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 151 posts

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#91

Post by saraid216 »

nzmsv wrote: post #48
uuilly wrote: post #19

Science can only describe the physical world, it can't tell you what to do about it. The Nazis had plenty of highly placed scientists. Woodrow Wilson did too and they were in favor of eugenics. The deification of science is a life raft post adolescents cling to as they try to swim away from the inherent corruption of mankind. Scientists are no less afflicted with selfishness, vanity or pettiness than people in any ot…

So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law". Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws? :) Also: Godwin's law.

> So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law".

...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? Of course being a lawyer doesn't make you "the law".

> Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws?

Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. It's important; it's relevant; it contributes to society in a positive and melioristic way.

> Also: Godwin's law.

Do you actually know what Godwin's Law states?

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#92

Post by LetBinding »

In a political climate where a major state's dominant political party's platform wants to ban critical thinking skills because they "challenge a student's fixed beliefs" and "undermine parental authority", it is unthinkable that scientists could be in government.

http://tinyurl.com/6rqnygr [DailyTech]

Typically, a critical mass of the populace equates science as being anti-God, and critical thinking as being conspiratorial.

http://tinyurl.com/c2tjf8h [ScientificAmerican]

At the most, a scientist could get elected to a house seat from a district with lots of hi-tech firms or universities. He / she would have no chance of winning a statewide or countrywide political race.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#93

Post by jellicle »

lmkg wrote: post #15

At least part of the problem is structural. One contributing factor could be that the US uses direct regional elections, instead of a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person, and the party decides the individuals who get elected. There's less of an emphasis on individual charisma, and charismatic leaders only need appear at the top of the ticket. A party with…

(You mean proportional system, not parliamentary system.)

But first-past-the-post with single member districts means that everyone elected has to be, personally, a good election campaigner. And scientists, by and large, make terrible campaigners. They think that being right about an issue is enough to win the point, which is more or less true in science, but absolutely not at all true in politics.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#94

Post by 001sky »

Why don't Americans elect scientists? Examing Data on historical samples, may be instructive.[1] Some of the mor salient points to note, after reviewing the sample data:

(1) A 'Science' criterion is Neither necessary nor sufficient;

(2) Political geography is not most likely a relevant issue.

Indeed were it so, the relative newness of 'Science' would imply there were no good leaders among the Ancients -- clearly an error.

(3) Other examples: Presidents w/ Engineering Degrees. Ulysses S. Grant (1869); Dwight D. Eisenhower (953); Jimmy Carter (1976).

So, data and logic imply we start from a flawed premise. Science of course, would not disqualify you, provided you had the political skills. But the correlation is not assured one way or the other. To the extent its relevant, it may not be explanatory.

______________

[1] Reference points might include, eg: Pericles, Leonidas (that guy from sparta), Alexander (the great), Cicero, Caeser (Julius), Ausgustus, Elizabeth I, Napolean, Trafalgar, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Reagan

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#95

Post by akirn »

cobrausn wrote: post #74
akirn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it's true that only 20% of scientists believe that science and religion are in constant conflict (citation?), it does not follow that the remaining 80% believe in a supernatural overlord or are members of any mainstream cult.

http://www.ehecklund.rice.edu/raas.html http://shambhalasun.com/sunspace/?p=23056 The second link indicates that the study found out that about half of those scientists surveyed express a religious identity, yet only 15% say they are always in conflict. My guess is most of those in the middle count themselves as 'deists'.

Ecklund's claims are greatly exaggerated, if not blatantly false. See http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/20/scientists-... for the debunking and http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/sciencereligion... for a more detailed examination of the compatibility of science and religion. Or go straight to the source and try to find an angle that supports your original statement, 'cause I can't: http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8594/ecklund2.jpg.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#96

Post by jowiar »

patdennis wrote: post #29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_D._Holt

Rush Holt is great. I met him when I was in grad school lobbying for more research funding / better loan situations / better health coverage for graduate students. He took a decent chunk of time to sit down and talk with a group of grad students from all over the country who weren't donors or anything.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#97

Post by TallGuyShort »

ionforce wrote: post #41
nostromo wrote: post #26

I think a more interesting question is: why do Americans elect Lawyers? It's the most common profession in Congress (not including the self-referential "politics" answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_Sta... ). Both presidential candidates are Harvard Law students as well. I understand why Lawyers would want to become Lawmakers. I don't understand however such an unpopular field manages to g…

Do you really want random, uneducated people wielding that much power? People who idolize celebrities?

Things like SOPA fail to convince me of the quality of education held by current lawmakers.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#98

Post by aswanson »

enraged_camel wrote: post #60
aswanson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the main benefit is that a scientist elected to a political office would make decisions based on real data when possible. Obviously it is often times not possible - for example, you can't use science to determine whether you should take a pro-life stance or a pro-choice stance - but the insistence on using numbers would greatly simplify many decisions.

Totally agree. There are benefits that a scientific stance would have in some circumstances, so it's a nuanced situation. :)

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#99

Post by photon137 »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #54
wheels wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably not a scientist. Mathematics mostly traffics in things which are right or wrong; science rarely does. That's one of the criticisms that the peanut gallery often lobs at it: that it's just based on theories . When ideas are actually being trafficked -- that is when they're new and struggling for breathing room, they're rarely clearly right or wrong. Consensus forms over a fairly long amount of time. Wi…

Going by anecdotal evidence[0], there does seem to be some of the tendency ta12121 worries about among engineers , though. [0]See e.g. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo

Not really. Engineers venture out into the grey even more than scientists do - they solve problems of interest to humans - their job requires them to be grounded in reality and be sensitive to human needs and constraints (well, at least the good ones are).

I often think that while a purely technical background and education might be really powerful and enable one to analyze and predict well-behaved things better than others - which could lead to better decisions, it is extremely important to be receptive to the "inexplicable-until-experienced" stuff like music or business or relationships - to know that there are things that can't be controlled and shouldn't be controlled - that some things should evolve of their own accord - the chaotically evolved imperfect being more beautiful than the mathematically-designed perfect. (Edit: a combination of both works quite well, in my experience - some of the best businessmen, economic and political advisers I know of have engineering backgrounds - and no, they aren't unreasonably conservative or dogmatic).

In my opinion, the fear of "what will happen if I let go?" can lead to authoritarianism via technocracy (aside from the fact that anyone can get drunk on power) - not one's profession.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#100

Post by wwweston »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #24

Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? The best democratic system in the world won't help anything if the population is not educated or interested enough to make an informed decision. Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people. The people who get elected are detached from the population to begin with. Being a "p…

> Being a "politician" is a full-time job. That's absurd.

Really? Representing thousands (if not hundreds of thousands or millions) of people and sorting/synthesizing policy suggestions to try and come up with something that will (a) work in constituent interests (b) will fly with some majority well enough to make it happen -- it's somehow "absurd" that this might conceivably take up 40+ hours a week?

A lack of information and disengagement on the part of most citizens is a problem, but it's not one that stems from having full-time offices or representative democracy itself.

> Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people.

Apparently a displeased people would be more optimal?

Post reply on HN