The Next President of the USA must Be Scientifically Literate

[Till Eulenspiegel]

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.

You are still making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I used Jimmy Carter as an example of a President who was scientifically literate but not, in m opinion, a good president. I said nothing that could be considered, "grinding an anti-science axe." There have been scientifically literate presidents who were good presidents as well as non-scientifically presedents who were good presidents. There have also been poor presidents who both were and were not scientifically literate. It is my opinion that scientific literacy has very little impact on how good or poor a person will be as president. That is not, "grinding an anti-science axe."

 

[Myles]

You are still making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I used Jimmy Carter as an example of a President who was scientifically literate but not, in m opinion, a good president. I said nothing that could be considered, "grinding an anti-science axe." There have been scientifically literate presidents who were good presidents as well as non-scientifically presedents who were good presidents. There have also been poor presidents who both were and were not scientifically literate. It is my opinion that scientific literacy has very little impact on how good or poor a person will be as president. That is not, "grinding an anti-science axe."

Ok, so you were not grinding an axe, you were just stating the obvious in an ambiguous manner for those who have no need to hear it. Or do you think a lot of people on here are dummies ?

You are now widening your argument to present a more balanced view. It's a pity you couldn't have done so in the first instance.

 

[Carcano]

I asked this question in another thread...should the presidency have qualifying academic credentials?

I say yes...but not scientific ones.

The president must have degrees in macro economics, political history or constitutional law.

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

Ok, so you were not grinding an axe, you were just stating the obvious in an ambiguous manner for those who have no need to hear it. Or do you think a lot of people on here are dummies ?[/COLOR]

As a matter of fact, yes, I do think some if not a lot of the people who post here are dummies. I also think some other people who post here are hidebound and some can't read for meaning.

The thrust of the thread was that the next President of the U.S. had to be scientifically literate. I gave an example of a President who was scientifically literate but not, in my opinion, a good President. Perhaps you would prefer that everyone marched in lock step with you but it just ain't gonna happen.

The original premise of the thread is incorrect. The next President of the USA need not be scientifically literate.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The original premise of the thread is incorrect. The next President of the USA need not be scientifically literate.

Exactly. All other things being equal, a president that understands science is a good thing, to be sure. But a president is not a scientist, and so a knowledge of science should not be a primary criterion when selecting a president.

 

[Myles]

As a matter of fact, yes, I do think some if not a lot of the people who post here are dummies. I also think some other people who post here are hidebound and some can't read for meaning.

The thrust of the thread was that the next President of the U.S. had to be scientifically literate. I gave an example of a President who was scientifically literate but not, in my opinion, a good President. Perhaps you would prefer that everyone marched in lock step with you but it just ain't gonna happen.

You sure have a way with words. Why not offer to help all the dummies on here ? It's not a question of everyone marching in step with me; it's a matter of people finding a way of saying what they mean, as you singularly failed to do. I suggested how you might have framed your response in a clearer manner but you won't accept it. I can live with that.

However, you ought to be told that a sample of one can be used to "prove" anything. A man with red hair stole my car, so beware of people with red hair.

As to the premise of the thread being incorrect, it sure fooled all those dummies. Well done ! I have nothing further to say to you on this topic

 

[Myles]

Exactly. All other things being equal, a president that understands science is a good thing, to be sure. But a president is not a scientist, and so a knowledge of science should not be a primary criterion when selecting a president

No one has suggested that the next president should be a scientist. just scientificallt literate. There's a big difference. There are many people in all walks of life who have a broad knowledge of scientific issues despite their not being scientists.

If you look at how Bush and his team are choosing to ignore the menace of global warming, it seems clear he does not understand the implications of his decisions. See how the US delegates behaved at the recent conference on global warming and you may just see that a degree of scientific literacy on the part of Bush and Co. might have led to a better outcome.

Please see an earlier post of mine on this thread for what I have to say on the subject of climate change and its implications.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I'd rather a President just have common sense about things.

 

[Myles]

I'd rather a President just have common sense about things. :

As Mark Twain said: " Common sense is not very common "

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

As a matter of fact, yes, I do think some if not a lot of the people who post here are dummies. I also think some other people who post here are hidebound and some can't read for meaning.

The thrust of the thread was that the next President of the U.S. had to be scientifically literate. I gave an example of a President who was scientifically literate but not, in my opinion, a good President. Perhaps you would prefer that everyone marched in lock step with you but it just ain't gonna happen.


You sure have a way with words. Why not offer to help all the dummies on here ? It's not a question of everyone marching in step with me; it's a matter of people finding a way of saying what they mean, as you singularly failed to do. I suggested how you might have framed your response in a clearer manner but you won't accept it. I can live with that.

However, you ought to be told that a sample of one can be used to "prove" anything. A man with red hair stole my car, so beware of people with red hair.

As to the premise of the thread being incorrect, it sure fooled all those dummies. Well done ! I have nothing further to say to you on this topic

I don't have to help ALL the dummies here since you seem to be the only poster who is unable to understand simple English.

You continue to blame your inability to read for understanding on me. Did you whine like this in high school too? Teacher, I don't get it, it must by your fault.

Your analogy about a man with red hair stealing a car makes no sense in this instance. I didn't say beware of people who are scientificallly literate. I gave example of Jimmy Carter to show that being scientifically literate did not necessarily make one a good President. It doesn't mean you would automatically be a poor President but neither does it mean you will be a good one.;

 

[Myles]

I don't have to help ALL the dummies here since you seem to be the only poster who is unable to understand simple English.

You continue to blame your inability to read for understanding on me. Did you whine like this in high school too? Teacher, I don't get it, it must by your fault.

Your analogy about a man with red hair stealing a car makes no sense in this instance. I didn't say beware of people who are scientificallly literate. I gave example of Jimmy Carter to show that being scientifically literate did not necessarily make one a good President. It doesn't mean you would automatically be a poor President but neither does it mean you will be a good one

You just can't retire gracefully. You talk about "reading for meaning" I take that to mean that ,because you cannot express yourself clearly , others must try to work out what you mean. You can forget that.

I llike your suggestion about a teacher and high school because that exactly fits your circumstances.You are blaming me for pointing out your inability to express yourself clearly.

My example of the man with the red hair is not entirely wide of the mark but it was said tongue in cheek. You just didn't read for meaning.

What prevented you making your original point by saying something like " Scientific literacy is only one of the qualities required of a good president " Then there would have been no need to " read for meaning".

To be honest, to say what you did made no contribution whatever to the discussion even if one reads it for meaning. You were just saying something that didn't need to be said.

 

[joepistole]

You are still making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I used Jimmy Carter as an example of a President who was scientifically literate but not, in m opinion, a good president. QUOTE]

When Carter was president, I was not too impressed. But on further reflection, the guy inherited a mess! And when considering scientific litteracy you must also consider social issues of the period. In the Carter period we were not nearly as science driven as were are today. I remember things that are reality today, were sheer science fiction fantasy back then.

 

[Sciencelovah]

The Next President of the USA must Be Scientifically Literate?

Yes. This explains everything:

j/k

 

[Letticia]

Carter was quite visionary when it came to issue dealing with science, especially energy.

I am sorry to say it, but this is garbage. Carter declared energy policy to be "moral equivalent of war" -- and promptly cut the fundings for fusion research and worse, banned breeder reactors. To go along with his own metaphor, Carter's notion of fighting a war was to immediately dismantle heavy divisions.

With regard to energy, Carter's "vision" was essentially defeatist -- not find new ways to produce energy, but accept that energy supplies will dwindle, and learn to make do.

Oh, and Carter also pronounced "nukular" -- and he is an actual nuclear engineer. It's a Southern pronounciation.

 

[Exhumed]

I am sorry to say it, but this is garbage. Carter declared energy policy to be "moral equivalent of war" -- and promptly cut the fundings for fusion research and worse, banned breeder reactors.

How about a little context with that quote?

 

[[a-5]]

...No shit.

 

[Letticia]

How about a little context with that quote?

Here is the complete speech:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

It was long on conservation and short on development of new energy sources. The word "nuclear" appears only twice, and both times in negative connotation. Carter was a defeatist.

 

[Facial]

A president should be expected to read and understand technical literature given help from experts in the particular field, and be competent to make important decisions that will arise from scientific standpoints.

Furthermore, he/she should know what it means to think from the perspective of a scientist, in addition to that of an economist or politician.

Yes for presidential scientific literacy.