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

81–90 of 190 posts

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#81

Post by burkaman »

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…

You can't run for office and only have an opinion on three issues. If you want to be a leader, you need a clearly stated position on every issue.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#82

Post by ocschwar »

justinlaster wrote: post #26
jonwachob91 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, b/c republican's aren't allowed to believe in climate change and scientist aren't allowed to believe in small government, power to the states, and that the constitution is not a living document...

No one said they weren't allowed. It's just exceedingly unlikely that as a scientist you would align yourself with a political party that has had a staunch anti-science platform for the past two decades.

Key words: past two decades.

I remember the days before their descent to this insanity.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#83

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

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…

> Life starts at conception

Isn't that scientific fact? The zygote is not viable, but it is in fact a living instance of Homo sapiens sapiens. So scientifically, life begins at conception.

Now saying that life begins at conception, does not mean that abortion should be illegal. There are legal and philosophical arguments based on privacy and bodily autonomy that say it should be legal.

However, this illustrates an important point. Because you wanted to support a political point, you embraced a scientifically incorrect idea. This is not much different than the climate change denialists.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#84

Post by jonwachob91 »

justin66 wrote: post #68
hueving wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#85

Post by virmundi »

knodi123 wrote: post #56
virmundi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is it scaremongering? Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe." > Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer? It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more…

I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering.

What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd like the option of "noping" out. Just the option. I might not even do it because as Stewie says, "They say star light gives your cancer, but what doesn't these days?" I just want the option.

Scientists have come along and said, "Stupid layman, trust us. Of course we're just like those people who said use lead in paint, then in gas, and advocated for Asbestos". That' not scientific. I want to see the data. Until then, my default is skepticism, you know the rational default [1].

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#86

Post by croon »

hueving wrote: post #70
croon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>If "progressive causes" == science backed causes, then go right ahead. No, "progressive causes" will be whatever is in vogue in the party. So anti-GMO with labeling campaigns and leverage the scientists to cast doubt on their safety would be very possible. Perhaps it will be to convince people that science has shown that people with more money are evil and should be jailed based on the UC Berkley study with the BMWs…

I of course can't know, but I estimate that about 0.1% of Bernie support were because of GMO labelling.

The real question is WHY something is in vogue.

Sure, money doesn't mean evil, but I have no trouble believing that money is the root of a ton of obviously bad policies and legislation. The healthcare, tax code, FCC points above, and many more.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#87

Post by hueving »

epistasis wrote: post #76
hueving wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>>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. I think this is meant in the context of most sciences. If you're a physicist, your work is sufficiently apolitical that you can see both parties as reasonable. If you're an epidemiologist,…

If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison.

>but only one party has put those people in charge of the party and the party platform.

If only there were some way to get people elected into the party to change this.... nah, let's just dig in with the party that got summarily rejected by the current voting system we have.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#88

Post by jdpedrie »

PhaseLockk wrote: post #71
hueving wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Two seconds of Googling reveals your bullshit. All of these people announced support for same-sex marriage after being elected, or after leaving public service. It seems unlikely that the republican party would run a new candidate that included support of gay marriage as part of their platform. Maybe I'm wrong though.

You do realize a Republican President was just elected who supported gay marriage, right? It wasn't a show stopper for him.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#89

Post by mudil »

jackmott wrote: post #27
hueving wrote: post #11

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks…

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…

This is an insulting comment that should be whited out.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#90

Post by croon »

hueving wrote: post #72
croon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I'm all for changing parties from within, but with: The Democrats were once pro slavery and the parties have effectively flipped positions of support for various things throughout the years. The parties change because people that try, not people that dig their heels in on their side that just got slaughtered in the election.

You're right.

But if you want to make a car, would you start from a motorcycle or a boat?

There's a lot more work to be done by going through the GOP.

Post reply on HN