Perhaps I'm not as disappointed as Greg, but I am unimpressed with the 'presidential' debate at the AAAS. What we had was two assistants to the Clinton and Obama campaigns (the Republicans were complete no-shows) pop in to run through some canned promises. There was no debate. There was no commitment from the candidates themselves.
I think that the ScienceDebate2008 idea is a great one, and the failing is really on the part of the candidates and the parties themselves. Obama will happily leap to appease the faith-heads of an organization like Call to Renewal; Clinton thinks the Decorah First Methodist Church is an appropriate campaign venue; the Republicans traditionally kowtow to training grounds for anti-science morons like Bob Jones University; but none of them could invest a day speaking to scientists at one of the biggest science conferences in the country, sponsored by a prestigious organization like AAAS? Their priorities are clearly screwed up.
A presidential science debate is a grand idea. What we need to do now, though, is not praise them for a pathetic, back-handed, minimal effort, but rake them all over the coals for their inadequacies.
- Log in to post comments
From the pictures of the event, the room seemed pack too with a good turn out. What a shame.
(.)(.)
I feel your pain. But don't automatically condemn "assistants to the Clinton and Obama campaigns."
I remember being disappointed at first by the meeting of a space advocacy group near the Vandenburg Air Force base, from which space shuttles were to have been launched into polar orbit.
The scheduled keynote speaker was Michael Huffington [this and subsequent snippets from wikipedia] [(born 3 September 1947, in Dallas, Texas), American politician belonging to the Republican Party, and a film producer. He was a member of the United States House of Representatives for one term, 1993-1995, from California. Huffington was married to Arianna Huffington, the Greek-born columnist and liberal activist, from 1986 to 1997.
Mike Huffington was theoretically running for President, although later analysis makes it clear that he was a rich proxy for Arianna.
Mike Huffington had proposed 100% tax exemptions for expenses for sending stuff into space, which we all thought was a good idea in general, both for implicitly subsiding more stuff in space, and because it would boost the local economy.
He did not show up, nor did Arianna. But the aide who did come engaged in a lively and informed discussion with we activists.
I then ran for, and came within about 200 votes of winning, a seat on the Board of Directors of the National Space Society, having received written endorsements from Ray Bradbury, Ben Bova, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, and Nichelle Nichols [(born Grace Nichols on 28 December 1932) an American singer, actress, and voice actress. She sang with Duke Ellington and Lionel Hampton before turning to acting. Her most famous role is that of communications officer Lieutenant Uhura aboard the USS Enterprise in the popular Star Trek television series, as well as the succeeding motion picture spinoffs, where her character was eventually promoted in Starfleet to the rank of commander. In 2006, she added executive producer to her resume.]
I think that I would have won if Board member K. Eric Drexler (father of nanotechnology, as I am one of a dozen grandfathers, and Richard Feynman is great-grandfather) had given me the written endorsement that he promised.
Anyway, having a campaign representative appear at a debate may be less celebrity-cool as having the candidate him/herself. But not chopped liver, either.
Oh, and I was the last-second replacement once for Governor Jerry Brown as trhe keynote speaker for the [15th?] International Society of Energy Conversion Engineers. It earned a cool $500.00 honorarium, entertained about 700 engineers and spouses and significant others in formal wear dining in the main ballroom of a major L.A. hotel, and led to my writing white papers and speeches for Jerry Brown's Presidential campaign.
[Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr. (born 7 April 1938), is the Attorney General for the state of California. Brown has had a lengthy political career spanning terms on the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees (1969-1971), as California Secretary of State (1971-1975), as Governor of California (1975-1983), as chair of the California Democratic Party (1989-1991), the Mayor of Oakland (1998-2006), and the Attorney General of California (2007-present). He unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nominations for president in 1976, 1980 and 1992, and was an unsuccessful Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in 1982.]
Oh, the space activists' meeting then broke up prematurely when Star Trek came on TV. The "activists" were frankly more emotionally involved in Star Trek [i.e. fictional space future] than the actual space program, in which I labored 20 years and received awards from 4 consecutive NASA Administrators. More people go to major Science Fiction Conventions than to the AAAS annual conference. Which is why I am 2-time Con Chair of an A-List mini Science Fiction Convention embdded in the International Conference on Complex Systems, having has Guests of Honor including David Brin, PhD; Stanley Schmidt, Ph.D.; Mary Turzillo, Ph.D.; Marvin Minsky, Ph.D.; and John Forbes Nash, Jr., Ph.D. Next one of these is may 2009. Are you interested in a formal invitation from me?
Anyway, PZ Myers -- is my point taken that Spear Carriers are in the opera, too?
That reminds me...
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson, "You have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back, "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
I don't find this surprizing. The objective of a politician is to get elected and then reelected. If the science will help, then politicians will enbrace it, If not they will ignore or abuse it. It all comes down to what science can do for the politician, not what the politician can do for science.
PZ, you do realize a science debate that stands even the slightest chance of intersecting the space-time continuum we occupy won't touch the subject of religion, right?
More likely, it'll touch it in an entirely inappropriate way. We'll get the full range of politically acceptable positions, from 'yay God, yay science' to 'yay God, boo science.'
The campain is all about image. Why would a candidate make time for people that think when all they offer is platitudes for people who don't. There are not enough votes to be won that way.
PZ, you realize that they are campaigning in a very close race and that they've turned down even religious venues in this past week where those people are mad for them not showing up? This science talk event was bad timing and should have happened several months ago. Great idea, but too late.
I assume the Jonathan Vos Post Post above is a spoof of some kind, but I don't get the joke. I think there's really a guy with a similar name.
Form a PAC?
Hire a lobbyist?
If you want to show your strength as a group of science-minded folks, you need to display power as a voting block. Then you'll get more of the attention you seek for these issues.
I don't know which is worse, the petulant noob tone of their response ("ohhh we musta hit a NOIV!") or their half-assed brown shirting (you will PAY for what you said.
Ignorant fucking bone-in-the-nose creationists can't even get snark right.
.
Hmmm, my feed LIED to me. I was supposed to be going to the "Expelled didn't like my fisking" post.
Feh.
.
Very well said PZ. It's just totally ridiculous that the candidates themselves wouldn't even show up!
I assume the Jonathan Vos Post Post above is a spoof of some kind, but I don't get the joke. I think there's really a guy with a similar name.
Hee, no. And I (and others, no doubt) guessed who was posting before I had reached the name. When you're dodging in a hailstorm of dropped names, that's the tipoff.
Sounds to me like the science crowd has the same issues with the Democrats that the gays have had for a long time. The right is so openly hostile to us that the only chance we have is the other side, who for the most part are content to pay some lip service and leave it at that. After all, where else is there to go?
"Vote Democratic: we're not as actively hostile to you as the other guy".
Was that a spoof? I just figured it was somebody with Aspbergers.
I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about a debate on science. In fact, the idea that we need a debate at all is kind of sad. If things go well it should be nothing but a whole lot of "I would defer to experts in that field. And I mean actual experts, not lone nuts with facially impressive credentials." And if things don't go well, it'll just be super depressing.
I'm surprised that the church thinks it's an appropriate campaign venue. Culture shock and all.
PZ, I'm with ya most of the time, but a debate on science is a terrible idea. Like awful, no good, oughta-drop it bad.
First, it will never happen. How many Americans believe in evolution? What percentage think science is somehow evil? The idea that science and religion are incompatible set in the popular psyche when, again? And what percentage self-label as pious? No serious presidential candidate (that is, one who might actually get elected) would risk alienating these HUGE numbers of potential voters for the chance to stand at a podium and discuss the curious implications of macroevolution and quantum mechanics. Repeat after me: not. gonna. happen.
Second, as you regularly note, the average American ain't all that bright. 20% go to a 4 year college? 1% get a graduate degree? And then even some of them become creationists/IDers! The point is that this is the audience. How can you possibly expect a national presidential science debate to be useful, at all, when they'd have to stop at some point to provide a definition of evolutionary biology? The more likely outcome, brought to us by our friend Occam, is that the "debate," if it ever did occur (see #1), would amount to nothing more than a recitation of unoffensive pablum aimed at the largest cross-section of likely American viewers, and ultimately be unhelpful, counter-productive, or - most likely - completely inconsequential.
Get off this train.
I have to agree with PZ and Greg. What is the point if the candidates don't show? All you can ever get from an assistant is the caned answer that the campaign has vetted. If you can't get the candidate themselves on the stage so you can plumb their knowledge and get a sense of their philosophy of science. Also what is the point if it is just the Democrats for the most part they are the science friendly party. You need to have the republicans on the stage also so they can either look stupid endorsing creationism or risk angering the base when they admit they are a monkey's uncle.
Re LaRena
The idea of a science debate can't be all bad. Matt Nisbet is against it.
When you're dodging in a hailstorm of dropped names, that's the tipoff.
He's not dropping names, he's dropping resumes. I've never seen anything like that before.
Even for JvP, that was extreme. In fact it was so much more extreme than anything I've seen from him, even for him, that I'm very suspicious that it was in fact a cunningly-crafted parody.
(To his credit JvP is indeed an exceedingly smart eminence grise with ridiculous numbers of connections to other exceedingly smart people. It's just that he can't stop *talking* about those connections. He's got an incredible amount of fascinating stuff to say: you just have to wade through this blizzard of oo-look-who-I-know to get to it.)
It's a pity that PZ never admitted or apologized for his bullshit quote mining of Obama in that previous thread.
I assume the Jonathan Vos Post Post above is a spoof of some kind
You're rather stupid for assuming that.
Perhaps it's because I didn't quote mine him. I read and listened to the whole speech, and it was a simpering suck-up to religion...and it's the people who claim otherwise who are reading a bunch of stuff that isn't there into it.
And good grief, but I am fed up with nitwits who do not find it sufficient that I voted for the guy despite my dislike of many of his views, and seem to want me to uncritically love him.
Perhaps it's because I didn't quote mine him.
Numerous intellectually honest people who contributed to that thread disagreed.
And good grief, but I am fed up with nitwits who do not find it sufficient that I voted for the guy
Voting for him isn't sufficient to justify quote mining him and then lying about it.
and seem to want me to uncritically love him.
Nice strawman, asshole. No one said anything about loving him.
it's the people who claim otherwise who are reading a bunch of stuff that isn't there into it.
And fuck you about that; we didn't read a bunch of stuff that isn't there, we quoted stuff that is there that contradicted your claims.
[Oh well, I guess I can kiss that Molly good bye, but I suck up to no liar.]
I've got to say, the chances of a rational person being undecided at this stage are distinctly slim, when this campaign has been going on for over a year now, and most of the candidates have being vetted and taste tested since this time in 2006 if not earlier. What purpose, then, would such a debate serve?
It would represent a willingness to say things that will alienate a subset of the undecided irrational people. While such a willingness would be admirable, it would be politically stupid--and I don't know about anyone else, but I try not to admire people who do stupid things to demonstrate the courage of their convictions.
As far as I'm concerned, the only person who's shown the courage of his convictions as regards science in this election is Huckabee, who's been willing to flatly deny evolution. If I were going to select my candidate based on willingness to stick to his guns and speak to his convictions, that would be my man--unfortunately, I don't agree with a single thing he believes, except perhaps that Stephen Colbert is funny.
But the fact is that the majority of people vote based on faith and emotion. Should this change? Yes! Should we work to change it? Of course! Should we expect politicians to act as though it's different? Not if we value intelligence in our politicians.
While I would certainly have appreciated an open forum on scientific issues a year or so ago, when we didn't already know everyone's stance on everything they have a stance on and several things they don't, I don't expect one any time in the near future. Trying to get one is fighting the wrong battle; better to work toward a climate in which such a thing would be expected and appropriate.
The candidates will largely go where the voters take them, and the voters are even further from where you want them than the candidates are.
Obviously we'd prefer to have leaders who show some leadership, and I think both Democratic candidates might occasionally venture to lead a little where their pollsters say it's safe to do so, but in order to move the candidates on this we have to move the voters.
Of course, posts like this are part of an effort to do just that.
And I quoted stuff that was in there that contradicted your claims. Face it; it was a mealy-mouthed political speech that tried to be all things to all people, and I'm not going to be taken in by it. I'm voting for Obama so far because he's the best of a poor lot, not because I've deluded myself into thinking he actually represents me.
You're about to kiss this whole site goodbye. You're a pain in the ass with an excessively black-and-white mentality, and since you seem to think this place is run by an intellectually dishonest liar, you shouldn't miss it.
Jeez, what's this "truth machine" person? An angry wingnut who's too drunk to find his usual forum at Little Green Footballs? Just BOOM, insults and obscenities all over the place; it's like going to a jazz concert and running into someone who thinks he's at a cockfight.
180 degrees from that, so far as I can tell: a complete political spectrum inversion from that first impression.
IMHO, it would be a loss for many threads if PZ decided for the rest of us that we should permanently part ways with TM, especially over TM's unwillingness to install even the Open Source Politesse Module. Perhaps if TM framed those positions more carefully... Unlike the no true Scottsman Libertarian languishing in the dungeon missed by nobody, there is nearly always more to a TM post than the complete disdain for empathy. So what if we sometimes talk past each other? I've learned a lot that I value from both PZ and TM.
Whoa, this thread died without fanfare. Well said, Ken, and I share your opinions, though I freely admit to missing the auld Scot. It's a weakness I have...
I'm surprised that the church thinks it's an appropriate campaign venue. Culture shock and all.
You're about to kiss this whole site goodbye. You're a pain in the ass with an excessively black-and-white mentality, and since you seem to think this place is run by an intellectually dishonest liar, you shouldn't miss it.
I did kiss it goodbye because you showed yourself to be just as much an intellectually dishonest ass as any of the worst of them. I told the truth about you, and in response I got this cowardly garbage. Well, it saved me a lot of wasted hours, jackass. Funny that you gave me your stupid "molly" anyway, even though I repeatedly said I didn't want it.
Perhaps if TM framed those positions more carefully...
You well know, Ken, that I always framed my positions carefully. Not being agreeable isn't the same as not being careful.
Welcome back TM.
Missed you.
Take a look at "Kenny", a fine specimen of a creotard who has become a regular in your absence.
A sample of his wisdom is on display in the current thread :
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/an_hour_of_radio_inanity.php…
Our web is
. This is the largest wholesaler of the jewelry and all the commodities made by handmade.
i like to quote his words to my friends
I was thinking about buying Truth Machine some cheap jewelry?
And then I suddenly found this thread!
it's spooky.
< hrf=" http://www.g4bgtrd.cm/chn-c-185.html"> Chnl rplc prss,
< hrf="http://www.g4bgtrd.cm/hrms-c-15.html"> rplc hndbgs ,
< hrf=" http://www.g4bgtrd.cm/gcc-c-2.html"> rplc hndbgs ,
< hrf="http://www.g4bgtrd.cm"> chnl rplc bgs ;
[URL=http://www.g4bgtrd.cm/]Rplc Gcc Hndbgs[/URL],
bgs prd rplc prss rplc prd prss
[/] http://www.g4bgtrd.cm [] chp rplc hndbgs [/]