Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com
Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
1–10 of 193 posts
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#2The article points this out at the end, but the reason is clear: because scientists are supposed to be pragmatic, not ideology-driven. Therefore, in a bi-party political world like the US, it would be difficult for them to fit in, in terms of policies. Most of the policies (on either side) are not evidence-based and actually have counter-productive effects in the long run (Charles Murray explained this through several cases, for example, in his book "Losing Ground").
However I am not sure about how relevant it is for the Singaporean examples to have had "scientific background". If you do not work in the actual science field and never used it, your background is worthless. If your everyday occupation is to gather support to get elected, I question the validity of the term "Scientist" in this case.
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#3What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or more wealth or what?
It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it.
Singapore is a city-state with 5mio citizens, and a high cost of living. Finland also has 5mio citizens, is known for its wealth and the president Tarja Halonen has a degree in law - in fact, the other politicians mentioned on Finlands wikipedia page are missing a scientific degree as well.
I'm not buying it. Just staffing your government with scientists seems pretty irrelevant for the success of a nation.
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#4What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or more wealth or what? It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it. Singapore is a city-st…
By way of another example -- Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany) has a doctorate in physical chemistry.
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#5I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into politics! Maybe I'm painting the world with an overly broad brush here, but politics and science approach the truth in exactly opposite ways.
I'm not going to say that politics is a game of lies, because it's not, but politicians essentially invent the truth as they go along. It's similar in some ways to law or the humanities, where the truth is very much a matter of interpretation, there's a case to be made for each side, and no one is ever objectively "wrong". Right and wrong are entirely a matter of personal opinion.
On the other hand, science is, in the limit, entirely objective. A physical theory can be objectively shown to be incorrect. Scientists can defend their theories, but fundamentally have to accept it if their theory is disproved, or else they become irrelevant. There was a great link earlier today on HN that talked about how the smartest people are the ones who are most skeptical of their own ideas. That's great in science, but if you don't believe yourself totally in politics, no one else will.
This means that scientists, who presumably study under and work with other scientists for decades, think in this scientific mindset. This makes them totally unsuited for the world of politics (and of course, vice versa). Politicians can't admit they were wrong, because that means that they'll probably be wrong again, and no one will vote for someone who's wrong. Case in point: Mitt Romney and universal healthcare.
I'll also make another point that a lot of people miss: Being a politician is roughly as difficult as being a scientist. If we expect our best politicians to get an advanced degree in something like business or law (things related to the process of running a nation) or to spend a long time working in politics or on social issues, why do we think that scientists with no such training will make good politicians? We certainly don't expect most law school grads to do much more than wash bottles in the lab.
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#6What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or more wealth or what? It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it. Singapore is a city-st…
Singapore is also a very wealthy state, and it has nothing to do with the population size and the costs of living there. You are comparing countries on a single factor, the population - how is that variable relevant? Then why don't you compare with Turkmenistan, also 5 million people, no scientists in charge and a ridden with poverty ? How about Sierra Leone, 5 million people. no scientists, ridden with civil war? One can pick up stupid examples everywhere then, if population is indicative of something.
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#7There's a far more fundamental problem in the US: The system and methods of government have degenerated to the point of not producing anything of value. A visitor from another planet would probably laugh hysterically at how ridiculous the whole thing looks like from the outside.
Is this what the Roman Empire looked like?
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#8The article points this out at the end, but the reason is clear: because scientists are supposed to be pragmatic, not ideology-driven. Therefore, in a bi-party political world like the US, it would be difficult for them to fit in, in terms of policies. Most of the policies (on either side) are not evidence-based and actually have counter-productive effects in the long run (Charles Murray explained this through severa…
Nobody who has worked in academia would claim that scientists are somehow "more pragmatic". Capricious, scheming, vindictive... just like the rest of the population :)
Plus the fact that scientists are typically paid by tax payers', in a stable governmental position (at least in Europe), and many never held any real job in their whole lives, only adds to my doubts.
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#9What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or more wealth or what? It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it. Singapore is a city-st…
China is socially repressive and an environmental catastrophe in progress, but it's also one of the fastest-advancing nations in the world. Chinese citizens were starving to death en masse as recently as the 70's. The fact that they've pulled themselves out of that kind of industrial slump is amazing.
Wikipedia says that Singapore is the best trade center in Asia and one of the best in the world. It also has the best credit and the best markets. Socially, it's a bit repressive, but it is apparently doing very well economically.
Of course, without much data the argument is useless. It would be interesting to see a pile of charts comparing scientists and engineers in politics to economic success; with only three or four data points it's a a toss-up.
Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
#10What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or more wealth or what? It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it. Singapore is a city-st…
American politicians decry climate change openly? The way things have been going the last few years, you could have fooled me. Huntsman was notable as the only republican candidate to say he believed in climate change.
I think the idea behind the article is that scientists are generally trained to work with/find factual information and grow their understanding, while engineers are generally going to take scientific knowledge and apply it to solve problems. These are both approaches our country could use more of in government.