Probably. Every four years, ScienceDebate.org comes along to suggest that the presidential candidates ought to have a debate about the science issues that confront us. It's a good idea, I think.
I'd like it to happen. On the plus side, watching Republicans poop the bed over and over again would be vastly entertaining. Just recently, Rick Santorum said something stupid, for example (and who are we kidding? Santorum has like an all-automated electric stupidity generator permanently mounted in his mouth.)
For me, when you say the states have the right to define marriage, it’s like saying, well, the states have the right to redefine the chemical equation for water, it can be H3O instead of H2O. Well, the states can’t do that. Why? Because nature dictates what water is, nature dictates what marriage is, and the states don’t have the right to violate what nature has dictated.
Imagine a two hour show with those loonies babbling on the stage. Comedy gold!
Unfortunately, on the negative side, I can't quite imagine either Clinton or Sanders putting in a solid performance. They'd probably be OK by just going with the consensus science view and avoiding controversy, but I don't think they could demonstrate a deep knowledge of science. And who knows, maybe they have some weird ideas that would slip out and throw me into deeper despair. Maybe Clinton is a UFO fan, or Bernie Sanders thinks there might be something to homeopathy. I don't know whether I really want to turn over that rock.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'm of two minds on politicians handling science. I think that a well educated, informed, and caring politician proposing change and advocating for progress during thoughtful debate can be good. Going to the moon and funding research to try to beat cancer is grand stuff; we all benefit.
On the other hand, the trend is that if Obama proposes some project, no matter how logical and potentially beneficial that project might be, is reflexively resisted and contradicted by the opposing party. It rapidly devolves into reason and reality versus a fantasy-land trope rooted in demagoguery. The actual science is never discussed and science, and reality --- with its well known liberal bias --- become as discredited as just another story line used to prop up an existing political posture.
Perhaps science, science being the way humankind knows what reality is, is too important to be handled by politicians and too vital to our survival to be run through the black hole of our political process.
I would just as soon not have our politicians talk science, since most (if not all), are clueless). Once upon a time, they had real scientific advisors who told them what the science meant, and what position was appropriate from a scientific standpoint - then the politician could decide what politics they wanted to apply to the position. The politician might then look like an idiot, but wouldn't sound like one.
DJ
“…reality — with its well known liberal bias…”
????
It means nothing your kind says about science is remotely true sn.
all-automated electric stupidity generator
DEFINITELY STEALING THAT
When they don't know science either they say "scientists say", on the side of science, or they say "scientists say" quoting the ones that the Koch Brothers bought.