Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 193 posts

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#81

Post by arguesalot »

patio11 wrote: post #43

Who is a scientist? If you scope this to PhDs who have done serious research in academia, you pretty much just said "no ex-university career before the age of 40." That is going to make it very hard to develop the networks you'll need to advance up the ranks of either party. You'll also likely require substantial external support for initial campaigns because relative to the lawyers, doctors, businessmen, undertakers…

No they don't the author of the article took that into account. To be clear, that's not an american-only issue, but we need more studies to say whether it is a problem or not.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#82

Post by eftpotrm »

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…

Why don't they want to enter politics though? If we drew up a hypothetical list of attributes for a scientist, how many could cross over into politics?

Significant intellect and a desire to exercise that in significant work? Yes.

Deep interest in a field and a wish to explore that further? Yes. (In the sense that many such people seem capable of maintaining multiple such interests.)

Interest in complex work and ability to hold large datasets in mind? Yes.

Drive to rise above others and push for achievement? Yes.

The more I look, the more it seems that a major factor working against scientist partiicpation in public debate generally and politics more specifically is a strong pervading trend of anti-intellectuallism. In science they can know that, by and large, if they back up their assertions with rigorous testing and data, their viewpoint will at the very least be taken seriously and very likely accepted. Whereas, by current trends at least, in politics their assertion would be rubbished as elitist and talked down with an incoherent anecdote.

Where, in that system, is the motivation for the genuinely capable and informed to use their abilities for the public good?

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#84

Post by kokey »

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 agee. It's also more important that scientists don't involve themselves in politics, especially when politicians are looking to use science as a basis for what essentially is a political decision. When the two get muddled it gets messy. Science can tell us that smoking over the long term can have negative consequences on our health, politics is how we decide what we want to do about it and how. When it comes to the details of 'how', science can provide more insights. However, it's essential that we keep the two separate, just like the separation of church and state. Science does not dictate policy, and it shouldn't.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#85

Post by patrickk »

olalonde wrote: post #17
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…

> It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. More likely because it's a poor country than because it is pro-scientist. > While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it. They are doing significant efforts in green technology. Furthermore, China isn't all that bad if you look at per capita statistics which is arguably more fair to compare.

The EU proposed a carbon tax on airlines, which the Chinese disagree with:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1222/break...

EU leaders will be going to the Chinese in a few weeks, cap in hand, looking for the Chinese to help bolster the European bailout fund (otherwise the euro could well be toast). The Chinese are going to use the carbon tax as negotiating leverage. Ah, politics.

Also I read a very interesting article (in the guardian paper i believe) from an insider at one of the major climate change treaties a few years back. The official story was that the different leaders couldn't come to an agreement and that there would be another summit in a few years. The real story was that the Chinese delegation blocked every proposal, thereby sinking the talks (as any major climate change treaty would require the backing of the major industrial powers).

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#86

Post by gcp »

Maro wrote: post #71
gcp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among the 435 members of the House, for example, there are one physicist, one chemist, one microbiologist, six engineers and nearly two dozen representatives with medical training....This showing is sparse even with the inclusion of the doctors, but it shouldn’t be too surprising. The article clearly considers engineers and doctors to be scientists. As it should - they are all well-versed in the scientific method by…

My wife is a medical doctor doing a Phd right now. By her own admission, doctors are _not_ well-versed in the scientific method _by education_. The others in her lab are all biologists, and she spent the first year playing catch-up in terms of being able to do science, and says she still feels like she'll always be behind compared to the biologists in the lab who got a regular scientist training in their 5 years at t…

Well-versed may be a very relative term. I've been exposed to physics, engineering and computer science. The physicists had the scientific method drilled in deep. The engineers a bit. The computer scientists had vaguely heard about it. We still call them computer scientists. Your wife may suffer from a similar "relative difference". (Coincidentally, I could repeat your story with my wife, who's a computer scientist working for doctors who work with biologists in a lab.)

Does a law degree or an MBA cover the "characterize, hypothesize, predict, experiment" cycle?

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#87

Post by JVirissimo »

TwoBit wrote: post #51
olalonde wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intellectuals and society" by Thomas Sowell is an interesting book on the subject. His central thesis is that intellectuals -- "people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas - writers, academics, and the like" - are having negative effects. http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Thomas-Sowell/dp...

Of course Sowell would criticize intellectuals. He's an unapologetic conservative Republican.

Yeah, but he's an...intellectual.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#88

Post by gcp »

Erunno wrote: post #77
kolinko wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-intellectuality aside. Understanding science is important, but a good scientist ≠ good manager. A scientist is usually someone with narrow, but deep knowledge/experience, as a politician I want someone with a broader set of experiences & knowledge. I mean, MSc president - sure. PhD president - probably no, thank you :)

There's also the fallacy that scientists will only make pure objective decisions but scientists are in the end only humans and have their own believes, failings and political agendas. The whole system of peer reviewing and the acknowledgement that every scientific theory can be falsified is a testament to this realization. Unfortunately I have the impression that in politics too often individual experts are only hear…

scientists are in the end only humans and have their own believes, failings and political agendas. The whole system of peer reviewing and the acknowledgement that every scientific theory can be falsified is a testament to this realization.

I fully agree with the first part, but care to explain how "believes, failing and political agendas" relates to the concept of falsifiability?

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#89

Post by dalke »

cdavid wrote: post #39
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…

The idea that gvt should be run by common people is quite old in the US (Jacksonian democracy). I am not American, and this traits always made me wonder every time I go the US, as this is the only developed country where I heve been to where this is so pronounced. This article by Fukuyama was quite interesting in that regard: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/31/w... . He explains it by the fact…

I don't think that essay says what you described. There was a bureaucracy before the US - how did the British, French, and Spanish Empires run without a bureaucracy? And of course the Chinese bureaucracy was established long before the Americas were settled by Europeans.

It looks more like it's saying the US started with a distrust of bureaucracy, which it inherited from experience with the European empires, which caused us to "hobble" our bureaucracy, which were therefore less effectual, which lead to continuing distrust.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#90

Post by gcp »

Retric wrote: post #62
kolinko wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-intellectuality aside. Understanding science is important, but a good scientist ≠ good manager. A scientist is usually someone with narrow, but deep knowledge/experience, as a politician I want someone with a broader set of experiences & knowledge. I mean, MSc president - sure. PhD president - probably no, thank you :)

It's unusual for a 'scientist' to be working alone now days. In academia it's fairly common for a single 'scientist' to manage 2-12 graduate and post doc students. And groups of 10's or even 100's of people working together on the same project is increasingly common. PS: By 'scientist' I mean someone with a PHD doing research. Plenty of people do research that don't fall under that umbrella, but that's a side issue.

This. Also, getting grants is for a large part doing politics as well.
Post reply on HN