Should Presidential Candidates Participate in a Science Debate?

Should Presidential Candidates Participate in a Science Debate?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 70.6%
  • No

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Total voters
    17

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Perhaps. He does not come across that way to me, but then again, I suffered through part of his governorship in Arkansas.

And I still think he looks like a pudgy, wall-eyed Jim Nabors.

Yeah, that is just the thing I don't like about him.
So yeah, I am certainly reserving judgment. But case in point: I just saw clips from a "town hall" meeting with Huckabee in Michigan. Someone asked him about where he stands on abortion. His nswer was really carefully tuned to send the best message to his social conservative base and not put off liberals. In fact, he echoed what socially progressive Christians have been saying for a while, now which is that all human life is sacred from conception all the way to death. He added that this comprehensive viewpoint makes him "pro-life", not anti-abortion.

Now how could anyone argue with a position like that. Who is "anti-life". The problem is that no one asked him the tough question that follow from that, which are:

If you are pro-life as you have defined:
  • where do you stand on capital punishment?
  • would you permit an abortion if the pregnancy was endangering the mother's life?
  • do you place the sanctity of life of a 12 cell embryo above its possibility of contributing stem cells towards curing life threatening diseases?
  • is there such a thing as a "just war"?
So I am waiting for somoene to ask those question before I decide if he is sincere or just a really good politician.
 

ClaireTalon

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
1,917
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
Age
60
Location
Puget Sound
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I only see minor points in this. A real scientific debate would circle around things at the research frontier, where controversial points of view are still possible. However, these subjects require more than laymen's knowledge. And the basics are examined so closely and uniquely, there is no room for discussion about it. Or should it be like this:

Candidate 1: Conservation of energy is something I refuse to live with. In my term, I will eliminate it, for the sake of nature.

Candidate 2: I'm not with you here. Clearly, my diet wouldn't work without it.

Candidate 3: I speak in favor of an abolishment of it, too. It will support the development of environmentally perfect cars. And while we are at it, the conservation of impulse must clearly be empowered!

...

However, a debate on some basic scientific problems would be a good way to find out how intelligent someone really is. Against common thinking, basic scientific questions are not so much a matter of specific knowledge, but one of intelligence and the ability to remember experiences and apply them to new problems. These abilities might also be helpful for a future president, even if its not a scientific matter that needs his attention. I just can't imagine Clinton, Obama and McCain sit in quiz show boxes and dazzle us with their explanations why the light on the bicycle shines, even if there's only one wire attached to it.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
....However, a debate on some basic scientific problems would be a good way to find out how intelligent someone really is. Against common thinking, basic scientific questions are not so much a matter of specific knowledge, but one of intelligence and the ability to remember experiences and apply them to new problems. These abilities might also be helpful for a future president, even if its not a scientific matter that needs his attention. I just can't imagine Clinton, Obama and McCain sit in quiz show boxes and dazzle us with their explanations why the light on the bicycle shines, even if there's only one wire attached to it.
Yes, you are right on with this. In fact, a debate on leading edge science would be exactly counterproductive, because it would further the notion that science is only a speculative pursuit.

What would be better is questions that get to whether the candidates understand the nature of scientific inquiry, for example:
  • What is the difference between the use of the word "theory" in everyday life compared to its use in science?
  • What is the process by which a scientific theory becomes established?
  • How does an established scientific theory get challenged?
  • In science, what is the difference between fact and theory?
  • Why does science restrict itself to only creating explanations for natural phenomenon by using only observations from the natural world?
Actually, you just convinced me that a science debate amongst the candidates might be a bad idea unless is were done properly. And that the chances of it being done properly are pretty slim.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
JA, I suppose I should give you a straight answer to your original question.

I'm not sure there should specifically be a "science debate" for the candidates. But any of the major debates should be heavily sprinkled with questions about some areas of science. A lot of the comments in this thread have centered around how ridiculous a presidential candidate science debate would be, since they (at least mostly) are not scientists.

The fact of the matter is, I don't really care if any of the candidates do or do not know the finer points of rearrangement reactions for amides, whether a Hofmann or Curtius rearrangement reaction would be better for a particular situation, or which one involves a primary amide and which one involves an acyl azide.

What would interest me, though, would be their general attitude toward various sciences, and what they feel the importance of the sciences to society is. Does one candidate strongly support aggressive pharmaceutical research, while another does not? Does one think that environmental science does more harm than good? Does another candidate feel that biomedical research should be more heavily regulated, and another feel restrictions should be loosened? Is better fuel economy in automobiles acheived through better petrochemical science or through better mechanics/physics/engineering and body/engine/transmission design? Should the EPA have more legislative influence, or less? How should the National Science Foundation set their guidelines for grant disbursement?

Those are the kinds of questions I would like to see the candidates grilled about.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Finding how science savvy a presidential candidate is would be a good idea considering how much impact technology has on society.

But a debate is not the right format. No, the format should be a Jeopardy game.

A Jeopardy format would be a 30 minute way to compare their scientific acumen on a variety of topics and a winner can be determined objectively - eliminating any spin coming out of their mouths.

"I'll have Global Warming Fact or Fiction for $100, Alex"
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Finding how science savvy a presidential candidate is would be a good idea considering how much impact technology has on society.

But a debate is not the right format. No, the format should be a Jeopardy game.

A Jeopardy format would be a 30 minute way to compare their scientific acumen on a variety of topics and a winner can be determined objectively - eliminating any spin coming out of their mouths.

"I'll have Global Warming Fact or Fiction for $100, Alex"
Alex: "Ohhh, I'm sorry Mr. Huckabee. You know the rules. You can't request or buzz in on that topic because you don't believe in it. You lose $100, but retain control of the board."
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
I'd like to see a debate on the First Amendment. Most would flunk the first question I'm sure.
 

Qua

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Posts
1,600
Media
63
Likes
1,260
Points
583
Location
Boston (Massachusetts, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'd like to see a debate on the First Amendment. Most would flunk the first question I'm sure.

Agreed. Particularly on what "establishment of religion" really means. Not nearly as much as everyone thinks, such that the measures meant to prevent it seem to actually attack "the free exercise thereof." Ugh, that one tires me.

Actually, I'd like to see federal judges participate in a debate about it too
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I'd like to see a debate on the First Amendment. Most would flunk the first question I'm sure.

Agreed. Particularly on what "establishment of religion" really means. Not nearly as much as everyone thinks, such that the measures meant to prevent it seem to actually attack "the free exercise thereof." Ugh, that one tires me.

Actually, I'd like to see federal judges participate in a debate about it too
Hell, I'd like to see 'em quizzed on the first 14 amendments. That would really stir up some shit.

But that's a topic for another thread. Qua?, I'm curious about your thoughts on the establishment and free exercise clauses...
 

ClaireTalon

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
1,917
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
Age
60
Location
Puget Sound
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
What would be better is questions that get to whether the candidates understand the nature of scientific inquiry, for example:
  • What is the difference between the use of the word "theory" in everyday life compared to its use in science?
  • What is the process by which a scientific theory becomes established?
  • How does an established scientific theory get challenged?
  • In science, what is the difference between fact and theory?
  • Why does science restrict itself to only creating explanations for natural phenomenon by using only observations from the natural world?
Actually, you just convinced me that a science debate amongst the candidates might be a bad idea unless is were done properly. And that the chances of it being done properly are pretty slim.

These are good questions for the candidates, but again, these are more from the philosophy of science and the general subject of scientific procedures. That makes them discussable, but in a way that is usual for political discussions. Basic facts that can be turned around and used against the candidate who expressed them, and in no time you have the usual mud-slinging again. Talking about that, why don't we put them in a basin and watch them pull up a real mud-slinging?

Again, I would like to see how they not discuss scientific procedures, but actually exercise them. How do they deal with irrefutable facts, even if they have controversial points of view? How do they process these facts? That is the only kind of scientific debate I would like to see.
 

D_Terry_Misue

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Posts
375
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
What would interest me, though, would be their general attitude toward various sciences, and what they feel the importance of the sciences to society is. Does one candidate strongly support aggressive pharmaceutical research, while another does not? Does one think that environmental science does more harm than good? Does another candidate feel that biomedical research should be more heavily regulated, and another feel restrictions should be loosened? Is better fuel economy in automobiles acheived through better petrochemical science or through better mechanics/physics/engineering and body/engine/transmission design? Should the EPA have more legislative influence, or less? How should the National Science Foundation set their guidelines for grant disbursement?

Great observation!

In our world today, we face medical issues such as the AIDS epidemic, increases in many types of cancer, and an increasing incidence of autism in children where science is truly our only option for a solution. Furthermore, the observed global climate change is as cogent rational as any for addressing the search for alternative energy sources, and, once again, science is the key to finding objective facts that can help solve, or in the very least better understand, this dynamic issue.

That being said, a presidential candidates that in the very least was able to seperate thier subjective thoughts and (even worse!) feelings from real global issues such as those metioned above would be a monumental primary step in actually getting something done. Everyone should be allowed thier own personal belief system, however, using one's personal beliefs to guide judgement concerning global problems is irrational. Passions and powerful emotions are not characteristics one should use to make influential decisions that can potentially change the course of life on our planet. Science is about observed, measurable facts, and this takes out the potential for misjudgement or apotheosis of opinion.

Of course, when much of the country is lagging in science education and knowledge, then it probably wouldn't make much of a difference anyway!
 

D_Terry_Misue

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Posts
375
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
... the finer points of rearrangement reactions for amides, whether a Hofmann or Curtius rearrangement reaction would be better for a particular situation, or which one involves a primary amide and which one involves an acyl azide.

Wow, DC you've got me all hot and bothered!:tongue:

We should get together and discuss 1,2 hydride shifts and nucleophilic backside attacks on primary (and sometimes secondary) akyl halides!

Better yet, Grignard Reagents are way sexy....

I'm taking o. chem right now and I about died when I saw your post. I love it bro! Nice job :biggrin1:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Wow, DC you've got me all hot and bothered!:tongue:

We should get together and discuss 1,2 hydride shifts and nucleophilic backside attacks on primary (and sometimes secondary) akyl halides!

Better yet, Grignard Reagents are way sexy....

I'm taking o. chem right now and I about died when I saw your post. I love it bro! Nice job :biggrin1:
I felt like such an odd man out when I took organic. For decades, I had heard people talk about how hard and awful and boring it was; organic chemistry turned out to be one my favorite classes, ever - actually easier and more interesting than general or physical chemistry.
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
I felt like such an odd man out when I took organic. For decades, I had heard people talk about how hard and awful and boring it was; organic chemistry turned out to be one my favorite classes, ever - actually easier and more interesting than general or physical chemistry.

Go figure :biggrin1:

I loved Organic too! It was like an elegant puzzle.
 

D_Terry_Misue

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Posts
375
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
I felt like such an odd man out when I took organic. For decades, I had heard people talk about how hard and awful and boring it was; organic chemistry turned out to be one my favorite classes, ever - actually easier and more interesting than general or physical chemistry.

Right on dude! I'm with you; o. chem is a great class and very interesting. I'm a bio major, however, when you get down to it, biology is just chemistry with a little fluff added in! :tongue:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Go figure :biggrin1:

I loved Organic too! It was like an elegant puzzle.
And, as luck would have it, I ended up with an analytical chemist as my "other half." Mom never told me "you should marry a doctor," but I did anyway!:biggrin1:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I just want to be assured they know the world is round and believe in evolution.
Well, that kinda goes back to my post about not necessarily wanting to know if they had Ph. D. level knowledge in any specific subject, but wanting to know how they think about sciences in general, and how that would affect their decision-making.

A president who "prefers" altered and redacted EPA semi-annual reports, and altered and redacted EPA OIG semi-annual reports is a dangerous thing.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
And, as luck would have it, I ended up with an analytical chemist as my "other half." Mom never told me "you should marry a doctor," but I did anyway!:biggrin1:

I loved organic chemistry as well. I took the whole year in two 5-week sessions, and it was very hard but very interesting. I'm a career artist whose hobby is science. Go figure.

BTW, analytical chemist? *dies*