Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#91

Post by ocschwar » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #50

cderwin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that, but take a look at the HN thread on Peter Thiel's prospective gubernatorial campaign[0]. It's needless to say the idea of a Thiel governorship was not very popular. This isn't to say the criticism found there is unreasonable, just that it's not special. People in science and people in tech can get involved in politics, but most of the political issues out there are not scientific or technological so sup…

Hardcore libertarianism is the exception, not the norm in tech. Tech tends to float in big cities and as such is naturally liberal. A lot of the successes of early tech startups is in part due to liberal hiring policies welcoming women, gays, and minorities who otherwise had a hard time working or getting hired at the old conservative shops like IBM. Its the weirdos who gave us the Apple // and the Mac. Not the butto…

> Hardcore libertarianism is the exception, not the norm in tech. Tech tends to float in big cities and as such is naturally liberal.

Wow, do I see a generation gap here.

Close your eyes and picture the nation in 1990. As you pointed out, tech tends to float in and around big cities. But we're in 1990. The cities are at rock bottom. Crime all over. Poverty. Horrendous disfunction.

Anyone living in the cities back then could be excused for blaming the situation on the hard-pressed staff of the executive branch at the various levels of government. And since a techie's first impulse is "let's automate this/route around this/code around this", there was in deed a lot of hardcore libertarianism.

But then the cities started to recover. And recover. And recover. And the clipboard-wielding liberal functionaries trying to hold things together, well, they started to hold things together.

But old attitudes die hard. Still a lot more libertarianism floating around than you think.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#92

Post by nkoren » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #11

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks…

Agreed. By most metrics I am very liberal (although am orthogonal to the left/right axis by some metrics), and I would love to see Republican primaries jammed up with intellectually honest science-believing fiscal conservatives. And should any of them make it through the primaries, I would be double plus thrilled to see a contest between two people who weren't batshit insane.

We really, really need this.

Having one party be the designated party of batshit insanity, and the other party be the party of... well, not much, aside from non-batshit-insanity... is very bad for society. It does nothing to promote good civic dialog, and holds the second party to an incredibly low standard. Don't get me wrong: on average I want is for Democrats to win, but I'd say that America really needs is more sanity amongst Republicans.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#93

Post by virmundi » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

richmarr wrote: post #78

virmundi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There fear is unfounded. None of them have been attacked, accidentally shot or harmed by guns directly. Their fear goes so far as to them becoming hostile at the thought of them or myself carrying. They don't want anyone own this tool.

Guns, like all other power tools, should be respected. I carry daily. I respect the responsibility I bring on myself in doing so. I respect what the tool can do. Many weekend I use 1-5 power cutting tools. I respect those too. As a child I feared both. I then because an adult and put away childish things. I respect and use the tools properly.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#94

Post by sampo » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #14

hueving wrote: post #11

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks…

When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?

> When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?

At least when it comes to GMO crops and food, there is a pretty strong anti-science movement in the Democratic Party, too [1]. When more than one third of all currently alive science and medicine Nobel laureates have signed a pro-GMO letter [2], it is pretty strongly anti-science to be anti-GMO.

[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#95

Post by mkaziz » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:14 PM UTC

jonwachob91 wrote: post #24

mkaziz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how anti-science republicans tend to be, I'm not surprised.

Yes, b/c republican's aren't allowed to believe in climate change and scientist aren't allowed to believe in small government, power to the states, and that the constitution is not a living document...

By Republicans, I didn't mean your average Joe who votes Republican, but people running for office who have to toe the party/big-donor line (regardless of what they believe) or else lose access to support/funding.

I highly doubt all Republicans in Congress don't believe in climate change. But they say what they have to say in order to get the votes they need to stay in Congress, and while they keep saying that, it doesn't make sense for a pro-science group to support them or their ilk.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#96

Post by curun1r » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:14 PM UTC

maverick_iceman wrote: post #28

croon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it applies. You can still be well educated and greedy/egotistical and not work for your constituents. But within elections, what else SHOULD we vote for other than merit? What really bothered me when Obama was elected was people throwing the word "elitism" around, because he was smart, eloquent and well educated, like that was somehow a bad thing. I sure as hell hope that the people elected are smarter t…

The idea that smarter people will be better at government is a fallacy which was conclusively disproved during 20th century. Since Plato's time there was this hypothesis that philosopher kings would somehow bring utopia or at least be better than the average ruler. Alas, the experiences of the 20th century belies that assumption. Communist parties were invariably led by formidable intellectuals (e.g. Lenin, Mao, Pol…

We had an 8-year experiment with a dumber person as President and that also failed pretty spectacularly. He got us involved in a war costing trillions of dollars that was in the wrong country and allowed Wall St to crater the economy. The contrast in the past 8 years with the 8 years that preceded it is pretty stark.

The way I see it, being smart is no guarantee of success. This can be especially true when those intelligent people are misguided in what they aim to achieve. History is replete with people who were very effective in pursuing misguided goals. But that doesn't mean that less-than-intelligent people are well-suited to run government. It just means that we need to choose better from among our intelligent people.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#97

Post by Practicality » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:15 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #11

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks…

For what it's worth 314 Action is more about supporting 4 issues: http://www.314action.org/issues/

The headline is a little misleading, but this isn't actually a "support scientists, in general, running for office," but rather "support specific scientists running for office who support the issues 314 wants to address."

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#98

Post by sampo » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

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…

> We're told if it's kosher.

Does USA have mandatory kosher labeling on foods?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#99

Post by ocschwar » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:18 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #76

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…

>>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 chemist.

Republican stances on pollution are at this point directly at odds with high school chemistry.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#100

Post by epistasis » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:19 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #87

epistasis wrote: post #76

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. 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,…

If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison. >but only one party has put those people in charge of the party and the party platform. If only there were some way to get people elected into the party to change this.... nah, let's just dig in with the party that got summarily rejected by the current voting system we have.

Vaccine opposition is definitely from both political wings, but not from either of the parties. GMOs are also not a problem at the party level, the Democratic party does not adopt that extreme position even though many uninformed people on the local level do.