Why the GOP Should Embrace Science: The Conservative Future Project's Joshua Jacobs

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Why the GOP Should Embrace Science: The Conservative Future Project's Joshua Jacobs

"What has always alleviated our scarcity? What has always alleviated our environmental problems? Technology. What breeds technological dynamism? Economic success," explains Joshua Jacobs, co-founder of the Conservative Future Project, a new pro-science, pro-technology organization that's trying to get the Republican Party to embrace an open-ended future filled with driverless cars, stem-cell research, and private space exploration.

If that sounds like a tall order for a party whose leading presidential candidates in 2012 waffled on whether they believed in evolution, you're right. But Jacobs argues forcefully that the GOP is no less anti-science than the Democrats and actually has a long history of pushing scientific and technological innovation. 

Nick Gillespie sat down with Jacobs in Reason's D.C. studio to talk about how conservatives might stop standing athwart history yelling stop and march boldly into the future.

About 6 minutes.

Camera by Amanda Winkler and Joshua Swain; edited by Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live.

Comments

[Pro Libertate]

Science! Technology! Freedom! Free markets!

We could kick ass with all of those things. Flying cars, personal robot slaves, Moonbases with purple-haired girls in miniskirts, the whole nine AUs.

[DJF]

Mmmmm. Purple hair moon girls

http://cumbriansky.files.wordp.....ase-10.jpg

Even better mesh shirt submarine girl

http://cumbriansky.files.wordp.....rewol1.jpg

[Pro Libertate]

The SHADO knows.

[sarcasmic]

The Gigashadow?

(I've been watching The Lexx on Netflix lately, trying to figure out why I liked the show. Haven' quite figured it out yet. Think it has to do with a certain set of legs.)

[Dermot64]

Grace. I just agree... Marcus`s postlng is good, I just purchased a great new Jaguar XJ from having made $8409 this last five weeks and-just over, ten k this past-month. it's actualy the nicest job I've had. I began this three months/ago and straight away began to make more than $83, p/h. I follow the details on this straightforward website,, http://www.wow92.com

[sarcasmic]

Science as in scientific method science or consensus science?

[Pro Libertate]

Science that produces results and advances useful technology science.

[JWatts]

+3, applied, useful science for the win! Not endless gobs of money dumped into organizations that don't produce economically positive results.

[LynchPin1477]

Just remember that economically positive results require a foundation of basic research to be built upon. Government funding might not be the only way to fund basic research, but basic research itself does need to be done.

[BigT]

Rather than nebulous grants, the govt should establish prizes for proving new technologies, like the prize for the first private space mission.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize

[LynchPin1477]

But that isn't basic research, it is applied research. Basic research isn't done primarily for the sake of some specific new technology or application, though that may be a consideration. Basic research is done primarily out of curiosity and is open ended, but it's essential to applied research. We wouldn't have even half the technology we use in a given day without an understanding of general relativity or quantum mechanics.

[grrizzly]

Science as something embraced by all the cool kids.

[Brandybuck]

Science as in media misrepresentation: Sea levels will rise eighteen feet by the year 2010; scientists discover missing link between chimpanzees and man; new wonder drug to eliminate cancer...

[Pro Libertate]

Wait, who is the missing link? It's Warty, isn't it?

[Brandybuck]

They did manage to reconstructed his mom from a fragment of fossilized jawbone.

[ansible]

@sarcasmic
Science as in scientific method science or consensus science?

scientific consensus is based directly on the scientific method. they're not really separate things.

if you like one of them, you like the other.

[PM]

Lol. Consensus science is based on the fine democratic tradition of the group getting the most funding dollars shutting out any dissent to maintain the gravy train. That's how we know for scientific fact that New York is, scientifically speaking, actually 15 feet underwater right now, and every child born since 1975 has autism, ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, depression, and may possibly be a serial killer, owing mostly to cable TV and video games. If you actually believe what you've just said, I've got a health care bill to sell you...

[ansible]

wow, i am so glad you're not in charge of something important.

also, Poe's law...

[mad.casual]

@ansible

'scientific consensus is based directly on the scientific method. they're not really separate things.

if you like one of them, you like the other.'

B.S. The most fundamental and applicable of sciences work regardless of public consensus. The most untenable of sciences require policy enforcement enacted through popular consensus.

The popular nations that signed on to Kyoto failed to meet the goals, the US surpassed them. The renewable energy sources recommended by environmental scientists (i.e. ethanol) turn out to be far more acute and damaging to human kind than AGW. Pro-environmental practices like culling grazing animals to stop desertification turn out to increase it. The carbon blanket we're spewing into the atmosphere turns out to be beneficial for the plant life of this planet (just like in a greenhouse!).

The inseparable human axioms you are talking about are wisdom and faith, science and religion. The accumulation of knowledge is the unyielding goal of science, what you choose to do with the knowledge has never been the domain of science. Once you start seeking consensus, you are no longer seeking out knowledge. You certainly cannot create or discover knowledge without acting on the knowledge, unless your subsequent actions are further discovery, it's not science and it never has been.

[Dan]

Yes they are really seperate things.

Scientific method science is research done with solid science using the scientific method that produces reliable and repeatable results.

Consensus science is nothing more than a bunch of people having the same opinion about something and then declaring something scientific fact. Consensus science is what produced such brilliant observations as the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth.

[ansible]

@Dan: "Consensus science..."

i'm talking about the scientific method and scientific consensus, one which is constructed from the other. the way you are using the words above it seems to me that you don't mean scientific consensus, but rather some sort of... i dunno... science conspiracy?

[Dan]

The mistake you're making is assuming that all science related consensus' are derived from legitimate scientific research.

Not all of them are. A consensus does not require any science actually be performed. It simply requires an undefined number of people to agree on something.

A legitimate consensus based on solid science is a theory. Anything short of that is just people expressing their opinions, and the scientific method is not a democracratic process. The idea with the most people believing it doesn't magically become a law of science.

[forestgombosi39]

Charlie. although Jacob`s rep0rt is amazing... on sunday I bought a top of the range Buick sincee geting a check for $9503 thiss month and-just over, 10/k lass month. without a doubt it is the nicest job Ive ever done. I began this seven months/ago and practically straight away startad earning more than $77, per-hr. I use this web-site wow65.com
(Go to site and open "Home" for details)

[space junk]

'Moonbases with purple-haired girls in miniskirts'

Sounds like a job for space junk! Wouldn't want those girls left unattended.

[ThatSkepticGuy]

"But Jacobs argues forcefully that the GOP is no less anti-science than the Democrats and actually has a long history of pushing scientific and technological innovation. "

Ugh, now Chris Mooney'll crap out some mindless "NUH UH!" rebuttal about how Republicans are evil trolls who lure scientists under their bridges and eat them, while Democrats are noble gatekeepers of Scientific Method and Reason, and all those things you only THINK they do that are anti-science are really just TEH PRECAUTIONARY PRINZIPALS.
And he'll publish it in some Left-leaning rag that promotes anti-vax, anti-GMO and anti-nuclear while espousing the glory of homeopathy/yoga/chiropracty/animal rights/whateverthefuck.

[JWatts]

The Precautionary Principal is generally used for rationalization not reasoning.

[effinayright]

Ever notice how progs mock conservatives for not accepting Darwin [yes, some do, but hardly all]?

And then they offer progressivism for all life's ills, claiming that social change can actually alter human nature, like, permanently.

None of that random mutation x reproductive advantage = evolution Darwinian stuff.

Lamarck would be proud!

[mgd]

Why should I give a fuck whether a presidential candidate believes in evolution or believes in a seven-day creation that he has been indoctrinated to believe that since he could talk?

As long as he understands the basics of economics and math (or surrounds himself with people that do), and is good on his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, I don't give a shit what he chooses to believe about biology, geology, chemistry, physics, or any other scientific field.

[Brandybuck]

Hell, I could care less if he knows economics or math, I just want him to know that he should be managing his own life rather than the lives of others. Give me a man who knows he is stupid rather than a man who thinks he is smart.

[SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)]

"As long as he understands the basics of economics and math (or surrounds himself with people that do), and is good on his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, I don't give a shit what he chooses to believe about biology, geology, chemistry, physics, or any other scientific field."]

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^ +1,000,000 internets

[BigT]

I read that as 1,000,000 interns

[PM]

I was going to post the same thing. I see it trotted out in every discussion of science ever. "ZOMG! TEH REPUBLICANS DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!!!" Even in terms of the way it shapes policy as it regards science, what difference does it make, really? Has any Republican ever voted to ban a piece of technology based on that belief? Ban a method? Block a patent? The worst you can say is they don't want to teach kids in school that they are the result of explicitly and purely non-theistic, natural, though still poorly understood, abiogenesis because it might warp their sense of personhood. A great solution to that is to privatize schools and let them teach whatever science curriculum they want. But in any case, it's not something that actually changes the outcomes of anything in practicality. Both the Democrats and Republicans are simultaneously anti-science and pro-science depending on the issue at hand, mostly due to favored constituencies. It really isn't any more or less complicated than that.

[DenverJay]

Uh, you Godless heathen, God only needed 6 days, the Sabbath is for resting (unless you are a womenz, then you need to spend the day cooking for me)

[JWatts]

Driver-less cars are going to significantly change people's lives and the economy.

And what's the deal with "stem-cell research"? Republican's, in general, were never against stem-cell research. They were against embryonic stem-cell research, and embryonic stem-cells were always merely a section of the research underway.

[PM]

The stem-cell research thing is similar to the contraception thing, where opposing, say, public funding or access to minors = opposing all birth control and wanting to turn all teh wimmins into baby making factories for the Mormon collective.

[DenverJay]

But then how will the police justify roadblocks if there is no need to search for drunk drivers? Poor, poor police 🙁

[Homple]

Were the Republicans against embryonic stem cell research or just the federal funding of it?

If embryonic stem cells have such great therapeutic promise, can't The Free Market enable Entrepreneurs to reap the Benefits of taking the Risk of developing the requisite technology without The Government's help?

[grey]

"What has always alleviated our scarcity? What has always alleviated our environmental problems? Technology. What breeds technological dynamism? Economic success, ..."

Small point, but I might add that economic stress is just as responsible for alleviating scarcity. Isn't economic success the product and not the cause of technological advances?

Throwing tax payer money at 'technology' is what I fear. Let the market apply the stress and let the market find the solution. Red team and blue team both should stay in the shallow end of the pool and leave economics and technology to the free market.

[blak53]

what Marcus answered I didn't even know that some one able to make $9995 in 1 month on the computer. have you read this page http://www.wow92.com

[cavalier973]

Driverless cars!

http://www.paleofuture.com/sto.....1879323262

[SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)]

"2012 waffled on whether they believed in evolution"

And? I myself believe in the Old Earth theory (it isnt an interesting, debatable topic to me), so I do believe in some variate of evolution. However, to say those who contest mainstream, publicized evolution as "anti-science" is utterly foolish. Under that blanket statement I guess that those Baylor professors are just dumb rednecks.

[BigT]

Anyone who denies the facts underlying evolution, will place faith over evidence. That's how get Iraq.

[DenverJay]

Well, maybe not dumb, but like the 90% of the world's pop. that does believe in deities, I would bet that most arrived at their beliefs through indoctrination as children, with very few believing after a careful examination of the evidence.
The supernatural was invented by people to explain what they could not other wise understand. As our knowledge has increased, these "Gods of the Gaps" have a smaller and smaller purview, unless this knowledge is simply denied, as Evolution is so strongly argued against by Evangelical Christians in the U.S. of A.

[ErnieLane]

Nick Gillespie seems to be under the impression that Republicans are against stem cell research.

We aren't. We are for the use of _adult_ and umbilical cord stem cell research, as enthusiastic as hell. It's the _embryonic_ stem cell research we are against.

And, as it turns out as shown over and over, adult and umbilical cord stem cells are promising and in thousands of uses already, while embryonic stem cell research has proved that embryonic stem cells aren't worth a damn, and are often dangerous [cause terrible cancers).

[Cytotoxic]

Bullshit. In the real world, adult stem cells have proven to not be nearly as flexible as the embryonic stem cells which can be coaxed to do what we want. GOPers are inventing excuses because they know they can't make a serious argument that an embryo is a person, because the notion is absurd.

[JWatts]

"they know they can't make a serious argument that an embryo is a person, because the notion is absurd."

LOL, where exactly do you draw the line. Is a 1 day old baby a person? How about a 1 minute old baby? How about a baby that's one minute from being born?

It's all a matter of opinion.

[Douglas]

Feynman - Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts;

Feynman - There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.

[Douglas]

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. - Richard Feynman

"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."? Richard P. Feynman

"We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."
? Richard P. Feynman

[Douglas]

"In physics the truth is rarely perfectly clear, and that is certainly universally the case in human affairs. Hence, what is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth."
? Richard P. Feynman

"There is no authority who decides what is a good idea."
? Richard P. Feynman

"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
? Richard P. Feynman

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
? Richard P. Feynman

[Douglas]

Note: computer models are not experiments. Your theory may match the computer models, but when it does not match nature, you are wrong. When the computer models are shown to not match the outcomes in nature, the models are wrong.

[SIV]

FUCK SCIENCE

Bring pitchforks and torches to strike a blow for liberty. Government is as poisonous to science (and vice a versa) as it is religion. We need a strict separation of science and state.

[jessica9]

If you think Todd`s story is great..., three weeks ago my son also easily made $7802 sitting there sixteen hours a week from their apartment and there co-worker's aunt`s neighbour has been doing this for 8-months and recieved a check for more than $7802 in their spare time On there laptop. applie the steps on this page... and go to home tab for more detail--- http://googlejobs.org.qr.net/kiYJ

[Jackand Ace]

I would make a couple of suggestions to Mssrs. Gillespie and Jacobs.

First, science does not equal solely technology. Its more than that. Technology will be the answer to some problems, but the scientific method will lead to other answers as well.

Second, Republicans have a long way to go to demonstrate any understanding of the value of science. Remember, it was the last Republican administration that altered reports from the science community because they did not like what the reports said. And that is in addition to their stance on issues like evolution.

Here is my suggestion, though, for a start for the conservative side. Try listening to the OVERWHELMING scientific consensus on climate change. Every single science organization says this is something we need to be concerned about, and that we need to do something about. Every single one...there are none that disagree.

The idea, as stated by both of you, that whatever is going to happen on climate change is going to happen is about as unscientific a stance as I have heard. Its not all "baked in the cake," as both of you say. The level of actual warming that we achieve can in fact be changed...needs to be changed. Now more SCINETISTS are telling us that instead of a 2 degree rise in temperatures, we are heading toward 4, and maybe even 6, which will be catastrophic. At least science is telling us that, and they are saying what we do or do not do about this issue matters.

[richards82]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job Ive had. Last Tuesday I bought a gorgeous Lancia Straton from earning $4331 this - 5 weeks past. I began this 7-months ago and right away started to earn at least $69, per-hr. I use this website,,
http://goo.gl/4z9pn

[ravengabriel]

Eva. although Michelle`s blog is shocking... on sunday I bought a top of the range McLaren F1 since I been earnin $4227 this - four weeks past and would you believe, ten k this past-munth. this is really the coolest work Ive ever done. I actually started 7-months ago and immediately made myself at least $84 p/h. I work through this website,,
go to this site home tab for more detail http://WWW.BIG76.COM

[alittlesense]

If I make $9995 per week, I can fund all the science I wants to, including moon bases with women in purple miniskirts......

[alittlesense]

...or was that purple women in mesh skirts?

[MarioSmario]

Most of my scientists friends say that it's the Left Wing which needs to embrace science and technology more. The Left has polarized science to the point that if you don't mention diversity or climate change in grant proposals, you won't get funding, no matter what the research.

[SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)]

"energy is simply not plentiful enough to allow for continued economic growth."

This is pure drivel. Just here off the coast of Louisianna, the oil and offshore companies can't build the ships and rigs fast enough. The entire coast of Texas is still largely untapped, along with the entire East Coast. Cars are becoming extremely efficient as well.

[PM]

Since 1798...

[BigT]

True dat. And we have as much nuclear energy as we have the political will to use.

[DenverJay]

Also, technological advancement results in more efficient use of existing energy. Car have much higher MPG today than in the '50's, LED's use a fraction of the electricity that incandescent bulbs do, my flat screen TV uses the same amount of electricity as a 60watt lightbulb, etc.