The Next President of the USA must Be Scientifically Literate

[Myles]

Most liberals believe in evolution. Most conservatives believe they were created by God.
Most liberals are for "protecting the environment". Most Conservatives like big oil.
Most liberals support cloning. Most conservatives are repulsed by the idea ....

President George W. Bush's current scientific adviser is John Marburger, a longtime democrat who has a good relationship with W and is proud of the administration's science record. W is constantly giving funding increases but he put his foot down on dead baby cloning.

My government has a history of investing in the capabilities and trusting the judgments of its scientific community. This has brought us sustained economic progress and unquestioned scientific leadership within the global intellectual community.

Thanks Sandy, you have summed up your attitude very well. Can I suggest that only the scientifically illiterate reject evolutionary theory . I have seen some of your fellow -Americans on TV, debunking evolution by misrepresenting the theory either deliberately or as a result of ignorance.

What is the objection to protecting the environment ? Is it that it may restrict your selfish, wasteful lifestyle a little ? Such crass stupidity on the part of the Conservatives you refer to is beyond comprehension

When the world as we know it has been destroyed, you'll find that you can't eat dollars and cents or drink oil.

 

[Myles]

If you would please go to WIKI and search "science advisor's to the

President" you will find more information about Bush's own that he chose.

Thanks. I'll do that.

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

James Earl, call me Jimmy, Carter was scientifically literate and he was one of the worst presidents the nation has ever seen.

 

[Myles]

James Earl, call me Jimmy, Carter was scientifically literate and he was one of the worst presidents the nation has ever seen.

And that proves that all scientifically literate people should be disqualified from holding office ?

I'd be surprised to find there was unnaminous agreement about Carter's track record. You are entitled to your opinion but the inference behind your statement is just silly

 

[sandy]

Thanks Sandy, you have summed up your attitude very well. Can I suggest that only the scientifically illiterate reject evolutionary theory....
What is the objection to protecting the environment?
When the world as we know it has been destroyed...

Not true. Many brilliant scientists reject evolution.
Protecting the environment from what? We have MUCH BIGGER problems than global hot air. We won't live to see the earth destroyed.

James Earl, call me Jimmy, Carter was scientifically literate and he was one of the worst presidents the nation has ever seen.

Great point.

 

[spidergoat]

Carter was quite visionary when it came to issue dealing with science, especially energy. That SOB Reagan was such a bastard that he removed the solar panels from the White House.

 

[tablariddim]

Being scientifically literate will give him a better understanding of the issues; otherwise he may side with those of his advisors and lobby groups who make the most noise.

Someone who is wise and astute would surely seek the best possible advice that is in accordance with his manifesto. It is therefore reasonable to assume, that being wise and astute, his manifesto and vision would be the correct one and by implication, so would his advisors .

No man can be scientifically literate in every sphere of the sciences and, even if he is literate in one or two disciplines it does not mean that his vision and manifesto would be of any good use to the world if he lacks the criteria I set out previously, namely: wisdom, astuteness, strength of purpose and a world encompassing vision for the betterment of all.

A world leader needs to be fully aware of most things in a general sense with the capacity to judge and act accordingly. Being excellent in one narrow sphere whether it be science, business, art or whatever should not be a pre-requisite for having the criteria I mentioned, but neither should it be detrimental if the person does possess any specialised knowledge.

SciForums is chock a block full of scientifically minded people, but anyone who has been here long enough will know that the criteria I set out are sorely lacking as a balanced whole in any one individual poster here. The big question is, are all scientists equal? The answer is of course, no. Imagine a president who simply judges everything on statistics, or on scientifically based facts, which may be (and probably are) biased, or (powers forbid) even on mathematical theories. Without wisdom, without a general sense of what is genuinely right and good for the people and for the planet, even an Einstein would make a lousy president.

 

[mikenostic]

Right now, I'd settle for a president that was literate, let alone scientifically literate.

 

[tablariddim]

Right now, I'd settle for a president that was literate, let alone scientifically literate.

That would be a start.

 

[Myles]

Not true. Many brilliant scientists reject evolution.
Protecting the environment from what? We have MUCH BIGGER problems than global hot air. We won't live to see the earth destroyed.

Can you name a few brilliant scientists who reject evolutionary theory ? Can you provide references to peer-reviewed papers they have published ?
How would you explain why evolutionary theory is wrong to a group of schoolchildren ?

I never sugested that global warming was the only problem, but that the temperature of the earth is rising is an observable fact. Just look at the rate at which the polar ice caps are disappearing. There may be a number of causes but there can be no doubt that we are contributing to the problem.The fact that you derisively refer to to it as " global hot air" shows that you are ignorant of the serious nature of the issues.

Perhaps you might like to mention a few of the "MUCH BIGGER problems and where you think possible solutions might lie.

By the way, I did not say the earth will be destroyed; I spoke about life as we know it.

 

[Myles]

Someone who is wise and astute would surely seek the best possible advice that is in accordance with his manifesto. It is therefore reasonable to assume, that being wise and astute, his manifesto and vision would be the correct one and by implication, so would his advisors .

No man can be scientifically literate in every sphere of the sciences and, even if he is literate in one or two disciplines it does not mean that his vision and manifesto would be of any good use to the world if he lacks the criteria I set out previously, namely: wisdom, astuteness, strength of purpose and a world encompassing vision for the betterment of all.

A world leader needs to be fully aware of most things in a general sense with the capacity to judge and act accordingly. Being excellent in one narrow sphere whether it be science, business, art or whatever should not be a pre-requisite for having the criteria I mentioned, but neither should it be detrimental if the person does possess any specialised knowledge.


I have no quarrel with most of what you say. But there is no escaping the fact that the najor problems facing the world are ones in which science will be a key factor. Only someone who is scientifically literate isequipped have a true understanding of the issues. I personally know two vicars who I regard a scientifically literate. One doesn't need to be scientist to have an understanding of scientific issues

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Who in the name of running is then Scientifically Literate? I cannot think of one.

The majority of the American people don't "believe" in evolution. It's become a litmus test for Republican candidates to publicly take that position, and many other politicians express that view as well.

I'll settle for one that can pronounce nuclear properly.

That's a difficult word. English is full of words, like circular and vehicular, which train our speech apparatus to reverse those phonemes. If that were his only gaffe it would be a trifle. The problem is his general lack of fluency in his native language, which is the most basic indicator of intelligence. He clearly does not have the IQ to grasp big ideas, scientific or otherwise.

What is scientifically literate defined as? Not letting religion get in the way, like with Bush?

Americans are as capable of cognitive dissonance as any people and if this conflict were narrowly focused on evolution we'd get along okay. But over the past 25 or 30 years it has become fashionable to know absolutely no science and absolutely no mathematics. Americans can't make change for a dollar without a POS terminal, which explains why the subprime mortgage phenomenon swept the country. They don't know the most basic underlying principles of biology, physics or chemistry, which makes it impossible for them to understand discussions of the environment and technology.

Fifty years ago ("when I was a lad and had to walk through ten miles of snow to buy music on vinyl records...") every high school graduate had passed one course each in biology, physics and chemistry, and they were really hard courses compared to the creampuffery that is optional in high school today. Not everyone could restate the principles of those sciences ten years later, but a great many people could, and those are the people I consider scientifically literate. Someone who can spot a big fallacy in an argument, who can tell when there's not enough supporting data, who understands when a hypothesis contradicts the scientific canon and therefore qualifies as extraordinary and requires extraordinary substantiation, who understands intuitively that the behavior of a small closed system cannot be generalized to a large open system.

Anyone that becomes elected will always have people either in their Cabinet or on call for any type of scientific (or other areas of expertise that they don't know about) to discuss those problems with them intelligently.

Yes, but the president appoints his own cabinet and advisors. A scientifically illiterate president cannot choose them wisely.

Bush is clearly uncomfortable with science, presumably because of his religious background. I understand that he takes the Bible to be literally true.

Bush is a Methodist. That is not a fundamentalist denomination. Many Methodists understand the concepts of metaphor and allegory and have no problem with them.

Is it pure coincidence that most scientists arel iberals, if what you say is true ?

Scientists want to move forward. They are always looking for new ideas and new ways of doing things. Conservatives feel safer with old ideas and old ways. Conservatives only like "research" that reinforces what they already believe.

Thanks for that info. On this side of the pond most of us believe Bush is a born-again Christian. It seems from what you say that we may be wrong.

"Born again" is a phenomenon of the American religious revival that began in the late 1970s. There is nothing in the doctrine of the Methodist Church that prohibits its members from claiming to have been "born again," but as a practical matter it's a buzzword that characterizes the fundamentalist congregations: pentecostal, evangelical, charismatic, etc. Many people who were already Christians went through that experience (or at least pretended to, all most of them got from religion was the part about being forgiven) but 99.999 percent of them did it as part of migrating to one of the growing fundamentalist congregations. Bush may very well call himself "born again" because it plays well with his right-wing redneck "Red State" support base, but he still attends Methodist services where they don't shout "Hallelujah" in the middle of the sermon or start rolling around in the aisles.

 

[Myles]

Thanks for putting me straight on your president's religious views.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: I would highly approve of an American president being scientifically minded, but since most of the runners have been lawyers and career politicians, I would at least hope they are open to science and surround themselves with people in the know. I want someone in office who will promote stem cell research.

BTW to those of you who think scientists kill babies for stem cell research, think again. Embryonic stem cells can only be viable at the 5-6th day of conception. That is way too early for an abortion. The embryos that are used are already frozen for in vitro fertilization and are about to be destroyed. So why not use them for a better purpose?

 

[joepistole]

I will, sadly, will settle for a president who can speak on his own without saying "duh" more than 10 times in a conversation.

 

[cosmictraveler]

If so, God lied about the weapons of mass destruction.

No, No, that was vice President Chaney, not God.

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

“ Originally Posted by Till Eulenspiegel
James Earl, call me Jimmy, Carter was scientifically literate and he was one of the worst presidents the nation has ever seen. ”


Originally posted by Myles.
And that proves that all scientifically literate people should be disqualified from holding office ?

Jump to conclusions often, Myles?

I didn't say or suggest being scientifically literate disqualifies someone for the office of President. I suggested being scientifically literate does not necessarily qualify one for the office.

 

[SnakeLord]

W is constantly giving funding increases but he put his foot down on dead baby cloning

The religious whack job or the mother with a dead baby talking?

 

[Myles]

Jump to conclusions often, Myles?

And that proves that all scientifically literate people should be disqualified from holding office ?

“ Originally Posted by Till Eulenspiegel
James Earl, call me Jimmy, Carter was scientifically literate and he was one of the worst presidents the nation has ever seen. ”

I sometimes draw the wrong conclusion when I read ambiguous posts such as yours. The way you expressed yourself leaves something to be desired. You mentioned one president of whom you personally disapproved , and made the point that he was scientifically literate. Why ?

You could have said that scientific literacy alone is insufficient to qualify a person for office, which is what you now want us to believe you meant. But put this way you would only be stating the obvious. I doubt many people on here would need to be told that.

I conclude that , in this instance, you were grinding an anti-science axe or having difficulty expressing yourself.

 

[Myles]

If you would please go to WIKI and search "science advisor's to the

President" you will find more information about Bush's own that he chose.

I followed your suggestion but, rather than being encouraged, I was disturbed. I found that haggling over the value of climate-change models is being used as a reason for doing nothing.

Modelling the climate is notoriously dificult but it is the only way in which we are likely to get some idea of the long-term effects of global warming. A scientifically literate president would be aware of the difficulties without dismissing modelling entirely. However, we have some FACTS that Bush and co. are choosingto ignore.

The temperature of the earth is rising year on year. The polar ice caps are retreating at an alarming rate. If this continues we are lookig at the possiility of another ice age because of the effect on ocean currents. Whatever other reasons there may be for these changes only a fool would deny that we are contributing to the problem.

While Bush is choosing to ignore the problem he is leaving the US less time to research sources of renewable energy. China's need for oil is growing steadily and it doesn't take much foresight to forsee the possibility of a conflict of interests with the US , among others, in the future.


The world faces many other problems, as any informed person knows. Science is our only hope of finding solutions. That is why I believe the next president of the USA must be scientifically literate.