo from the McCain campaign cut and pasted for us. If we want to read them we can go to the campaign web site.

Are you next going to tell us the story of how his loving wife Cindy sits there every night and types his e-mails for him?

Stephen Hawking is in much worse physical shape than McCain and I personally saw him responding to an email himself. He was discussing climate change with Al Gore.

e.

Criticizing a decorated veteran for his war injuries. Now that’s out of touch.

Your points are well-taken, but I have three quick observations:

First, I’m not sure that the difference in religious and superstitious belief between the two parties is as stark as you believe. Surveys show that non-religious people are a minority in this country by a wide margin (which is why Democratic and Republican politicians alike make a public spectacle of their church attendance), so for Democrats and Republicans to be as close in national polls as they generally are, there must be a fair proportion of religious Democrats.

Second, wedge issues are a staple of politicians everywhere. Indeed, if you take away the wedge issues, there is precious little daylight between the two parties’ platforms. Lately, Democrats have taken to using science as a wedge issue, and science always comes out the worse for it. For example, the 105th Congress passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution on global climate change by a vote of 95-0, which is about as bipartisan as you could ask for. Then, in the 2000 campaign Al Gore turned the issue of climate change into a political football, the battle lines were drawn, and the result was less progress on fighting climate change, not more. Politics wins, science loses, which is pretty much always the case when science and politics mix.

Finally, do you dispute that Democrats would throw science under the bus in a heartbeat, if a scientific finding conflicted with a cherished plank in the Democratic platform? We’ve already seen plenty of anti-intellectualism in the Clinton campaign, but perhaps the Obama camp is different. I wouldn’t bet on it, though.

I suppose my thinking is a bit muddled, inasmuch as I am not even sure what I am trying to convince you of. Certainly I’m not suggesting anyone should vote Republican. I suppose it just bothers me to see so many of my friends and colleagues so willing to be duped. The pursuits of power and science are not consistent with one another, and we should never forget which one the political parties have chosen. In the end, I think we want to believe that there are good guys out there who will crusade for what we know to be right. Having identified the bad guys, we assume that the people who oppose them are the crusaders we seek. We then put away our “baloney detection kits” and give them a pass on any ridiculous thing they might say. I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s more important to debunk the ridiculous things espoused by “our” guys than the ones by “their” guys, and if you ever find yourself at a loss for something ridiculous from your favorite candidate, it’s then that you need to worry most that you’ve been taken in.

rpl,

The points you make are true only in the most abstract sense. Any fair summary of Republicans vs Democrats — the personal views of each party’s participants and supporters — would, I believe, demonstrate that among Republicans generally there is a much higher proportion of religious, superstitious and anti-intellectual thinking. Not just that, but it is something of which they are proud and use as wedge issues to win elections.

Sure, both parties are bad in many respects. Sure, some of my best friends are Republicans. However, in an effort to give the appearance of objectivity “in the end, I think your post shows a lot of muddled thinking.”

That is an interesting perspective. I was obviously focused on the hierarchy of complex systems instead of looking at it from the point of view of an observer of the world.

But what you say does make sense.

e.

The normal science sequence is biology -> chemistry -> physics probably because, roughly speaking, that represents a progression from concrete and particular to abstract or universal. Most people are more comfortable with the former than the latter. In addition, the statement of even simple principles in physics benefits from some (albeit not too much!) mathematical precision and formality, but most people are leery of that as well.

Historically, one can say that physics grew out of a fusion of philosophy and metaphysics inherited from the Greeks with the vigorous new empiricism of the 17th and 18th century. A willingness to grapple with unifying abstractions that do not seem obviously consistent with the unanalyzed evidence of the senses was inherent in this fusion. Arguably this only appeals to a minority of students in the typical secondary or primary school. Of course, that might be simply a commentary on the uninspired teaching of science that most students are regrettably exposed to.

I’m a little puzzled by this post. You chose to title it “Where They Stand on Science,” but the bulk of the material you quote is about education. Education is not the same thing as science, not just because we educate students about other subjects besides science, and not only because we do science outside the scope of education, but also because education is bound up with the wants and needs of teachers, administrators, and government officials, not all of whose interests aligned with students 100% of the time. In light of that, it is entirely possible for two people who are both pro-science (whatever that means) to start with different assumptions about how the myriad actors in the educational system will respond to various incentives and to arrive at different conclusions about educational policy because of it.

Moreover, you seem to accept without comment the (implied) claim that because “every educator I know considers [NCLB] to be a major FAIL,” then NCLB must be bad policy. However, if you admit the possibility that a policy could be good for students but bad for educators, then the opinion of educators tells us nothing about the quality of the program. We would expect them to oppose it whether it is good or bad.

I also think you don’t exercise nearly enough skepticism about phrases like “making math and science education a national priority.” What does that mean, really? Are we going to up the standards for math and science in assessment tests? Provide extra funding earmarked for math and science (what should we spend it on?)? Take steps to erase the “nerdy” public image of math and science (how?)? Any of these might or might not fix the problem, but all would have unintended consequences of one sort or another. A promise that vague is at best a neutral factor in evaluating a candidate.

In the end, I think your post shows a lot of muddled thinking, and no small measure of confirmation bias. The truth is, neither party is the party of science. As another poster stated, politicians care about one thing only, and that is getting elected. Science is usually a casualty, not a product, of this one overriding drive.

Likewise, both parties are guilty of anti-intellectualism at times. One need look no further than the Clinton primary campaign to see it in action in the Democratic party; she made extensive use of it to attack Obama.

Finally, I will grant you that lately the Republicans have been worse than the Democrats when it comes to opposing science, but I think it’s a mistake for us as scientists to assume that that makes the Democrats our friends. The minute science gores one of their sacred cows, you can expect them to dig in their heels and fight it. It’s what politicians do.

“The Harvard-educated couple that the Democrats want to install in the White House are part of an elitist, “uppity” class, a Republican congressman said Thursday.
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a two-term Republican who represents some of Atlanta’s suburbs, commented about class when asked about the performances under pressure of his party’s vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and the Democratic nominee’s wife, Michelle Obama, as they introduced themselves to the nation in their separate convention speeches.

“Honestly, I’ve never paid that much attention to Michelle Obama,” Westmoreland said. “Just what little I’ve seen of her and Senator [Barack] Obama, is that they’re a member of an elitist class…that thinks that they’re uppity.”

Palin was tough and mocking. This election is not going to be a cake-walk. I read so many people saying what “Obama” should do. You should give money to Obama if you can, and work for the campaign if you can.

Corporal punishment for children is no longer acceptable, but using drugs for behavior control is.

I think in the U. S. that would be culturally unacceptable but I do think that there is a lot of inertia in the system that could use some fresh thinking.

Here is an example of something I have never understood.

In most Public High Schools, the normal science sequence is biology -> chemistry -> physics

It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of how it should be taught as chemistry naturally builds on physics (electron shells etc.) and biology naturally follows from chemistry.

Is it only me who thinks we are doing it backwards?

e.

I have to protest the notion that the Republicans are a small government party. While they frequently talk about small government, government budgets and personnel have increased in every Republican administration going back to Nixon. In office, Republicans are big-state authoritarians.

People who really favor small government currently have no home at all.

I think the point is that the Republican party is ostensibly about small government (being “conservatives”), but failed on that point, and is currently engaged in a campaign to destroy the intelligence and free thinking of our nation as a whole.

Also, isn’t there a Libertarian party for small government proponents?

Some people are born to be construction workers. Where would any of you be without plumbers and electricians? Did you know that these two aforementioned crafts can earn a person just as much and often more wealth than a doctor or lawyer with comparable length of experience?

Some people are born to be heavy equipment operators. How do you think they built that office you work in?

Neither side in the political contest gives even the slightest whit of a care about education, science, or technology. All either side cares about,… is getting elected. That’s it. That’s all they really care about, and they’ll stake their positions on how they calculate it will swing or sway the media, and in turn, the electorate, because it is well known that most voters choose to vote for who they are predicting will win, not wanting to “waste” their vote on the “losing” candidate.

Education has to look at itself and within its own system for the solutions. The government will always fund education no matter which side is in charge. The future construction workers are not being helped by forcing them into an office worker mold, or the high-tech specialist mold. A mediocre 12 year old who hates math, and doesn’t do well, may fall in love with hydraulic engineering, and then suddenly find the interest and aptitude to master mathematics. By forcing students into a certain mold, you actually create future prison inmates. And I mean that literally. Go get your high school yearbook and track down your former classmates and see how many of them ended up in prison or dead of some kind of drug addiction or criminal activity. How many of them would be saved had they been given the opportunity to lay PVC pipe in trenches for a brand new parking lot, instead of being tortured in a boring classroom and wasting the taxpayer’s resource?

It is the education system itself that has to change and advance. Start recognizing the future skilled and semi-skilled workers when they are about 12 years old, and give them vocational opportunities then, and they’ll have the best training there could be. Which is better, training a future electrician starting at age 12, or at age 29 when they get out of prison the first time?

You write that the U.S.’ innovation ecosystem is “even more eroded and unstable than you ever imagined.” Not exactly an optimistic, “morning in America” message, is it?

Estrin: I’m not an alarmist by personality. I have to be hopeful because we have no choice. We really have to address these issues or else we’re just going to keep going down.

When I was interviewing people, some of the people I interviewed would say to me, “You know, give it up. America has just lost it. It is no longer a superpower, it is in decline and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Then I would talk to other people, who would say, “This is just all about market cycles and the market will take care of itself. So, go write a business book on innovation, but from a country perspective, there’s nothing the government could do.” It was almost like they wanted to say, just recognize time constraints and the market will take care of itself.

I don’t believe the market can take care of itself this time because one of the problems is that the market has become very, very short-term focused… I’m not one of those people that says the government can solve all our problems, but I believe that where we are right now actually is somewhere in between those two perspectives. We need leadership from the top to provide the inspiration and the spark. There are some places where we need some policy changes and some strategically placed funding to be able to get the incentives aligned to solve some of these problems. Then we need business and educational and nonprofit leaders to work with government to figure out what we’re going to do to.

One of the underlying reasons that the wealthier schools generally demonstrate greater performance on standardized testing has to do with infrastructure. A richer school is a cleaner school; a richer school is a more attractive and aesthetically satisfying school; a richer school has more staff to disperse to cover various programs under un-, and under-, funded mandates; a richer school has diverse and open athletic programs; a richer school as real libraries with updated materials; and so forth.

We only have so much room in our colleges and universities for high school graduates. We only have so much wealth we can use to fund those institutions and students. Yet we try (for still as yet unexplained philosophical constructs) to educate 100% of our students to be successful university students. Most quickly figure out that they “ain’t” gonna be one of them, and choose paths outside of education. The better schools and school districts (and one’s that have money) are now diversifying their curricula to include more vocational and skill-based education. Academies are springing up everywhere within schools to train future emergencies services personnel, IT workers, machinists and electricians, etc. et al. This is a good development, but sadly only in those districts with larger discretionary funding. And no “merit-based” system will ever account for their success.

http://www.gopplatform2008.com/thankyou.htm