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

141–150 of 190 posts

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#141

Post by curun1r »

EdHominem wrote: post #133
curun1r wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't lump abortion in with those other issues that involve denial of either rational thought or scientific evidence. It's an issue where rational people can disagree. The only way that it verges on that is in the fact that people will try to do it anyways, in ways that are historically very dangerous. In that way, it becomes like prohibition of drugs and legalization becomes a harm-reduction strategy. But, like drug…

The "but then I wouldn't have been born" argument misses that you have billions of potential first-cousins who never were born. Your grandmother would have had a less assuredly bad life (no idea if it would have been better, but we can only hope...) and someone else would be having this anthropic discussion. > But it really bothers me when people like you who've likely never had any personal connection to the issue C…

> Well, look around at those who believe what you do

I've yet to meet another person who is intentionally ambivalent on the issue, so I can't exactly do that. I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I've chosen to remain neutral on the issue and allow others to make the decision since both sides of the debate seem wrong to me and I can deal with either outcome.

But I can see both sides of this argument and both sides feel irrefutable to me. That's not to say that the religious origins of many pro-life viewpoints aren't irrational or that it isn't hypocritical to oppose abortion and support war, the death penalty or any of the other anti-life policies often advocated by pro-life supporters. But just because someone arrived at a correct conclusion by specious reasoning or impure motives doesn't make that conclusion wrong.

I recognize that many people aren't as conflicted as I am on this issue. I'm happy for them. But to suggest that this issue is one where science and logic makes one position definitively correct and the other incorrect is wrong. It is an issue of morality and philosophical beliefs and, as such, science cannot decide it any more so than religion can.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#142

Post by tzs »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #22
mkaziz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Wanting labeling is not anti-science.

GMO is a tool. It is itself neither good nor bad, neither safe nor unsafe.

Those who wish to do good can use GMO to do great good. It is more powerful than non-GMO methods, and so potentially can let them do greater good than they can with traditional methods such as selective breeding.

The same holds for those who wish to do bad things. They can currently do bad things with selective breeding and other non-GMO methods. GMO gives them more power to more extreme bad things and do them faster.

The question of whether such foods should be labeled comes down to whether or not there will be those who will GMO for bad things, and if so whether or not consumers who wish to avoid those bad things should be given the information to do so. Science is completely silent on how to answer this question.

Looking at the foods that fill a typical American supermarket, I do not find myself confident that the major food companies have my long term best interests at the top of their priority list when they design a new food product.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#143

Post by knodi123 »

virmundi wrote: post #85
knodi123 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it scaremongering? Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe." > Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer? It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more…

I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering. What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd…

> I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering.

And therefore I trust you to make a reasoned decision. How about your cousin who is on deepak chopra's mailing list, though? Will she make the same reasoned decision?

All the debate is about is mandatory labels on the side of the can. How about, people who know what they're doing and can make reasoned decisions, can look up information on their smart phone or whatever- but the people who are going to make a kneejerk emotional decision that winds up penalizing GMO foods and benefiting the organic alternative for emotional reasons won't see any scary labels that exert undue influence on the marketplace- would that be a reasonable compromise?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#144

Post by rconti »

virmundi wrote: post #125
rconti wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't you have your credit score tattooed on your forehead? Shouldn't merchants know if you're more likely to do a chargeback?

Nope. The system is implicit that the credit card companies will take care of that. While both sides need an adjudicator, there is a system in place to spot/stop bad actors. Not a perfect system, fraud still happens. But a system none the less.

That is true, but merchants with more chargebacks get punished with bad rates. It costs them real money to not know if a customer is a bad actor.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#145

Post by tyleraldrich »

EdHominem wrote: post #135
tyleraldrich wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns should be respected, and thank you for respecting yours. Now, can you guarantee that every person I pass on the street respects their gun as much as you do, and they won't misuse this "power tool" they have the right to own? If you cannot guarantee that, I don't think you can say anybodies fear is unfounded. What you just said is like saying a fear of airplanes is unfounded because all pilots respect their aircr…

> I don't think you can say anybodies fear is unfounded. I also can't guarantee they won't get diabetes or heart disease, or fall off a ladder, or be hit by one of the passing cars. All of which are vastly more likely to happen than being shot, which itself is an order of magnitude more likely than an innocent person being shot. (ie, not robbing a drug dealer, etc) Dead is dead, and a car gets you there just as quick…

For the record, I personally am 100% fine with gun laws as they stand now. I am more likely to get hit by a car walking to work.

Now, for the sake of this debate I started: I was arguing that the OP couldn't just claim his friends fears of guns were unfounded. Your counter claim is that it is an irrational fear founded in "crypto-racism". If racism is the reason, it would mean the fear is irrational but founded. So I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#146

Post by foota »

hueving wrote: post #80
justin66 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can be against the democratic party and the republican party (although in the current system, this means you pick the lesser of two evils)

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#147

Post by mjmsmith »

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…

You know how whenever there's a terrorist attack, Republicans are the first ones complaining that "good Muslims" aren't out there speaking out and condemning it? Why aren't all the "conservative scientists out there who want to shape the Republican party into something better" speaking out and condemning their party's continual assault on science?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#148

Post by cryoshon »

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.

>If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison.

hi, former vaccine scientist here: there was never any pushback from democrats that i ever heard of, and i can say with authority that nobody would pick republican any percentage of the time for any purpose. i'm not even exaggerating. scientists are liberals.

that's all.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#149

Post by cryoshon »

nkoren wrote: post #92
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 p…

>but I'd say that America really needs is more sanity amongst Republicans.

agreed entirely... but sanity might not be enough to win those sane republicans any seats.

Post reply on HN