Live data from Hacker News

Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#181

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 mathemat…

Sbierwagen, as a white male living in Seattle, whats with the offensive faux-ebonics?

I felt like burning some karma.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#182
post #178
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That used to be the case in the past. However with the increased government expenditure on basic science in the wake of the cold war, more of the fundamental science did happen in the US (foundations of CS, foundations of Crypto, lot of AI & ML, string theory, lot of work in Math, etc.). Now with the decreasing focus on the funding of science, fundamental research (especially in high energy physics but in other areas…

I wonder if this has anything to do with the shifting of industrial jobs to other countries as well? Maybe when more tangible goods were being produced in the US there was a higher respect for science/engineering, which is in large part a study of the tangible (or physical). Now that many jobs in the US are financial, legal, etc. there's more of a disconnect between what people see as the basis of the economy and wha…

I can say for a fact that Israel has very little heavy industry of its own, but its tech sector competes with agriculture for #1 sector in the economy and its R&D spending as a percentage of GDP is (IIRC) first in the world.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CS is a tricky term, in that it is actually (mostly applied) math, and math ain't science...

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this has always bugged me. I wish there were better standardization on CS degrees. Depending on the school, CS can be part of the math department, science department, engineering department, or a liberal arts department. My school grouped it in science/engineering and required a bunch of math, and quite a few science classes. I've met people with the same degree from other schools wh…

For me, it was an engineering track (the actual degree is in Computing Engineering), and we did have basic science courses as well. The 'real' CS stuff though, was mostly math and logic (algorithms, language theory, semantics, complexity theory and so on), but there were more engineering-like courses as well (operating systems, networking, computer architectures, etc).

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#184
post #93
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conservative…

"If you look at the German situation (and that's her main job), it is looking pretty good right now."

I am a German and the outside perspective is unfortunately somewhat misrepresenting our situation here. As far as I can tell most foreign news sources tell about our unemployment rate and our GDP growth but both come with strings attached.

First of all our unemployment rate does not reflect the true unemployment in any rate due to changing the definition what constitutes an unemployed person. For instance, jobless people over 58, people being forced to do work-fare, people doing mandated education and a couple of other cases are not counted as unemployed although this people live off social welfare. A rapidly expanding part of the work force is also counted among the working poor, i.e. they don't earn enough and have to be subsided by the state. A lot of once full-time positions are transformed into part-time jobs which makes it increasingly difficult for people to make ends meet and leave them susceptible to poverty when becoming old since our pension scheme is mostly based on your work years and your income.

Most of the (slow) GDP growth is attributed to export while our domestic consumption is either stagnating or declining because Germans had in the last 20 years stagnating or declining real wages. So we have growth but the majority does not profit from it in any way.

"Extending the life span was a political decision"

What else? It was just to show that expertise in the respective field has nothing to do with competent decision making. The problems with nuclear power (extremely dangerous in a densely populated country as Germany, no means to store nuclear waste long-term, extremely expensive, etc.).

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#185
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure if that's the falsifiability you meant, but a scientific theory _must_ be falsifiable by definition. As in -- there must be a way to setup an experiment with a possible outcome that would prove this theory to be wrong. It is impossible to disprove a theory that "invisible pink unicorns exist" -- because for every suggested experiment you can just say "well, they are invisible, so we can't see them". Of cours…

I brought up falsifiability casually because it is an important corner stone for my understanding of the scientific methodology and keeps scientists from proclaiming dogmas (or at least it should). It is also an acknowledgement that our current theories mostly reflect our current understanding and may be prone to change in the feature.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#186
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when people call the mainstream Republican party "anti-intellectual" they are referring to things like: the quite obvious skepticism of even the most mainstream scientific theories, constant rhetoric deriding intellectuals and artists, policies that are guided by puritan morality rather than a rational evidence-based approach aimed at a certain outcome (drug policy, abstinence-only sex ed., myriad other distr…

Surely you're not suggesting that the Democrats are more accepting of "science". (They're not - they just accept different things and want to do different things in response to said science.) As to grant-supported "artists", they've entered the political sphere. That has consequences. And, very little of it is art, let alone deserving of tax money. (Cowboys can pay for their own poetry and so can rich people.)

> Cowboys can pay for their own poetry

No idea what you're talking about. I'm assuming an utterly insignificant amount of government money went to something that looks at least superficially wasteful and now the right is shrieking about it when they have better things to do.

Has the right done anything else since Obama came into office?

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#188
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…

CS is a tricky term, in that it is actually (mostly applied) math, and math ain't science...

I tend to agree, math is closely related to science, but it isn't science. A theorem and proof is different from a hypothesis and test (a hypothesis and test is generally what I would consider to be the "scientific method").

But "scientist" has a folk meaning. If you ask "is math science?", I'd say no. But if you ask "how many scientists are in congress?" and count someone with a math PhD as a "scientist", I'd have no problem with it.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#189
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you're not suggesting that the Democrats are more accepting of "science". (They're not - they just accept different things and want to do different things in response to said science.) As to grant-supported "artists", they've entered the political sphere. That has consequences. And, very little of it is art, let alone deserving of tax money. (Cowboys can pay for their own poetry and so can rich people.)

> Cowboys can pay for their own poetry No idea what you're talking about. I'm assuming an utterly insignificant amount of government money went to something that looks at least superficially wasteful and now the right is shrieking about it when they have better things to do. Has the right done anything else since Obama came into office?

Objections to the National Endowment for the Arts predate Obama.

> Has the right done anything else since Obama came into office?

Yup, plenty.

Are you going to claim that everything Obama has done is peachy keen?

I note that the Dem senate hasn't bothered to pass an Obama budget. That takes 51 votes, which the Dems have. They all voted against the last one. They probably won't even bother to schedule a vote on this one.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#190
post #177
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be a syntax error of my part: I meant that the US existed as a nation before a bureaucracy existed in the US . Obviously, bureaucracies elsewhere predates the US declaration of independency.

I still don't think his essay says that. Before the US independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, with local legislatures in each colony. How did the British Empire manage the 13 colonies without any sort of bureaucracy? Instead, the essay you pointed to suggests that the bureaucracy existed, but the new Americans were distrustful of it.

How do you interpret the quote "The origins of this, as Martin Shefter pointed out many years ago, is due to the fact that democracy preceded bureaucratic consolidation in contrast to European democracies that arose out of aristocratic regimes." ? It is possible that I misunderstood it (and would be glad to be corrected if I did).
Post reply on HN