Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Science Has No Place in Politics

by Live Science

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/080826-bad-science-debate.html

Science Has No Place in Politics
Benjamin Radford

Recently, the two men who want to be next president of the United States appeared in a televised two-hour forum on faith, hosted by megachurch minister Rick Warren.

Religion has been problematic for both candidates in their campaigns. Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made controversial, conspiracy-laden statements about AIDS and racism, while John McCain's spiritual advisor Rod Parsley claimed that America's "divine purpose" is to destroy Islam, which he considers a "false religion."

Still, it's not hard to see why the pair participated: The so-called Faith Forum had important political implications, as both candidates court conservative Christian voters.

Yet the bigger story is another, lesser-known debate — one that transcends faith or politics. The debate, slated for April 18 in Philadelphia, was arranged by ScienceDebate 2008, a bipartisan group of Nobel laureates and other scholars who want to bring science to the fore of public discussion. The idea of a science debate is supported by virtually every scientific organization in the country, including the National Academy of Sciences.

The reason you probably haven't heard about the Science Debate is that it didn't happen. None of the candidates accepted. They found time for other public forums, including the Faith Forum, and a "Compassion Forum," but when it came to science — the very engine that drives America's technology — the candidates were conspicuously silent.

Discussions of faith and compassion are fine, but solutions to the serious problems facing our nation and indeed the planet can only be found in science. It's not clear why the candidates didn't participate. Perhaps they felt that they weren't well-versed enough in science to really discuss it, lest the forum turn into an embarrassing, gaffe-riddled version of "Jeopardy!" Perhaps they think science isn't sexy, and assumed that they should focus on more fundamental issues like the Iraq war, energy shortages, and the economy.

What they don't seem to understand is that science underlies all those issues, and many more. America needs a science-literate president now more than ever. Both Obama and McCain are intelligent people, but neither seems to recognize the importance of science to the future of our country. The point is not to ask the candidates to explain Faraday's law of induction, or know the difference between mitosis and meiosis, but a basic understanding of what science is, and how it works, is essential to creating good laws and public policy.

It's not too late; Obama and McCain can still have a Science Debate before the election if they realize how important science is. After all, our energy and environmental problems can't be solved with hot air.

Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 63 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #237881 by eh-theist on August 27, 2008 at 11:23 am

This is absolutely sad. I remember watching the discussion with Richard and Lawrence regarding the ScienceDebate.

Unfortunately it was widely expected that they would not attend. Politics is not about knowing something, it is about pulling the wool over someone's eyes. It isn't hard to see why neither of these candidates accepted.

Other Comments by eh-theist

2. Comment #237882 by Animavore on August 27, 2008 at 11:24 am

I guess science isn't sexy enough.
It doesn't sell.

Other Comments by Animavore

3. Comment #237898 by DKPetersen on August 27, 2008 at 11:40 am

Truly sad, yet not surprising.

Perhaps they fear having a scientific debate would force them to come out of their shell of generalizations, something at which politicians are naturally afraid.

Also, they wouldn't want to display just how much scientific insight they truly regard as factual, lest they upset the religious voters.

Other Comments by DKPetersen

4. Comment #237901 by VanYoungman on August 27, 2008 at 11:45 am

For grave spinners, Carl Sagan has probably picked up the nick-name "PinWheel".

Other Comments by VanYoungman

5. Comment #237911 by Ascaphus on August 27, 2008 at 11:55 am

I think the general public really likes the "we make our own reality" alternative. Science is so... Deterministic! So, the next president will be chosen on the strength of his appeal to irrationality.

:(

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

6. Comment #237919 by nattyadams on August 27, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I've worked as a volunteer with ScienceDebate2008 for over a year and rest assured that the effort isn't over yet.

Other Comments by nattyadams

7. Comment #237940 by fsm1965 on August 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm

It's a shame that "folksy charm" is prized over intelligence...

Other Comments by fsm1965

8. Comment #237945 by rod-the-farmer on August 27, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Maybe we start asking the media to ask the question "Why have you not accepted the invitation to the Science Debate ? You accepted the invitation from this Warren fellow. Is religion more important than science ?"

Have the Press Gallery ask President Bush "Why do you think none of the candidates have accepted the invitation to the Science Debate?" That should get tongues wagging, given the unpredictability of his response.

Maybe we ask the people who get called asking for support for their candidate, to tell the telemarketers, "I won't vote for your candidate because he is afraid of the Science Debate"

A few letters to the editor of your local paper can help raise the consciousness of the general public. Maybe Jay Leno can ask that question. Anyone know him well enough to ask him ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

9. Comment #237946 by rengdahl on August 27, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Don't blame the politicians for trying to get elected.

The religious community has organized itself in such a way as to be indispensable to American politicians. If the scientific community were organized as a significant voting bloc, we'd have our debate.

ScienceDebate2008 was (is) a great first step. Let's see it continue, grow and become a movement that neutralizes religious influence and eventually dominates politics.

This is on our shoulders, not theirs.

Other Comments by rengdahl

10. Comment #237990 by DalaiDrivel on August 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I imagine the primary reason is thaty science is viewed as antagonistic to religion.

Which it is, but the religious still benefit from it everyday.

One thinks to credit the Amish, for while still being so, are the least hypocritical...

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

11. Comment #237996 by NewEnglandBob on August 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm

8. Comment #237945 by rod-the-farmer

Have the Press Gallery ask President Bush "Why do you think none of the candidates have accepted the invitation to the Science Debate?" That should get tongues wagging, given the unpredictability of his response.

Bush's answer would be "I don't know what Psy-ants are debating about"

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

12. Comment #238001 by squinky on August 27, 2008 at 1:41 pm

You guys are dreaming. There are a tiny handful of scientific issues that a presidential candidate could possible address. Global warming and alternative energy are safe but beyond that is a minefield so vast that no sane political figure will venture there. Think, what are some scientific burning questions:
1) stem cells, reproductive technology, and early human life--can't ever go there!
2) Condoms, Plan B, abortion, HPV vaccination, pregnancy prevention, family planning--can't ever ever go there!
3) Separation of Church and State, the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers--can't really go there because most Americans think this country is a Christian nation.
4) American scientific education and competitiveness--maybe but politicians like to talk about early childhood education (no child left behind). It's so important, see, and college is well--optional. Besides, we import a lot of our scientifically trained people from overseas so where is the urgent need for home grown scientific literacy really?
5) Evolution--Don't alienate the religious right, you'll lose the election.

Presidential candidates (Gore excepted) don't know shit about science and would look dumber than a 5th grader which reflects most Americans scientific literacy.

Other Comments by squinky

13. Comment #238005 by D'Arcy on August 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm

The reason you probably haven't heard about the Science Debate is that it didn't happen. None of the candidates accepted. They found time for other public forums, including the Faith Forum, and a "Compassion Forum," but when it came to science �" the very engine that drives America's technology �" the candidates were conspicuously silent.

Presumably the candidates were advised that there weren't going to be enough votes in it for them. When you're courting the Christian vote in the USA, it probably doesn't help to say that you accept evolution, or even the big bang idea.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

14. Comment #238006 by Border Collie on August 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I think that I'd like to see a science 'debate' or discussion also. I'm afraid, however, that it would rapidly descend into some sort of sick, uncomfortable, dark comedy with the candidates equivocating, squirming, snickering, trying not to be the 'nerd' who knows the answer, discounting science, etc. The moderator would have to be very strong. And, of course, they'd each be allowed a science 'advisor' with them. A 'botched' science debate, botched from an ignoramous voter perspective, could absolutely kill a candidacy.

Other Comments by Border Collie

15. Comment #238009 by textnotspeech on August 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Don't blame the politicians for trying to get elected.

We're not blaming them for trying to get elected. We're chastising them for not submitting to the scrutiny of the scientific community as they've done with other groups. I'm with rod-the-farmer, once again it's time for us to raise consciousness of the issue. Science is indispensable to politics, that's why we need to make sure they know what they're talking about when we discuss issues like Global Warming and Stem Cell Research. Better for all to agree on the rules of the game than to become the dominant "constituency". Could it be these candidates don't want to reveal their ignorance of science or their blatant disregard for it?

Other Comments by textnotspeech

16. Comment #238011 by daveau on August 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm

The candidates would only lose by participating in a scientific debate. They wouldn't want to look stupid, of course, but they also would not want to appear to be too smart, because that would get them branded "elitist", which is the kiss of death.

Other Comments by daveau

17. Comment #238030 by MGBOY on August 27, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Surely the reason none of the Politicians accepted is obvious. They don't want to be asked their opinion on creation. With one negative answer, they could piss off 50% of the voting American public.

Better to keep the lid on that one. It's only after one of them becomes president that we may get a better understanding of what they believe, but of course then it's too late.

Other Comments by MGBOY

18. Comment #238042 by ridelo on August 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm

After all, our energy and environmental problems can't be solved with hot air.

As a matter of fact with lots and lots of hot air you could solve the energy problem. And that would be very helpful to solve environmental problems...

Other Comments by ridelo

19. Comment #238045 by mordacious1 on August 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I can't blame them, I wouldn't want to be grilled by a bunch of Nobel laureates either.

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #238046 by retrospy on August 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm

If you can't get the presidents to debate science, why not have the debate between the candidate's science advisors? After all, there is a debate between vice presidents.

We all know the president is only as good as the information on hand. This could open up a whole new way to evaluate our candidates. You don't just evaluate the chief, you look at the whole team.

Don't give up on Science Debate 2008. Reinvent it!

Other Comments by retrospy

21. Comment #238052 by dochmbi on August 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Nah we don't need science to solve any social or environmental problems. In fact, fundamentalist religion and war can solve all of our problems permanently. When we all kill each other in a holy war we will all be rewarded by God for our righteousness and go to paradise.
So there you have it, the ultimate problem solution.

Other Comments by dochmbi

22. Comment #238081 by Red Foot Okie on August 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I so want this debate to happen. Just to see how much (or little) the candidates know. Heck let them bring their science advisors. "Seconds" if you will, like old-school pisols at dawn.

Do they even have sciene advisors?

Is there a petition or something I can get on to show my support for this?

Other Comments by Red Foot Okie

23. Comment #238091 by DamnDirtyApe on August 27, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Pandering to the popular will truely turn democracy into the tyranny of the majority.

If you want to see a prime example of that, Look at Turkey.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

24. Comment #238093 by apettway on August 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm

In the time it takes to write a response to an article on this site, one could write an e-mail to the campaigns or, better yet, a letter to the editor of your local paper. Pardon me for being so forward, but GET OFF YOUR ASS AND WRITE A LETTER!!!

(er..um...I guess most letters are written while seated) *shrug*

RedFootOkie,

The petition is at: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

Other Comments by apettway

25. Comment #238122 by Quine on August 27, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I fear that anyone winning a science debate would automatically drop in the polls.

Other Comments by Quine

26. Comment #238141 by tmason1987 on August 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm

It is disappointing but expected that political figures in the US would fail to show interest in a scientific debate.

Tony Benn once commented on the great ignorance in Economics of politicians in the UK, and that has (to some extent) been re-addressed. That is encouraging, as certain scientific ways of thinking are integral to economics, and you must be reasonably well trained in mathematics and statistics to gain an undergraduate degree in Economics. I don't know how this compares to the US?

Other Comments by tmason1987

27. Comment #238146 by Ohnhai on August 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm

how is science not sexy??? just take the LHC, the biggest machine on earth and it makes mini black-holes for flips sake!! How much more awe and wonder do you need??

unfortunately with topics like Evolution education in schools and stem cell research these are too hot topics any politician wants to avoid like coming out as an atheist in the run up to an major election...

Other Comments by Ohnhai

28. Comment #238153 by Koreman on August 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Is the US becoming senile? I guess we'll see much more Olympics in Peking in the future then.

Other Comments by Koreman

29. Comment #238159 by Acardia on August 27, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Maybe they were scared of Ron Paul, he's an MD.

Other Comments by Acardia

30. Comment #238167 by samratpathania on August 27, 2008 at 5:01 pm

It's a pity that most people consider only the Democratic and Republic nominations as viable presidential candidates. "Scientifically astute" americans will fret about how unscientific policy making is becoming and how the two main parties keep pandering to the religious and yet they will not look at viable alternatives.
People will continue complaining about the leading two candidates and yet will not put their weight behind third party presidential candidates like Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney (Green party). (Please don't present the spoiler argument, it is the pet argument of supposed "liberals" just like the religious have theirs)

Making sweeping statements like "Presidential candidates dont know shit" merely reflects a
lack of understanding of our options as American citizens.
If we want a scientific debate we must bring the right kind of people to those debates, people willing to discuss real issues , which I am afraid the "Demoblicans" are incapable of.

Other Comments by samratpathania

31. Comment #238183 by Dhamma on August 27, 2008 at 5:53 pm

This is tragic really, but I understand they didn't want to attend it as it wouldn't have any greater effect on the voters anyway.

I want democracies only because they're the least bad alternative, but it's still a really bad system. Most voters I know don't know shit about politics anyway, so why would I want them to have a say? In Sweden one of the goals is to have as many voters as possible as it's "so important". I bet it's only to brag for other countries. I'd rather have only about 20% that at least have a clue about politics to vote.

I've got a friend who voted for the centre-party, only because it was the party that was the most in the middle of the seven alternatives. Do I want his vote to count as much as others?

Other Comments by Dhamma

32. Comment #238185 by Sittingduck on August 27, 2008 at 5:57 pm

There is no way a political candidate in the US will EVER participate in a debate focused on science. Sorry, it just won't happen in our lifetime. There is nothing in it for them. In their calculations they can only loose traction. A political campaign is the most Darwinian of process, and they learned this lesson long ago.

Social Security is has always been known as the third rail of US politics - touch it and die. Science is the "quiet" third rail. The inevitable questions involving evolution vs creationism, and when human life actually starts will be put to them. Why would they subject themselves to that? That's a sound bit from hell. If anything, politicians know that the lowest common denominator prevails- and that is faith. There just isn't anything they can gain from a discussion focused on logic and reason. Sorry folks, it's sad but true. That's why I am such an admirer of Prof. D, Harris, Dennett, & Hitchens. Keep the logic �" we do have a future.

>------{00}------->

Other Comments by Sittingduck

33. Comment #238193 by phasmagigas on August 27, 2008 at 6:14 pm

i suppose it could be becuse if you dont know anything about science and mess up during a conversation you are outed but if you dont know anything about religion and you mess up nobody will even notice.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

34. Comment #238194 by thewhitepearl on August 27, 2008 at 6:14 pm

[sigh]

ahh geez dhamma where have you been? haven't decided to do any drinking and posting?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

35. Comment #238201 by LaBombe on August 27, 2008 at 6:27 pm

There wasn't much talk of science in the 2007 prime Minister elections here in Australia either. Kevin Rudd probably had the most accurate science advisors and he's obviously got plenty of time for scientists, but it just wasn't an issue.

Wonder how the election would have turned out if it had been?

Other Comments by LaBombe

36. Comment #238205 by Goldy on August 27, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Comment #238183 by Dhamma
Aaaah, bring back the old days, eh Dhamma :-) I do agree with you, though. Not terribly PC of me, but hey, what can you do?
Also use this argument with my wife over gay adoptions. She's against it. I point out quite a few people who can adopt, indeed who breed like rabbits, are allowed children and yet I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet seat and pretty much all the gay people wanting to adopt that I read and hear of are actually so superior in every way to those allowed children it's scary...

Other Comments by Goldy

37. Comment #238254 by rengdahl on August 27, 2008 at 9:13 pm

> Could it be these candidates don't want to
> reveal their ignorance of science or their
> blatant disregard for it?

More likely they are savvy enough to know the difference between an election campaign and an administration.

Clinton/Gore were pretty strong on science (as politics go) but they sure as heck didn't campaign on the issue.

If you want a science-savvy administration, look deeper than the rhetoric. Look at the platform, the allies, the dollars, etc..

If you want a science-savvy campaign, work on raising literacy and improving education. It's a long-term project, but yes, it is important to create a scientific constituency.

Otherwise you're just whining to the choir at richarddawkins.net.

Other Comments by rengdahl

38. Comment #238259 by chewedbarber on August 27, 2008 at 9:43 pm

I think you raise some valid points rengdahl. Still, I can't help but think you've put on your kiddie gloves.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

39. Comment #238261 by huzonfurst on August 27, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Acardia (#29), is that the same Ron Paul who isn't sure he accepts evolution?

Or did he say that because he's a republican, i.e. someone who couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it!

Other Comments by huzonfurst

40. Comment #238299 by Melomel on August 28, 2008 at 12:33 am

I dunno, it makes sense to me - it seems that people who care about "faith" as a positive attribute are more likely to be sway by an argument made charismatically on TV than one made on paper.

TV isn't the most effective place to make an argument based upon logic.

Other Comments by Melomel

41. Comment #238303 by Stafford Gordon on August 28, 2008 at 12:40 am

Perhaps a reminder that sience can make things that go BANG would excite them.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

42. Comment #238330 by padster1976 on August 28, 2008 at 2:17 am

One deals with facts and the other deals with opinions - need there be anything more said as to why candidates won't debate it!

Other Comments by padster1976

43. Comment #238378 by lazlow on August 28, 2008 at 4:08 am

ridelo:
As a matter of fact with lots and lots of hot air you could solve the energy problem. And that would be very helpful to solve environmental problems...

Am I the only one thinking of strapping a tube over the mouth of every politician?

Other Comments by lazlow

44. Comment #238389 by Chris Davis on August 28, 2008 at 4:23 am

Shome naivete, shurely? Why would the candidates want to expose themselves to a potential opportunity to screw up?

They attended the 'faith' nonsense because to do otherwise would have been a PR disaster. But right now a scientific debate would inevitably focus on those scientific issues the public know about: complex issues for which only simplistic answers are provided.

There seems to be a thread of touching faith in even the most educated circles that the US election process is about something other than bread and circuses. Poor Obama is being constantly, er, barracked by scientific/ethical/secular organisation to make statements that a) are true; and b) he probably agrees with - but that he'd be out of his mind to endorse at this point unless he wants to lose votes. And he'll lose them anyway just because they've been raised, causing some moron to go 'yeah, what does he think of evilooshun, anyway?'

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

45. Comment #238401 by someonefree on August 28, 2008 at 5:29 am

samratpathania, thank you, finally a comment from someone without their head in the sand. I'm tired of hearing people from our line of thought complaining and then voting for the two main political parties. Both Obama and McCain are just slight variations of the usual. Americans need to face that our system is broken and the people that are part of the main stream political movement won't change it because that would mean they loose power. The only way to have real change we can believe in is to put in a third political party that can then start to fix core problems such as the two political party system and the whole lobbyist politician relationship. I'm pretty sure this is not going to happen since all I hear is "I'm not voting since the two candidates suck" or "I'm voting for Obama since he is the lesser of the two evils", complete stupidity is what that is. RIP USA the country for the people by the people, you have not been that for a long time now.

nattyadams, were any of the other candidates invited to the Science Debate or was this just for McInsane and O'soSimilar?

Other Comments by someonefree

46. Comment #238406 by squinky on August 28, 2008 at 5:37 am

#30 samratpathania,

I still contend that most politicians don't know shit about science and even if they did, most Americans would hardly have their vote influenced by a scientific debate because (short of global warming and there are many deniers out there) they too don't know much science and don't care. They care about their job, college, education, the Iraq war and foreign policy, Roe vs. Wade and a host of other more important issues than what science brings to the table. I've moved around all of the US political parties: Democrat, Republican, Green, Indepedent. I voted for Ross Perot as a simple political experiment of breaking the duopoly. You mention Ralph Nader. He used to be a great consumer advocate, now he's a raving egotist so left-tilted that he fell off the flat Earth and into space. Kucinich is scientifically smart but unelectable and at the end of the day, that's the most important trait.

Every candidate has merits but ask that they have great leadership, good politics, ARE electable, etc, etc...AND know science whittles the field down to very few indeed.

Other Comments by squinky

47. Comment #238414 by HeathenAngel on August 28, 2008 at 5:55 am

I can't tell you how disappointed I am over this. I really had high hopes for Mr. Obama.. now I'm not sure I can, in good conscience cast my vote for someone who would give more credence and veracity to religion over science. I just may do a write in. Any of you here feel like running for President? I'd be happy to write you in. ;)

Other Comments by HeathenAngel

48. Comment #238419 by Ian Bamlett on August 28, 2008 at 6:07 am

Comment #238091 by DamnDirtyApe:

Pandering to the popular will truely turn democracy into the tyranny of the majority

In my opinion it has already happened. Universal suffrage has meant the inevitable decline of the 'west' for this very reason.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

49. Comment #238432 by retrospy on August 28, 2008 at 6:39 am

It is reasonable to see how a science debate has more risks than rewards and would likely be a loose-loose situation for both candidates. This biggest gain would have been for one candidate to accept when the other refused. It is unfortunate that neither candidate had the balls to make a bluff.

Other Comments by retrospy

50. Comment #238505 by rengdahl on August 28, 2008 at 9:15 am

> Both Obama and McCain are just slight
> variations of the usual.

That's a load of crap that I've heard in every election since I've been a voter. Read the party platforms, think about what kind of administration they'd put together, think about their priorities, think about who they'd appoint to the Supreme Court...

Nader fans pounded on Bush and Gore being "Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum" -- declaring that there was no real difference between them. Anyone still believe that hooey?

Not saying the two-party lock is perfect, but to say there's no difference is either profoundly ignorant or recklessly irresponsible.

- - -

Back on topic... There is one other thing about a science debate that is unattractive to politicians: In politics, there are two sides to every issue -- at least two different ways to solve problems.

In science, there are absolutes. There are wrong answers. A science "debate" could easily become a very public science test.

Maybe that's legit -- something we'd like to see. But it's not something the candidates would like to submit themselves to.

Other Comments by rengdahl

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last