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

91–100 of 193 posts

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#91

Post by gcp »

smsm42 wrote: post #45

If you take the view that government is needed to protect people's rights (you know, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men") as opposed to providing people with solutions for their problems - then the question becomes easy. Why should we? Who said scientists are better in protecting one's rights than, say, cops or doctors or lawyers or plumbers? I do not see anything in scientific training that…

If you take the view that government is needed to protect people's rights (you know, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men") as opposed to providing people with solutions for their problems - then the question becomes easy.

False dichotomy.

Of course, the government would always have a lot of purely technical questions where scientific training would allow one to decide them efficiently - but these always would be secondary roles and rarely need to be elected, but rather properly hired, which can be done by any decent manager.

If politicians were people who give difficult problems to a team of scientists to allow them to come up with the best solutions, and then choose from the equally good ones based on the underlying philosophical principles they stand for, then no, we wouldn't need scientists in the government.

Failing that, I'll take the group who at least in principle deals with new problems through a better method than guesswork or trial and error.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#92

Post by Maro »

gcp wrote: post #86
Maro wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

One thing that comes up again and again is understanding significances, errors and such. This stuff is second nature to a good (and honest) physicist coming out of University, even before he becomes a "pro".

In my experience, to a doctor, even a good one, _at first_ it's just an annoying thing they have to do to get published and they don't really understand the significance of significances. (LOL.)

I would argue that this type of sensitivity to understanding data should be important if you're running a country. You can't even say that there are underlings for this, because this data is so important, and the possibility of underlings skewing it for whatever reason so sizable, that I certainly would want to have some understanding and feeling for the data before doing a press conference about it or using it to guide my lawmaking.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#93

Post by lispm »

Erunno wrote: post #21
duskwuff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wak…

Merkel's decision are not so 'inane'. If you look at the German situation (and that's her main job), it is looking pretty good right now.

She is also not only 'somewhat knowledgeable' about nuclear power, she was the responsible minister for several years.

Extending the life span was a political decision - especially moved ahead by her coalition partner - the FDP. Before Fukushima there was a majority of conservatives and liberals against the nuclear exit. This changed with Fukushima.

Merkel often bases her decisions on what is politically possible in Germany. She believes in a politics of small steps which, where the outcome can be verified and one can adapt then. A very scientific approach.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#94

Post by sbierwagen » 

  I’ve visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its 
  wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in 
  mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for 
  president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the 
  very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien 
  Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.
Whoa ho, hold on there nigga. Is you seriously holding up Singapore, of all countries, as a shining example of flawless governance, to be emulated by other nations?

The same Singapore that Amnesty International says has the highest per capita capital punishment rate in the world? The same place that hangs people for drug possession? 133rd out of 175 in Reporters Without Borders "press freedom" index? The country where a quarter of the population is migrant workers, for whom, conviently, labor laws don't apply?

Man, you're right! Sign me up for some Singapore-style government! Sounds great!

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#95

Post by kghose »

Do we have the stats for how many scientists/engineers run for office to begin with?

The central qualification to successfully run for office - straight faced insincerity - might be counter to the training of most scientists/engineers.

The second qualification - enormous personal wealth - is not such a common possession of most scientists, either.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#96

Post by barry-cotter »

Maro wrote: post #92
gcp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

One thing that comes up again and again is understanding significances, errors and such. This stuff is second nature to a good (and honest) physicist coming out of University, even before he becomes a "pro". In my experience, to a doctor, even a good one, _at first_ it's just an annoying thing they have to do to get published and they don't really understand the significance of significances. (LOL.) I would argue tha…

In my experience, to a doctor, even a good one, _at first_ it's just an annoying thing they have to do to get published and they don't really understand the significance of significances.

There is an entire medical discipline that knowingly uses shitty statistics[0]. Then there are the ones who unknowingly use shitty statistics[1]. Absent someone with a qualification that is impossible to get without learning real statistics as a co-author the default when reading medical research should be that the result is either overblown or wrong.

Biologists aren't much better than medical doctors, to my knowledge.

[0]http://lesswrong.com/lw/72f/why_epidemiology_will_not_correc...

[1]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#97

Post by barry-cotter »

peteretep wrote: post #28
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?

A JD is not a research degree. It is a second entry degree, meaning there is no necessary reason it could not be an ordinary bachelor's degree. A JSD is the US Law School equivalent to a real doctorate.

Obama was the first President of the HLS in yeeears not to publish. He's a very, very smart man but calling him an intellectual might be pushing it. His popular works are not brimming with ideas.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#98

Post by barry-cotter »

pranjalv123 wrote: post #50
peteretep wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of other countries have had memorable scientist leaders. The article itself opens with a picture of Merkel, and then of course, there's Thatcher... And most of the Chinese Communist Party Glitterati are engineers.

Angela Merkel was a physicist before she entered politics, but you have to take into account two things: 1) She was heavily involved in politics while a student and researcher. 2) Even more importantly, she came into politics right after the fall of the Berlin Wall - right after they threw away all the old career politicians. At this point, she abandoned her scientific career to fill this enormous vacuum. Thatcher go…

Wasn't Merkel a chemist, not a physicist? The upper levels of the CCP are full of engineers, not scientists. Don't know about the next or nextnext leadership generations/cadres.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#99

Post by dhimes »

Maro wrote: post #92
gcp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

One thing that comes up again and again is understanding significances, errors and such. This stuff is second nature to a good (and honest) physicist coming out of University, even before he becomes a "pro". In my experience, to a doctor, even a good one, _at first_ it's just an annoying thing they have to do to get published and they don't really understand the significance of significances. (LOL.) I would argue tha…

Also important, and related, is my wife claims it took a year or so of fellowship training before she learned how to ask a scientific question. She's an MD who did a research fellowship at NIH; I'm a physicist.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#100

Post by tehayj »

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…

You sir, nailed it.
Post reply on HN