Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#71

Post by PhaseLockk »

hueving wrote: post #59
jackmott wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They pick…

>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. >but most of us don't. Who exactly do you think you are speaking for? Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have…

> Two seconds of Googling reveals your bullshit.

All of these people announced support for same-sex marriage after being elected, or after leaving public service. It seems unlikely that the republican party would run a new candidate that included support of gay marriage as part of their platform. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#72

Post by hueving »

croon wrote: post #48
cderwin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't expect any scientists to want to be on a Republican ticket, why refuse to support prospective scientists who would do so? There might not be many conservative scientists, but I'm sure they exist. The only answer that seems feasible to me is that they're not really interested in getting scientists elected, instead they're more interested in scientists who are willing to abuse their authority to promo…

I'm all for changing parties from within, but with: * Life starts at inception * Man-made climate change * Evolution (taught in school) * Not a single payer healthcare system when comparing to any industrialized country on earth * Anti-consumer ethics in FCC, compared to any other industrialized country on earth * Tax policies clearly aimed at keeping money flowing upwards, only very slightly veiled, yet again compar…

>I'm all for changing parties from within, but with:

The Democrats were once pro slavery and the parties have effectively flipped positions of support for various things throughout the years. The parties change because people that try, not people that dig their heels in on their side that just got slaughtered in the election.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#73

Post by donretag »

So much has been written about this in the past. The American political system is mainly geared to certain professions.

Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?: https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-...

Eight Out Of China’s Top Nine Government Officials Are Scientists: https://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17/eight-out-of-chinas-to...

Scientists and engineers cannot simply give up their positions for several years and then easily return to their industries, and not just academia like the article points out. Professions such as lawyers have it easier in that regard.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#74

Post by Spivak »

virmundi wrote: post #39
maverick_iceman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forget that Bernie Sanders wants mandatory labeling of GMO foods. That's also anti-science scaremongering.

Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source…

> Why is it scaremongering?

This is actually a mildly subtle point, which is why people who don't 'get it' are so immediately dismissive. There's nothing wrong with providing more information to consumers. Hell every product we sell could come with small book's worth of information about its chemical contents, health risks, place of origin, worker conditions which could be considered valuable to the buyer. The question is why this specific piece of information is being fought for so hard. And that's because there's a movement that vehemently opposes GMOs and are trying to use labeling to scare people into avoiding (what their opponents say is) a completely safe product.

I'm not a scientist so I'm not qualified to evaluate the various and contradictory studies about the risks or non-risks of GMO foods. However, this battle should be taking place in labs and the FDA. Using labeling and the fact that GMO sounds scary to hurt GMO producers is the definition of anti-science FUD. It's not anti-science in the sense that the movement disagrees with a widely held scientific consensus but that they are using psychological and political tricks to subvert the actual scientific process.

> We're told if it's kosher.

This is not a government requirement, there are committees of jews that evaluate if a product is kosher or not and allow their seal to be placed on the packaging. Jewish families will even have a preference for which committees they trust.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#75

Post by ChrisPebble »

virmundi wrote: post #39
maverick_iceman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forget that Bernie Sanders wants mandatory labeling of GMO foods. That's also anti-science scaremongering.

Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source…

Kosher labelling is not mandatory. Mandating that all foods be either labelled as KOSHER or NON-KOSHER would be a better example, and something I hope nobody would support.

Producers should be free to add any of these labels to their products, but mandating that all products are labelled in regard to GMOs when there's no evidence that GMOs have any proven impact on health or the nutrition of the food does border on scaremongering.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#76

Post by epistasis »

hueving wrote: post #59
jackmott wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They pick…

>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. >but most of us don't. Who exactly do you think you are speaking for? Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have…

>>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. >Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people.

I think this is meant in the context of most sciences. If you're a physicist, your work is sufficiently apolitical that you can see both parties as reasonable. If you're an epidemiologist, or a cancer researcher, or a developmental biologist, you see more examples where one political party has asserted themselves as better arbiters of fact than the science. And that political party is the Republican party.

In terms of politics in general, both "left" and "right" have plenty of individuals that deny fact and scienec, but only one party has put those people in charge of the party and the party platform.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#77

Post by squozzer »

It reminds me of something Asimov wrote -- scientists are used to inflexible facts and not flexible people -- that might make scientists either unelectable or imcompetent.

OTOH, I pulled this gem from an Asimov quote website -- "[Creationists] make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#78

Post by richmarr »

virmundi wrote: post #45
wavefunction wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The liberals It's highly unscientific to make such a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of liberals and leftists who will accept science and data that doesn't match their political agenda, just as there are still some conservatives who will. However the GOP has official policies opposing such nefarious plots as 'critical thinking.'

Sure, it's a generalization. This, within the English language, means anything over 60% of the population in question. I've had multiple conversations with well over 120 self described liberals from multiple parts of the US. Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific. The reason I bring this up is the scientists in question are backing the Democrats. This party, to use another…

> Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific.

Well, only if the fear was unfounded. Your analysis seems a little shallow there.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#79

Post by burkaman »

ysr23 wrote: post #9
croon wrote: post #2

Great! I get the appeal of non-career politicians voted into office, but I'd much rather take reasonable, well-educated scientists than the opposite.

Great? Angela Merkel, Maragaret Thatcher, Frauke Petry. Whatever your political persuasion there is, i'm sure at least one of those you would not describe as 'great'

And you would probably also not describe that one as "reasonable", which is one of the criteria.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#80

Post by hueving »

justin66 wrote: post #68
hueving wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. >but most of us don't. Who exactly do you think you are speaking for? Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have…

> Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have any doubts about the Democratic party. I don't think you understand the political terrain here at all. Bernie Sanders supporters of the "I have doubts about the Democratic party" variety were very, very well represented in universities during the last election.

Do you really think that students openly supporting a candidate running for a Democratic nomination who was further left than Hillary is really against the Democratic party? They wanted someone else to be the nominee, but it's not like they were voting Republican.
Post reply on HN