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

111–120 of 193 posts

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#111

Post by TheCapn »

kleiba wrote: post #49
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...

Negative effects on what?

Without reading the book I assume what he's getting at is that the sciences are often the barers of bad news. Cancer this, climate that, death this, unsafety that. Eventually people get fed up with having their worldview turned around and actively choose to ignore the incoming evidence.

My best example would be cellphones in cars. We did just fine without them 10 years ago but now whenever an area talks about legistlation the people get all up in arms. Numerous studies have shown that they're equal or worse to drunk driving but the inconvenience of not being able to text and drive prevents people from accepting that.

Disclaimer: I obviously could be very far off base of what the posted author speaks about because, as stated, I've not read the book.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#112

Post by a_a_r_o_n »

feralchimp wrote: post #103

Why do Americans elect lawyers? Laws and contracts are the operands of government. Money and a convincing demeanor are the operators of elections. Government is not really an experimental enterprise. Science is about constructing interesting subsets of general-purpose reality to eliminate variables, then testing other variables and seeing what happens. The history of Legislative attempts to eliminate real-world varia…

"Why do Americans elect lawyers?"

Because they're good at making a case. Any case. Including the case for electing them.

I seriously doubt if many people think "He's a lawyer. He'll be a good steward of the country."

Instead it's more like "He talks about exactly the things that I'm afraid of. I'm voting for him."

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#113

Post by TheCapn »

feralchimp wrote: post #103

Why do Americans elect lawyers? Laws and contracts are the operands of government. Money and a convincing demeanor are the operators of elections. Government is not really an experimental enterprise. Science is about constructing interesting subsets of general-purpose reality to eliminate variables, then testing other variables and seeing what happens. The history of Legislative attempts to eliminate real-world varia…

>Why do Americans elect lawyers?

I think you're overthinking it. Lawyers make good politicians because they're good debaters. A good debater and charismatic individual garners votes. So long as you're not 110% bat-shit insane you'll win votes and the better you are at making the opponent look bad the better on you.

Too much of American politics isn't so much about making realistic promises and outlooks on the future that are obtainable as it is about extremism and making the others look bad. To me it seems like that style of politics wins because "it makes good TV".

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#114

Post by geebee »

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…

That may be true. But I also think that our system for selecting scientists may filter out those who would like to go into politics.

A lot of people go to law school who don't really want to be lawyers. They claim they're going to law school to "learn to think". Elite law schools are easy enough that people who aren't completely devoted to the law can still graduate in fine standing in three years with a few hours a day of study - so the system can still work for people with a more diverse set of interests and goals.

PhD programs in STEM fields programs are very different. They are all consuming, and you need to be capable of focusing deeply on narrow research interest for years. Another thing to keep in mind is that a very high percentage of STEM PhDs in the US are international students, which may lower the interest in entering politics somewhat.

There are other approaches that could work - maybe MS degrees, or a more professional degree approach to science doctorates.

Lastly, there just seems to be a cultural notion - humanities and law are considered "broad, well rounded" educations, whereas science and math is considered narrow and technical. This is completely wrong, but it's a sticky notion.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#116

Post by talmand »

thecabinet wrote: post #102
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…

One thing I absolutely despise about the phrase "anti-intellectual" is the ambiguity about what it means. There was a great explanation of why people should be suspicious of "intellectuals" in an HN comment from a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2400310 . ESR also had examined the various possible meanings: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4001 In general, though, "anti-intellectual" seems to usually mean, "Wh…

Thank you. I often feel the term "anti-intellectual" is used on a person who simply disagrees with a notion thought up by someone that has been labeled "intellectual" by someone else or worse, themselves.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#118

Post by xster »

patrickk wrote: post #85
olalonde wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 in…

While in the meantime, US cries about China's 'unfair' advantage in developing green technologies and lifts tariffs for imports. Perhaps just another difference between a lawyer driven society and an engineering driven society.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#119

Post by hobin »

eftpotrm wrote: post #82
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 abili…

Being a scientist (physicist), I think I can answer that question.

I am deeply interested in helping people, and yes, this means if it were up to me, I'd try to replace all sorts of legislation, and I think there are many things that could be dealt with much, much better.

In the end, however, I think I would find a job as a politician extremely frustrating. Sure, I might be able to deal with the bureaucracy, but I like to have a job that I, well, like. Being a politician would mean voluntarily surrendering myself to the plague of bureaucracy, and I would probably go mad. Call me arrogant if you wish, but I simply don't think I could deal with many of those politicians for very long before getting all upset and claiming they're all a bunch of fools who should stop being such ideological illogical idiots.

Thus, I try to help people in a more indirect way, by doing what I enjoy. Namely, science.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#120

Post by khafra »

gcp wrote: post #101
Maro wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have my vote. Lots of policy decisions are made based on statistics. Yet they are easy to fool someone with if he or she does not understand them properly enough. 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. Slightly disappointing. I'd have expected doctors to have an unde…

Any time some psychologist or economist does a test for Base Rate Neglect or other bias on doctors, they perform horribly.
Post reply on HN