Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#111

Post by rconti »

virmundi wrote: post #39
maverick_iceman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forget that Bernie Sanders wants mandatory labeling of GMO foods. That's also anti-science scaremongering.

Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source…

Why shouldn't you have your credit score tattooed on your forehead? Shouldn't merchants know if you're more likely to do a chargeback?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#112

Post by Pxtl »

tomjen3 wrote: post #18
croon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?

Right, but then why would you back a party that hates GMOs and vaccines?

iirc a study found that the majority of anti-vax folks avoid them for religious reasons and the naturalistic fallacy conspiracy theory anti-vaxxers are actually the minority.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#113

Post by justin66 »

jonwachob91 wrote: post #84
justin66 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have any doubts about the Democratic party. I don't think you understand the political terrain here at all. Bernie Sanders supporters of the "I have doubts about the Democratic party" variety were very, very well represented in universities during the last election.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters were also not democrats, just people that registered to vote in the democratic primary. If Bernie had chosen to run with his same platform but as a republican he would have gotten the same votes.

Plenty of dyed in the wool Democrats at the grass roots level supported Sanders. That's the only way to win those states where he performed quite well, the states with caucuses instead of primaries.

If you managed to avoid the rather heated arguments between those people and Hillary's supporters, well, you probably had one less stressor in your life during 2016, so congratulations on that...

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#114

Post by curun1r »

hueving wrote: post #8
sremani wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the "technocrats" at least the American versions of it come from "Soft" Sciences. e.g: Elizabeth Warren, Samantha Powers. I welcome technocrats from hard-sciences and engineering.

Elizabeth Warren is not a technocrat IMO. Studying Law does not give you any background in science or engineering. It does make you very good at making arguments in support of arbitrary things and bullshitting, but I'm not sure that's something we should encourage in politicians.

The problem is that some background in law is necessary when writing laws. Learning to think like a lawyer is a skill. And where a lay person will write a law that sounds sensible, the lawyer will see loopholes that can be exploited and know of contradictions in other laws.

Anyone who's worked professionally as a programmer has seen a similar effect. Non-programmers see only the success case and, perhaps, a few obvious error cases. Programmers more naturally see the edge-cases and are able to think of their users as possible adversaries. Our laws are very much like computer programs, but written in English and executed in our judicial system instead of a computer.

We don't want non-lawyers writing our laws any more than we want non-programmers writing our code. Having a politician without a legal background seems akin to a non-technical product manager. Absent some other form of expertise that's being put to use, that's usually not a good thing.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#115

Post by tyleraldrich »

virmundi wrote: post #93
richmarr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific. Well, only if the fear was unfounded. Your analysis seems a little shallow there.

There fear is unfounded. None of them have been attacked, accidentally shot or harmed by guns directly. Their fear goes so far as to them becoming hostile at the thought of them or myself carrying. They don't want anyone own this tool. Guns, like all other power tools, should be respected. I carry daily. I respect the responsibility I bring on myself in doing so. I respect what the tool can do. Many weekend I use 1-5…

Guns should be respected, and thank you for respecting yours.

Now, can you guarantee that every person I pass on the street respects their gun as much as you do, and they won't misuse this "power tool" they have the right to own? If you cannot guarantee that, I don't think you can say anybodies fear is unfounded.

What you just said is like saying a fear of airplanes is unfounded because all pilots respect their aircraft, what it can do, and use their tool properly.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#116

Post by matthewmcg »

curun1r wrote: post #114
hueving wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elizabeth Warren is not a technocrat IMO. Studying Law does not give you any background in science or engineering. It does make you very good at making arguments in support of arbitrary things and bullshitting, but I'm not sure that's something we should encourage in politicians.

The problem is that some background in law is necessary when writing laws. Learning to think like a lawyer is a skill. And where a lay person will write a law that sounds sensible, the lawyer will see loopholes that can be exploited and know of contradictions in other laws. Anyone who's worked professionally as a programmer has seen a similar effect. Non-programmers see only the success case and, perhaps, a few obvio…

You're right that legal expertise is essential to drafting bills. But you don't need to be a lawyer--you can also hire one. Legislators have lots of expert resources available to help with drafting including the offices of legislative counsel[1] and professional staffers and committee aides.

[1] Example from the House of Representatives: https://legcounsel.house.gov/HOLC/Before_Drafting/Ghost_Writ...

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#117

Post by wfo »

mgberlin wrote: post #64

As a former scientist who is very sad about the way politics are going right now, I was extremely excited to see this group forming. Then I saw that they've inexplicably co-mingled gun control and science. By all means we need to take every measure possible on climate change, energy production, and science education (the other issues listed on their site), but scientists are no better suited to have an opinion on gun…

Doesn't the very fact that statistics lie in either direction mean that someone with knowledge of statistics (any scientist would be more knowledgeable than nearly every politician i.e. lawyer that we have today) would be crucial to ferreting out the consequences of gun control legislation, and therefore better able to make an informed decision? I do agree that a group promoting science shouldn't pre-suppose an answer to a question the jury isn't out on yet like gun control. And even if the question were answered (suppose legal guns cause enormous increases in death) there's still a moral question to be answered there, weighing the freedom to own them vs. the destruction they cause. Just like no scientist will disagree that climate change is real and caused by humans; plenty of reasonable scientists disagree on what we should do about it.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#118

Post by soundwave106 »

ysr23 wrote: post #9
croon wrote: post #2

Great! I get the appeal of non-career politicians voted into office, but I'd much rather take reasonable, well-educated scientists than the opposite.

Great? Angela Merkel, Maragaret Thatcher, Frauke Petry. Whatever your political persuasion there is, i'm sure at least one of those you would not describe as 'great'

No matter what you think of them as far as policy goes, two of those three have ended up being very dominant politicians in their nation and time.

Margaret Thatcher is near the top of most historical rankings of UK PMs in most surveys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Prime_M...).

It's probably too early to tell whether Merkel is considered "good" or "bad" from a historical perspective, but her term as chancellor has been quite influential, enough for many publications to describe you as "de-facto leader of the EU" (and for Forbes to name Merkel as the 2nd most powerful person in the world in 2015).

Obviously the converse exists, but Thatcher and Merkel seem like good examples for reasonable, well-educated scientists doing "great" in politics.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#119

Post by curun1r »

croon wrote: post #48
cderwin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't expect any scientists to want to be on a Republican ticket, why refuse to support prospective scientists who would do so? There might not be many conservative scientists, but I'm sure they exist. The only answer that seems feasible to me is that they're not really interested in getting scientists elected, instead they're more interested in scientists who are willing to abuse their authority to promo…

I'm all for changing parties from within, but with: * Life starts at inception * Man-made climate change * Evolution (taught in school) * Not a single payer healthcare system when comparing to any industrialized country on earth * Anti-consumer ethics in FCC, compared to any other industrialized country on earth * Tax policies clearly aimed at keeping money flowing upwards, only very slightly veiled, yet again compar…

Don't lump abortion in with those other issues that involve denial of either rational thought or scientific evidence. It's an issue where rational people can disagree. The only way that it verges on that is in the fact that people will try to do it anyways, in ways that are historically very dangerous. In that way, it becomes like prohibition of drugs and legalization becomes a harm-reduction strategy. But, like drugs, that doesn't mean that it's a fundamentally good thing.

FYI...I say this as someone who is intentionally ambivalent on the issue of abortion. Had abortion been safe, legal and reliable in 1940, I would not be alive to write this since my mother would have never been born. And yet my grandmother would have never been forced to marry her rapist, which basically ruined the majority of her life. In confronting the issue of abortion, I'm forced to weigh my grandmother's life against that of my mother and I. I haven't figured out a way of doing that yet. But it really bothers me when people like you who've likely never had any personal connection to the issue imply that only one side of the debate is rational.

Personal nit...life does start at inception, since that's a tautology. The beginning is the beginning. It's life starting at conception that's usually debated.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#120

Post by intended »

hueving wrote: post #59
jackmott wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They pick…

>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. >but most of us don't. Who exactly do you think you are speaking for? Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have…

About the LGBT bit

>TIME MAGAZINE: There was a back and forth in which another delegate argued for LGBT inclusive language and someone else responded to her, alleging that she was suggesting everyone who didn’t agree with her was a bigot. People clapped in agreement. She said that wasn’t her intention, but it was tense. What were you thinking during that exchange?

>Rachel Hoff: The reality is that all of us who support LGBT rights got frustrated. Another member offered an amendment to stand with LGBT people around the world who are targeted by violence and terrorism, and that went down in flames. In another section, the Orlando attack was mentioned, so I offered an amendment to describe it as ‘the terrorist attack on the LGBT community in Orlando.’ And they wouldn’t even do that. We knew that the platform committee wasn’t our home turf, and I did not expect to win every amendment, but I also did not expect the rigidity with which the committee would refuse to even mention the LGBT community more broadly in a positive way.

Later in the article

>time: You mentioned that you had given some thought to being an Independent over the last couple days as these meetings went on. What frustration brought you to that point?

>RH: It wasn’t the marriage stuff. I had anticipated that my amendment would not pass. It was the amendments where the committee members refused to even stand with the basic human rights of LGBT individuals. We name so many individual groups in that document, and let’s name LGBT people. When they refused to even do that, I thought, what do we even stand for? Why am I even here? ... These last few days is the first time I ever thought about leaving the Republican Party. But I’ve decided not to.

This is the Republican Party, in July 2016. I thought the article was interesting coming from an openly gay GOP member.

Link - http://time.com/4405261/gay-republicans-convention-rachel-ho...

Post reply on HN