Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Politics and Science
I am a physicist who taught graduate courses and did fundamental research for almost 40 years. This also included 2 Summers as a NASA research fellow. After reading some of the statements by our esteemed Congressmen, I have decided that we need a law that requires everyone who runs for Congress to have at least a basic course in Physical Science, to include Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Geology. Tell me what you think. Many if those statements can be found on Politifact.com and in the following link http://www.livescience.com/22640-politicians-science-wrong.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good topic. Totally agree, Doc.
ReplyDeleteHere's a gem from the comment section.
ReplyDeleteScott Jones
Plants don't want too much, just like people can't survive in pure oxygen environments. The atmosphere is about 90% nitrogen...and I'm not Googling, I just like science.
Who can get "science" right when even dudes that like science don't know anything?
I like the idea, but am not convinced it would help anything. Remember when Bill Frist weighed in on the Terri Schiavo case? Our allegiance to whatever particular ideology and philosophy we believe in prevents us from addressing the world as it is rather than how we believe it should be.
ReplyDeleteNo one has the monopoly on science. The comment section full of people proclaiming whether or not this or that is "good science". I've grown to hate that phrase. Its like they are using some abstract idea to claim their point of view is superior with nothing materially foundational to support it. I mean, in most cases they wouldn't understand even if there were.
ReplyDeleteSure, politicians are dumb (otherwise they would have real jobs) but should there be a law made? Who will set the minimums? Does Jeff Immelt know as much as his phD who generate the patents? Or is he just (ostensibly) good at making decisions from R &D?
The Santorum one shows where the writer is. You just knew he had to work in climate change. Oh wait..Obama declared the debate is over because his "scientist" said so. He and Gore are so serious they plan a 500 gabillion carbon footprint world tour to show everybody.
You don't have be dumb to reject science or to reject common sense for that matter. Plenty of very intelligent people smoke cigarettes and engage in other quite risky behaviors. I wouldn't call Santorum a stupid man, but I do think he is a man who would be willing to ignore something that disagreed with his faith.There are plenty in Washington with that problem. For as much as I truly disliked a guy like Jesse Helms, I can give him some credit that at the end of his career, he could still hold his bitter anti gay views while supporting a serious ramping up of funding to help slow the spread of HIV.
DeleteSantorum said plants need CO2. That's according to the write up. How does his faith reflect on that?
DeleteAfter calling him "an avid climate denier", the writer goes on about how some plants may over dose on CO2 citing some 1985 study. I have so many questions but the first would be what dose and how high would the atmosphere have to be for that dose to be realized.
But hey, what's that got to do with climate change to the author or Christianity to you?
Sorry, you were hyper focusing on a very specific point and I made a general statement that wasn't at all related to the point you were making.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOk sorry. I'm just hyper sensitive regarding faith and sometimes perceive attacks that might not be intended.
DeleteI try to be more direct when I want to attack someone's faith lol. I would never vote for Santorum, but compared to most who wear their faith on their sleeve in the Republican party, I consider him oddly genuine. What you see is what you get with him. It might be interesting sometime to actually have a some kind of thread on faith or separation of church and state.
DeleteFWIW, I think my views on faith in politics are pretty simple because they are the same as my views on faith in any situation, which is that faith should be a personal matter. At the legislative level, it's one thing to be personally guided by religious teachings, but it's another thing entirely to say I"m going to vote for or against something because God or the bible told me to. I similarly have no patience for those who believe that Christianity should be conspicuously present in our political process. There's a thin line between living a faith based life and attempting to make the world adhere to your views. The opposite of this, of course, is true for those get hypersensitive to ANY mention of God who want those in government to not utter a peep about their faith, AKA, the alleged liberal perspective.
Yeah, perhaps sometime we will have that thread. But suffice it to say, everything operates IAW what you would consider faith based directives along with all the consequences that come with it.
DeleteBut yeah, vote how you please and I will too. I have never casted a vote for Santorum though. But his faith is not the reason.
Agreed, the term "good science" implies there is such a thing as bad science, but bad science isn't science at all.
DeleteAny decent high school provides at least three out of four of the courses stated by Mick. Or at least they used to.
ReplyDeleteA couple of the people mentioned in the article lost their elections. Another one served in the senate before losing his seat. People that say stupid things don't usually don't hang around very long, except when their asinine views are covered up by the media. But we all know which side benefits from coverups, and which side is crucified for misspelling potato.
Just one note Mick. If you support climate change as a settled science
,,,,,well,,,
"But we all know which side benefits from coverups, and which side is crucified for misspelling potato."
DeleteStop whining. There is not a political figure from either party today who can say stupid shit without having it get thrown in their face. There are millions of people in this country with nothing better to do than show up with a camera phone and record someone saying stupid shit so they can run to the internet and post it.
The shelf life of Obama misspelling rspect was about two days. Quail lived with potatoe for years.
DeleteI don't really give two shits because I understand the game. When I watch the man on the street interviews I understand the shallow nature of our primary and secondary education system. I understand that polar bears really do drink Coca Cola and can't survive because ice chunks are separating.
"I don't really give two shits because I understand the game.
DeleteBut you do give two shits because you are still defending the honor of the great and under appreciated Dan Quail. There is, however, a developing shallowness to our education system, hence the useless quote about polar bears and Coca Cola®. A person like yourself should have more respect for trademarks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm not defending anything Max. I'm simply pointing out the bias in the crony based media.
DeleteRemember when Obama cried about someone mentioning his big ears?
DeleteA lot more will remember Quayle's potatoe.
That's William's quite valid point. If Obama has a fraction of what GW got, he'd have already been impeachment.
Meh, the media thing got old to me a long time ago. J. Danforth's unfortunate potato incident will be remembered for a long time because he was so adamant in proclaiming it. In the section of the internet and media world that represents only right leaning though, there is no end to ripping on on Obama. This crony based media that you both refer to is a nonsensical red herring. Fox news has a ginormous audience, as does the right leaning talk radio, as does the right leaning blogosphere. And person, left or right, can immerse themselves in nothing but "news" that agrees with their outlook 24 hours a day while still bitching about how there is no coverage of what is important to them. By phone or home computer, nearly everyone in America has access to information and they can choose to be informed by whatever source they want. If you are going to whine that the vicious left only media doesn't show the right respect, all I can say is grow the F up. I don't read HuffPo and half the time I roll my eyes at the stuff that comes out of DailyCoz.
DeleteObama's greatness is 100% media contrived.
DeleteHe's an empty suit not fit for a school board but for the media that has made him into this god - like cult of personality
Climate change is happening, it always has, and always will. The bone of contention is whether human activity is a primary cause.
Deletehttp://ricochet.com/13-ridiculous-predictions-made-earth-day-1970/
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should have a law that requires "scientists" to take annual refresher scientific method training.
And here we go shooting right down the drain of complete stupidity. Ridiculous as those assertions sound now, the reality is that we have made efforts to have more efficient cars that pollute less. We've made advances in vaccines and improved our delivery of them and have made dents in some diseases although, because we have people on the left who also reject science, we have a movement to not vaccinate our children despite overwhelming evidence it works. Several things on that list have been addressed and IMO, have had their severity reduced. But, I get the main point, since nothing was 100% accurate, everything said was bullshit. Boy that makes life simple.
DeleteYou have trouble with conflation.
DeleteTo the extent you defend, it seems whether or not something is backed by science is inconsequential to having an agenda met. If "science" can help, use it.
It is the exact reason this whole thread is poop.
I'm really not sure I understand your second para. To believe anything, we need some kind of basis, so there isn't a person who comes here who isn't going to use SOMETHING to bolster their argument and I don't have any issue with that. I can freely admit that there is a lot of back and forth between scientists on this matter that I don't fully understand, which is why I don't get into these pissing matches about who is 100% right or 100% wrong.
DeleteI can take a rational argument in lieu of science, but, a blanket statement that everything environmental is bullshit if one piece of science doesn't add up is not rational argument to me. It's a matter of degree. I think that too much of what happens in our legislative process is driven by ideology rather than an acknowledgment of what is staring us in the face. I'm not a socialist, but the reality is that we have programs today that are indeed socialist like SS and medicare and despite their faults, they do some good. More, people don't want them to go away, but instead of finding ways to make them work better, we are looking for ways to end them because they don't square with an ideology. This is extremist to me.
Jimbo, people who call themselves "Futurists" are not scientists. I remember when Popular Science magazine predicted that we would all have our own personal helicopters by 1960 and cars would be obsolete. I once tried to explain quantum mechanics to a self proclaimed futurist, it was a waste of time. Anyone who claims to predict the future is a charlatan or a fool, maybe both.
DeleteI can't argue that, Mick. But people on that list are credentialed as from a position of authority.
DeleteIf a Harvard Biologist talks, you better listen or you'll be labeled a "denier" or worse.
"I'm really not sure I understand your second para"
DeleteIt has to do with the fact that a lot of what is called "science" is just the method used to "prove" an ideology.
Ex: Obama made the list (you know, for unbiased fairness) via a softball regarding vaccines. The study he used was both 100% real in that it exists and 100% fraudulent in that it used selective data.
The motive of that study was not to see what the negative effects of vaccines are, but to "prove" they were there for some other reason.
Climate change falls directly in this same catagory. Motive? I could list a bunch. But anyone who supports the idea that man's action can affect it must, necessarily, adhere to all the thing Bill Gates said during his TED presentation.
Billions and billions have to go. So either get on board and ride the full train, or resist your own elimination. I know it sounds like hyperbole, but that's the real math.
It does sound a bit hyperbolic. I guess my point is this, I don't have to agree with someone to be able to work with them on a common goal. I want to see less pollution in the world and more respect for the planet and I can maintain my integrity working with others I may not entirely agree with.
DeleteNo argument though on the use of science, or the use of snippets of philosophy to achieve the same end. The words of Adam Smith are constantly cherry-picked as are the words of Marx as are the words of Christ's teachings in the bible. Some people use philosophy or science as an adjunct to their point, others simply wave the science or the philosophy in other people's face. I try to be on the side of the former rather than the latter. One of the bet jabs I ever heard was when Howard Dean mentioned in a debate that he had the support of the congressional black caucus, to which Al Sharpton replied, "You only need a cosigner when your credit is bad"
Ok. Now we're gaining some common ground.
DeleteWhat we need to work on now is "pollution"
Rumpled once said that he wanted "pristine water". Don't we all, but wth is it?
You guys know (I think) that I work in the environmental Dept for a major steel company at a major plant. 4+ million tons per year. I see the rubber meeting the road...daily.
If the standard of pristine is that it exactly matches the conditions of say 400 years ago and you live a first world life driving a car, then you're a hypocrite. Not a judgement, but a fact.
Man, I don't really want to write a big open ended comment, but I will tell you we deal with the state extensively. And the Feds rarely. The last time the Feds came was right before Lisa Jackson left and they wanted to redo our permit just for giggles. Our NPDES which was originally issued in 1995 was 53 pages. That's Clinton BTW. Last year these clowns sent the new one which was 234 pages. It's still in dispute, but one of the changes was that key employees had to be licensed to the "A" level while before they were only required "D". The sane exact employees who has done the same exact job will now be required to upgrade 3 levels of state licensing. Much much more, but that one was remarkably dumb.
It's a good thing the Feds are lazy and incompetent, or they'd have put everyone out of business already.
Where's Hank Johnson saying Guam would tip over?
ReplyDeleteIt was rhetorical. The answer is Hank is brown and therefore protected. He and his would never make a list like this despite clearly earning a spot.