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

151–160 of 190 posts

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#151

Post by redler »

nonbel wrote: post #138
redler wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-vax lunacy trickles through both parties, and gets little mainstream traction (although that may change with Trump injecting oxygen into the movement). But if you're running as a pro-science Democrat who is not an anti-GMO bandwagoneer, you will generally not find yourself blackballed by the party or opposed on your flank by billionaire string-pullers obsessed with purity tests on this issue. The Democratic part…

>"Accordingly, if a Democrat is in power and the findings of a science-based agency contradict some policy desire, they would sigh and fret and perhaps try to initiate other studies to see if there's any other way to align their policy goals with reality. But you would not see scientists and entire agencies of thousands of workers gagged, studies removed, data destroyed, conclusions banned. You would not see them scr…

No. Who said anything about BS results? One party is now actively erasing information they don't like -- information that is accepted by virtually every scientific body in the world. The Democrats as a whole will accept the results of science. Like anyone with a belief system, those results may disappoint them. They may not like them, and they may see if the conclusions are controvertible with respect to other studies. But they won't pretend they simply do not exist, and try to make them not exist for anyone else as well. They may grumble, as you might if you see the value of your stocks decline. But if your stocks decline, you don't declare them not to have declined, then outlaw historical stock charts, call downward movement of stock prices to be a conspiracy theory, and move to destroy stock markets around the world.

The EPA, for example, is not some partisan claque of Democrats looking to vengefully squeeze cash flows and lower the value of Republicans' businesses. These are career staffers in their subject areas, scientists, policy makers and implementers -- people doing their jobs and coming to conclusions based on supporting data. But to the current GOP, the existence of an EPA itself is a partisan threat. It's worse than just removing studies they don't like. They want to remove the ability to do the science at all. And of course it's more than just the EPA in the crosshairs. They are presenting themselves as unwilling to accept scientific conclusions that do not align with their ideology. That's starting to look like a lot of banned science.

With the current GOP, there is no "lessons learned" phase where policy is adjusted to meet scientific reality.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#152

Post by nonbel »

redler wrote: post #151
nonbel wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Accordingly, if a Democrat is in power and the findings of a science-based agency contradict some policy desire, they would sigh and fret and perhaps try to initiate other studies to see if there's any other way to align their policy goals with reality. But you would not see scientists and entire agencies of thousands of workers gagged, studies removed, data destroyed, conclusions banned. You would not see them scr…

No. Who said anything about BS results? One party is now actively erasing information they don't like -- information that is accepted by virtually every scientific body in the world. The Democrats as a whole will accept the results of science. Like anyone with a belief system, those results may disappoint them. They may not like them, and they may see if the conclusions are controvertible with respect to other studie…

>"perhaps try to initiate other studies to see if there's any other way to align their policy goals with reality"

I may have misunderstood. What did you mean by the above line then?

If you keep initiating studies you will eventually get the results you want. It will generate tons of noise along the way as well.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#153

Post by EdHominem »

tyleraldrich wrote: post #145
EdHominem wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If racism is the reason, it would mean the fear is irrational but founded. So I'm not sure what you're arguing.

I'm not sure how something can be irrational without also being unfounded.

Whatever validity there is to say "I hate X people" is lost when lies are used as the supposed justification. These people are already racist and are grasping at any straws (currently the fake rape-epidemic stories) as if that caused their racism, but next week it'll be back to mis-interpreted IQ tests, etc.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#154

Post by redler »

nonbel wrote: post #152
redler wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Who said anything about BS results? One party is now actively erasing information they don't like -- information that is accepted by virtually every scientific body in the world. The Democrats as a whole will accept the results of science. Like anyone with a belief system, those results may disappoint them. They may not like them, and they may see if the conclusions are controvertible with respect to other studie…

>"perhaps try to initiate other studies to see if there's any other way to align their policy goals with reality" I may have misunderstood. What did you mean by the above line then? If you keep initiating studies you will eventually get the results you want. It will generate tons of noise along the way as well.

Let's say you think stress causes ulcers. The NIH runs some studies that seem to correlate the two. So you put out a new health policy advising people to take steps to lower stress to combat ulcers. Doctors begin following the policy. Maybe they even prescribe anti-anxiety meds for ulcers.

Suddenly there's a new study result at the NIH that shows a link between ulcers and H. pylori. Maybe doctors and drug companies don't like this. Maybe there's even a Department of Ulcer Stress Management that doesn't like it. But the scientist is going on all the shows; this thing has traction.

(1) You're skeptical about these results because you're hearing griping from Big Ulcer. In this situation, the reasonable thing would be to run more studies. You're human: your bias may be that this H. pylori link is wrong; it seems crazy. You may hope new studies confirm your beliefs. But they don't. Your new reality becomes: H. pylori causes ulcers. The Department of Ulcer Stress Management will have to be dissolved or changed to be the Department of Bacterial Ulcer Management.

- or -

(2) You're skeptical about these results because you're hearing griping from Big Ulcer. You're human: your bias may be that this H. pylori link is wrong; it seems crazy. So you discredit the H. pylori study, and call it a conspiracy theory. You defund the department that ran it, preventing scientists there from further investigating the suggestive result. You ban the scientist from public speaking. You delete web pages that talk about the study, and delete the data that went into it. You place a gag order on the entire NIH, slash its budget, and install as its director the CEO of the company that makes the $10B StressAway ulcer medication.

So the "extra studies" in option one could be seen as noise, but that's not a problem if it's within the framework of science: part of science is teasing results from noise. An extraordinary claim like "bacteria cause ulcers" would need extraordinary evidence, which comes in the form of more noisy studies aimed at the null hypothesis. But the claim is ultimately validated and accepted.

It's even worse, though, because many of the GOP ideas about policy are not science-based to begin with.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#155

Post by nkoren »

cryoshon wrote: post #149
nkoren wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While winning seats would be good, moving the Overton window[1] would be very valuable in its own right.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#156

Post by Arizhel »

almost_usual wrote: post #63
Arizhel wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and that religion was crazy. This is the real sticking point here. If you're not a highly religious person (or at least willing to claim to be one), and not willing to publicly advocate religion in your campaign, then you're not going to get anywhere in the Republican Party. Republican voters simply will NOT vote for someone who isn't religious. And non-religious voters will not vote for a Republican.

"Republican voters simply will NOT vote for someone who isn't religious" The majority probably won't. "And non-religious voters will not vote for a Republican" This isn't true. I know atheists who voted Republican this election purely for economic reasons. Spending nearly $1000 a month on Affordable Healthcare will do that to people.

You have a good point at the end there; I'm wrong, there is a contingent of non-religious people who vote Republican because of the fiscal conservatism stuff (though that's pretty suspect considering how they spend like drunken sailors on the DoD budget every time they're in power).

But my main point stands: if you're a scientist, and not spouting a bunch of religious stuff, you're simply not going to get elected on the GOP ticket. The majority of GOP voters simply will not be interested, and you need a majority to get elected; the only way around this is if you're running for some office where there's no challengers so you just pick up the (R) votes from GOP voters who blindly vote (R) no matter what. But you're not going to get very far doing that, just local office.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#157

Post by infinite8s »

nonbel wrote: post #138
redler wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-vax lunacy trickles through both parties, and gets little mainstream traction (although that may change with Trump injecting oxygen into the movement). But if you're running as a pro-science Democrat who is not an anti-GMO bandwagoneer, you will generally not find yourself blackballed by the party or opposed on your flank by billionaire string-pullers obsessed with purity tests on this issue. The Democratic part…

>"Accordingly, if a Democrat is in power and the findings of a science-based agency contradict some policy desire, they would sigh and fret and perhaps try to initiate other studies to see if there's any other way to align their policy goals with reality. But you would not see scientists and entire agencies of thousands of workers gagged, studies removed, data destroyed, conclusions banned. You would not see them scr…

Adding to the noise is vastly better than destroying the signal.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#158

Post by Daishiman »

jdpedrie wrote: post #129
Daishiman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who made pretty much no mention of it and who's got some serious Christian fundamentalists on its team? Personally having a position is different from putting it in your political agenda.

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-embraces-gays-in-histori...

I'll believe it when I see it.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#159

Post by EdHominem »

tyleraldrich wrote: post #127
virmundi wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't guarantee you that. I can't promise every person you pass on the street won't kill you by stabbing you in the eye with a pencil. I can't promise that no one will throw you into an oncoming bus. As to fear about planes or fear in general, the foundation of fear, especially such that motivates policy, should be based on odds. I am terrified when I fly. I still fly. I know, deep down, that I have a higher chance…

"the foundation of fear, especially such that motivates policy, should be based on odds." That is a fair point and a rational reason. However, it's convenient to say "We've always had guns, the chance of randomly getting shot in the street is low, therefore we should keep them." What is the chance of randomly getting shot if guns were never legal in the first place (e.g. an American in which no 2nd amendment was pres…

Why have this conversation though? Even if you were right, you'd save a hundred times more people by advocating for better road safety.

I'm not even against gun control. I'm merely against useless legislation and fear-based politics. The movement consistently fails to show interest in the results they're supposedly fighting for (less deaths) and just the means they propose (less guns).

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#160

Post by EdHominem »

curun1r wrote: post #141
EdHominem wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fe…

> I've yet to meet another person who is intentionally ambivalent on the issue

I can see why circumstances make you feel that there's a special something about a fertilized egg, but we're really all in the same situation - but for a tiny difference someone else would have been born.

If your grandmother had a weapon she might have been able to prevent being raped, which would have been a positive spin on the same result as an abortion - you not being born.

> I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I've chosen to remain neutral on the issue

Neutral is pro-choice. No law.

To justify a law, present a reason and a rationale. Otherwise why pass it, right?

> 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.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. There's no reason you can't apply science to religion.

If there were gods, and they had an impact on us, it'd be scientists who noticed it and performed experiments to quantify it. We'd even be doing cohort studies to see if the gods disapproved of being monitored, etc.

Post reply on HN