Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#21

Post by Erunno » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:43 AM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #4

trb wrote: post #3

What 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.

Unfortunately her doctorate hasn't prevented her from making one inane decision after the other during the ongoing financial crisis and even on the field she should be at least somewhat knowledgeable (nuclear power) she didn't really evoke any trust into her decision-making (first extending life span of nuclear reactors despite strong criticism by experts and than retracting this decision only a year later in the wake of Fukushima).

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#22

Post by prewett » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:44 AM UTC

Why don't Americans elect scientists? Because current American culture is anti-intellectual. I can't really back this up concretely, but as an American, it's hard to find anything intellectual around. A long time ago, people went to hear lectures on the weekends, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates were well attended. Now, TV "news" is a joke, and even NPR is becoming a bit entertainy. I get the feeling that few Americans want to think.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#23

Post by chewxy » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:45 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #2

The 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…

I disagree though. Merely having a PhD in the science field would change the (future) politician's worldview - from how to view data (you gotta admit it, if more US politicians were scientifically literate, they'd be less likely to claim climate change is false) to basic skepticism.

Having work done in the field of science, imo, is a plus

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#24

Post by teyc » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:46 AM UTC

The reason is fairly straightforward. Power moves in social circles.

It is the same reason why there aren't many lawyers who make it politically in China.

Secondly, support has to be nurtured, and potential candidates groomed by power brokers or king makers. These people act like VCs and are generally very conservative when it comes to investing their scarce political resources.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#25

Post by slowpoke » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:47 AM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #4

trb wrote: post #3

What 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.

Which really doesn't show, ever. I think being a scientist (and by contrast, a politician) is a matter of thinking, not of degree or title. The currently top rated comment [1] explains it rather nicely.

[1]: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3589032

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#26

Post by Qz » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:55 AM UTC

RandallBrown wrote: post #16

Why would a scientist want to be a politician? So they can spend their days fighting over paperwork instead of solving problems they're passionate about? The kind of people that want to be scientists would have no interest in politics, beyond what it takes to get them funding.

My impression is that being a scientist involves a whole lot of fighting over paperwork instead of solving problems (at least in America, when it's time to apply for grants!).

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#27

Post by ekianjo » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:56 AM UTC

Radim wrote: post #8

ekianjo wrote: post #2

The 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.

Not all scientists are government-employed. It may be a majority in some countries, but I would not disregard the amount of scientists employed in the private industries as well. They may not be involved in fundamental research, rather "applied sciences", but they are scientists nonetheless. Anyone who produces data through experimentation, analyses it, uses critical judgment and appropriate tools to make evidence-based decisions is basically, in my eyes, a "scientist", no matter the exact field of work.

Regarding your first point, the scientists who are not pragmatic will take severe hits to their reputations down the road. Data and methodology is what matters, not personal opinion.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#28

Post by peteretep » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:59 AM UTC

prewett wrote: post #22

Why don't Americans elect scientists? Because current American culture is anti-intellectual. I can't really back this up concretely, but as an American, it's hard to find anything intellectual around. A long time ago, people went to hear lectures on the weekends, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates were well attended. Now, TV "news" is a joke, and even NPR is becoming a bit entertainy. I get the feeling that few American…

That'll be the same reason Americans don't elect a Juris Doctor who was President of the Harvard Law Review, right?

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#29

Post by runningdogx » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 7:59 AM UTC

One aspect I've never thought about before is the selection of representatives for parliament/legislature. In the U.S., they're pre-selected in primary elections per party, but the national elections are single-winner per seat, so the candidates are out pandering to the voters constantly. I don't know percentages, but many other countries use multi-winner to select their national multi-seat bodies, and my understanding is that those would-be candidates aren't out campaigning, or at least not anywhere close to as visible as they are in the U.S. or the U.K. where there are direct single-winner elections for seats. As ideologically-driven as political parties are, maybe the parties still tend to select more rational, scientific-minded representatives when the would-be reps do not have a requirement to pander directly to the population prior to the election.

India (from wikipedia) also appears to have direct election of its parliament. India is fairly well known for its stifling bureaucracy. Is that coincidence, or the start of a pattern?

Maybe it's also in part due to other countries (those which aren't degenerate and corrupt enough that the government can fraudulently influence elections) knowing they're not the world's largest superpower, and knowing they can't afford to screw around as much.

I'd love to see the voting system changed to Range Voting (best overall?) or Condorcet (best ordering-based voting system?). For its discrimination against third parties, plurality voting is simply horrible, and IRV is nearly as bad[1]. I'll note that I don't think a voting system change alone will fix the American political system.

http://rangevoting.org, despite its nominal bias, is the best voting system resource anywhere.

[1] for instance: http://bolson.org/voting/irv/ IRV fails monotonicity, which IMO is a huge deal. http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#30

Post by Intermernet » Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 8:00 AM UTC

saulrh wrote: post #19

pranjalv123 wrote: post #5

I 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…

I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into politics! Pretty much my guess. A lot of people I know say that, if they were mysteriously elected president, their first words would be "I quit!".

Yeah, I've noticed this in Australia... Politics is full of failed ad execs and dis-barred lawyers. The really intelligent people now go into the private sector because politics has lost any semblance of being a respectable or intellectual career. What happens when you have policy dictated by reactionary idiots? What happens when this continues for more than a generation? Very scary.