Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology
A group of scientists and other concerned citizens are calling for a debate among presidential hopefuls on science and technology policy issues. This is a great idea because as the organizers of Science Debate 2008 declare:
We have noticed that science and technology lie at the center of a very large number of the policy issues facing our nation and the world - issues that profoundly affect our national and economic security as science and technology continue to transform our lives. No matter one's political stripe, these issues pose important pragmatic policy challenges.
The public deserves to know what Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and all of the others think about global warming, stem cells, nuclear power, and teaching biological evolution. Should we have a carbon tax? Federal support for stem cell research? Subsidies for nuclear power? And equal time in the classroom for science and superstition, uh, I mean, biological evolution and intelligent design?
|12.28.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I can tell you what Huckabee will say now:
Real Christians don't believe in science...
|12.28.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Why not also a presidential debate on religion?
Also a presidential debate on fashion?
How about a presidential debate on sports?
Here's an idea, why not just give the presidential candidates a
test on their memorization skills?
Because that's the only information such a debate will provide
about these yahoos.
|12.28.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Hey Reason-oides, speaking of intelligent design, a vid of ron
paul supporting creationism has popped up on these interwebs of
ours, with him saying evolution is a theory.
flame on!
|12.28.07 @ 2:50PM|#
I doubt most of them could explain Newton's Law of Gravity if
the equation were put in front of them. (Exception: McCain. He'd
have had to get through the science courses to get his
wings.)
Asking this crowd to debate science is like asking a dog to ride a
horse.
|12.28.07 @ 2:51PM|#
the chad: Here's the link to Paul apparently expressing his disbelief in biological evolution.
|12.28.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Aresen:
that's exactly the point; you'd flush out the candidates who know
how to pretend how to think (people who can really think about
scientific issues become scientists, not politicians).
Brad|12.28.07 @ 2:59PM|#
I just can't trust anyone to make rational decisions in very
important situations as President when they dismiss science in
favor of mythology. I guess I just expect too much from my
leaders.
I'd like to pull for Paul because of some of his other policies,
but being this wrong on something this obvious is just too spooky
for me.
KipEsquire|12.28.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Not to mention who can outbid whom on how much taxpayer money should be "invested" on NASA on other politically favored science boondoggles.
jack|12.28.07 @ 3:04PM|#
None of them could actually handle science? I'm pretty sure that Obama, Romney and Clinton are fairly brilliant people. Now, a Kucinich vs. Huckabee vs. Paul debate on pseudoscience, moderated by Art Bell--that I'd watch
LibertyPlease|12.28.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Brad wrote:
I'd like to pull for Paul because of some of his other policies, but being this wrong on something this obvious is just too spooky for me.
I agree about it being spooky. However, Paul would keep the Fed's
nose out of all non-Constitutionally supported domains. This is
better for science than all other candidates views on
how to meddle.
|12.28.07 @ 3:08PM|#
I predict that all of the Democrats will endorse this, and most of the Republicans will opt out.
ed|12.28.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Asking this crowd to debate science is like asking a dog to
ride a horse.
Or asking Romney to ride Hillary. I'd watch that. After several
drinks.
|12.28.07 @ 3:15PM|#
I doubt most of them could explain Newton's Law of Gravity
if the equation were put in front of them. (Exception: McCain. He'd
have had to get through the science courses to get his
wings.)
How much science do you suppose an MD needs to take?
SIV|12.28.07 @ 3:15PM|#
None of them could actually handle science? I'm pretty sure
that Obama, Romney and Clinton are fairly brilliant
people.
Cleaning my monitor as I type.
Paul and McCain do have some training/education in science. I'm not
sure what any other candidates might know.Political skills do not
suggest any science aptitude--much less any knowledge.
R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Ron Paul on evolution is about 98% red herring, because as a
believer in limited government he wouldn't have the Presidency or
the national government do a goddam thing about it.
Or asking Romney Hillary to ride
Hillary Romney.
I have a feeling Hillary would be the dom.
|12.28.07 @ 3:17PM|#
I cringe at this considering the watering down thats gone on for other, much easier to understand issues. Instead of a debate we should just be quizzing their potential science advisors, since I doubt the candidates themselves have anything beyond a superficial grasp of things like chemistry, medicine etc.
Paul Burnett|12.28.07 @ 3:17PM|#
The only thing that would make the debate worth watching would be if there was some way to get the candidates to actually answer the basic questions. They will all waffle and lie, because they're politicians - most of them are not techies. And the Republiclans will be afraid of alienating their right-wingnut power base.
SIV|12.28.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Get Miss teen South Carolina to moderate the Presidential Geography debate. That would make about as much sense as this.
VM|12.28.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Pig - apparently not enough :)
plus he hasn't practiced medicine in how long? Since the 70s?
|12.28.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Hey Reason-oides, speaking of intelligent design, a vid of
ron paul supporting creationism has popped up on these interwebs of
ours, with him saying evolution is a theory.
He didn't say he believed in intelligent design, he just stated
that evolution was a theory. There's a distinction. I've known some
perfectly credible scientists that were skeptical about evolution
as well, based only on the evidence as presented, not due to any
religious beliefs.
My guess is that he weasel-worded his answer to avoid a
controversy.
Mike Gene|12.28.07 @ 3:25PM|#
While I certainly do not support teaching intelligent design in the public schools, neither is it "superstition." In fact, biological evolution and intelligent design may complement each other. This should become clear to anyone who has read my book, The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues.
ed|12.28.07 @ 3:25PM|#
I think what y'all are forgetting here is the asking part of this proposed debate. Journalists are at least as stupid as politicians. Who will write the questions for them? Not their Hollywood buddies. They're still on strike. Maybe we should go with the horse-riding dogs after all?
VM|12.28.07 @ 3:27PM|#
woo hoo a fucking batshit insane d00d!
SUPERSTITION. FAIRY TALE. MADE UP BLATHER.
Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
|12.28.07 @ 3:32PM|#
plus he hasn't practiced medicine in how long? Since the
70s?
Well, when I was in grade school in the 60's they were teaching
evolution then, so I don't think he'd be that out of date
on the science.
In any event, skepticism about evolution as commonly accepted
doesn't necessarily imply a belief in creationism. He wasn't really
that clear on what he did believe, and what he said about the
matter was subject to interpretation. What he certainly
didn't say was that he believed in creationism.
|12.28.07 @ 3:40PM|#
de stijl
"The wonder of a bear riding a bicycle is not that the bear does it
well, it is that the bear can do it at all." (I forget the source
and I'm too lazy to look it up.)
VM|12.28.07 @ 3:40PM|#
actually - it was a question about him practicing medicine, not
science learnings :)
but we agree to disagree about the rest!
cheers
|12.28.07 @ 3:41PM|#
...think about global warming (Nonsense, because last century it
warmed only a few degrees, that means it is untrue),
stem cells (murder),
nuclear power (not needed, there is an infinite supply of
oil),
and teaching biological evolution (immoral).
Should we have a carbon tax (no)?
Federal support for stem cell research? (no)
Subsidies for nuclear power? (no)
And equal time in the classroom for science and superstition, uh, I
mean, intelligent design and biological evolution? (No, only the
true science of intelligent design)
|12.28.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Ron Paul's answer about creationism was ambiguous, first saying
he didn't believe in the theory of evolution, then at the end
saying neither creationism nor evolutionism had all the
answers.
Let's call it what it was -- waffling to try to pick up the
Southern evangelical vote, while trying to leave some wiggle room
to back off from this in the unlikely event he wins the nomination
and has to run toward the center in the general election.
FWIW -- most actual scientists would (correctly) call the Theory of
Evolution a "theory" (i.e. a provisional idea that captures the
essence of objective observations made so far, but subject to
revision or scrapping if contradictory observations emerge), not a
carved-in-stone fact, but they mean something quite different and
more nuanced by that than the creationists who use "theory" as an
epithet.
This isn't a deal-breaker for me, since Paul hasn't proposed
imposing whatever his actual beliefs on this issue are on anyone if
he becomes president, but it does show he is a slicker politician
willing to say what a given audience wants to hear than the more
credulous Ron-is-a-Saint folks would have us believe.
A good follow-up question to pin Ron Paul down here would be to ask
"Do you believe that the Earth was created about 6,000 years ago,
or is it hundreds of millions of years old?"
|12.28.07 @ 3:50PM|#
My guess is that he weasel-worded his answer to avoid a
controversy.
I'd say he weasel-worded it to pick up votes in an early voting
Southern state he wants to win, at the cost of creating a
controversy among some of his core supporters.
|12.28.07 @ 3:59PM|#
He did not say the teaching of evolution is immoral, he was
merely stating his personal belief in creation.
As an atheist, I "tolerate" this religious view, because I also
want people to "tolerate" my atheism. I hope that this country has
not reached such barbarism as our spiritual beliefs will be brought
to question in temporal matters. I still believe that a true
libertarian would recognize the two spheres can be separated, and
people of many faiths can exist in common government.
Brandybuck|12.28.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Ron Paul's views on science are just like his views on religion: He isn't going to impose them on anyone. If you think he's going to do that, then you don't have the first idea of what he is about.
Tim Russert\'s Science Questio|12.28.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"And now I'll ask each candidate the same question.
Global Warming: for it or against it? Senator Clinton?"
Shayrah|12.28.07 @ 4:09PM|#
The only question we need to ask is if a candidate is going to make unconstitutional federal laws. What a candidate believes in PERSONALLY should not matter.
|12.28.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Lwt's just put them on Jeopardy and see who wins the finals. But I like the idea of making candidates name who they would like their advisors to be in foreign policy, economics, science, constitutional law, etc.
Franklin Harris|12.28.07 @ 6:32PM|#
I have a feeling Hillary would be the dom.
Great, RC. Do you have any idea how much therapy it's going to take
to get the image of Hillary, wearing leather and holding a whip,
out of my head?
Kap|12.28.07 @ 7:25PM|#
Great, RC. Do you have any idea how much therapy it's going to take to get the image of Hillary, wearing leather and holding a whip, out of my head?
Here ya go, Franklin, this ought to help.
Kolohe|12.28.07 @ 10:01PM|#
I doubt most of them could explain Newton's Law of Gravity
if the equation were put in front of them. (Exception: McCain. He'd
have had to get through the science courses to get his
wings.)
This got me wondering what is the formal science education of the
various candidates. Looked at the sixteen candidates that were
listed
here as of the time of this posting.
Here are their undergraduate degrees
DEM
Joe Biden UNK pre-law?
Hillary Clinton political science
Christopher Dodd english lit
John Edwards Textile Technology
Mike Gravel Economics
Dennis Kucinich speech and communication (looks like got M.A at
same time in same field)
Barack Obama . political science
Bill Richardson French/ political science
REP
Rudy Giuliani political science
Mike Huckabee Religion
Duncan Hunter pre law? (* looks like due to military service, got
B.S and law degree at same time)
John McCain UNK B.S. English or History?
Ron Paul Biology
Mitt Romney UNK B.A(pre law/business?)
Fred Thompson philosophy and political science
|12.29.07 @ 1:58AM|#
Kolohe
McCain went to the USNA which is basically an engineering school
with a more than usual amount of the humanities. According to Wiki
he was a mediocre student.
Romney went to BYU (don't know what major) but he has an MBA and JD
from Harvard.
Kolohe|12.29.07 @ 8:58PM|#
Mr Bartram-
Yes, I agree any service academy education regardless of major
gives a graduate the equivalent of about two years of
science/engineering curriculum. (and McCain would have had to work
a little harder to be considered mediocre, he was like 600 out of
640)
From the wiki & campaign sites that made the distinction, it
seems only McCain, Paul, and Hunter definitely have a Bachelor of
Science; Gravel and Edwards probably also have one due to their
majors.
I only listed undergrad, but the grad education is:
Joe Biden law
Hillary Clinton law
Christopher Dodd law
John Edwards law
Mike Gravel none
Dennis Kucinich Masters, speech and communication
Barack Obama law
Bill Richardson Masters, law and diplomacy (seems to be different
from an actual law degree, I think for instance it did not qualify
him for the bar)
REP
Rudy Giuliani law
Mike Huckabee none
Duncan Hunter law
John McCain none
Ron Paul Medicine
Mitt Romney law and business
Fred Thompson law
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245