61–70 of 151 posts
Are there scientists to vote for in the US? I would love to vote for one, but they're are no scientist candidates in my country. And virtually every academic I know, openly hates politics and wants to stay away from it. "The largest punishment for those who are not interested in politics, is that they'll be governed by those who are." Maybe the best solution would be to teach politics to scientists, and not the other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting post; I'm assuming your later references to Taiwan are actually to Singapore?
Why would you assume that? They're two different countries, with different histories, mentioned together because both have excellent education in mathematics and scientifically competent leaders (relevant to the OP).
Many scientists are atheists or at the very least not strictly religious. It seems that you currently have to believe in God to be elected. Is this keeping many of them from even running?
Many scientists are atheists or at the very least not strictly religious. It seems that you currently have to believe in God to be elected. Is this keeping many of them from even running?
The last study on this I read said that only 20% of scientists believe that science and religion are in constant conflict with each other. So the pool is not as small as you might think, if that is your requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those individuals are using science to support their pre-existing narrowmindedness, stubbornness, and extremism. Science is not making them those things. On the contrary, the fundamentals of science lie in questioning pre-conceived notions in the face of findings that conflict them. This is how scientific progress is made.
Right. No point of conflict there. All I'm saying is that many technically trained and minded people, in the arena of dealing with human/political issues, seem to rely on idealizations, not unlike mathematical models, when in truth they are too complicated to be represented as such. Maybe the prediliction for mathematics and science betrays a deeper desire for a clean, concise, comprehensible truth, which rarely exis…
Science seems to leave the methods of rational thought far behind when it enters American politics.
As said elsewhere on this thread, scientists usually make terrible politicians which is an essential skill in a thriving democracy (and Singapore ain't one).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't "least bad" equivalent to optimal?
If your selection function optimizes for minimized damage, not maximized improvement, sure.
See also Duverger's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
I don't want to step on too many toes, but I have to make mention of the error in the particular arrogance among the scientific community that their work qualifies them to reform other industries and facets of the human existence. Obviously the work of scientists and engineers is vital, and worthy of credit and praise, but I would not trust even the smartest scientists and engineers I know to handle the foreign polic…
Is this really the duty of politicians though? Certainly there's been a lot of discourse about this in the current landscape, especially from those attempting to impart their personal ethics and morals on the political landscape, but this shouldn't be the duty of the government, but the duty of individuals (chiefly parents) as well as that of a society as a whole. Government shouldn't have any business in what is ethical or moral but in what is legal (which is sometimes, but not always a reflection of ethics and morals).
Many scientists are atheists or at the very least not strictly religious. It seems that you currently have to believe in God to be elected. Is this keeping many of them from even running?
Some states forbid Atheists from holding public office. Looking at current supreme court decisions where they differ everything back to state, these laws may stand if challenged. Only thing that has precedent is forcing religious tests, you can't force people take an oath as requirement for the spot.
I read this sentence three times before I figured out where the error was. The word you want is defer, not differ.