I like the idea in theory. Not sure it'd be as easy to pull off as he suggests. I do know that having people running for the President of the US who are scientific illiterates and intentionally ignorant is embarrassing. (This guy is Darwin's great-grandson.)
The libs would prefer to debate via the motion picture medium... Then tell you that the debate is over.
because al gore is running for president. aren't you the one who's always telling us gwb isn't running, i'm sure the repubs would love to run against the internet inventor.
can we also have a presidential debate on relativity vs. quantum physics while we're at it? seems to me we need to elect a president who will be smart enough to invest more money in quantum based research.
Might be good for the entertainment value. But really, candidates will play to the profile of their base and their performances will only serve to reinforce the choices of their supporters. People who don't believe in evolution already have a candidate who supposedly doesn't believe in it either; global warming deniers already have their candidate; and so on. It seems like the author thinks that candidates who don't believe what he believes will be exposed as ignorant. But, they won't; they reflect the beliefs of the voters of the country.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROlCPlnCIfo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROlCPlnCIfo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
As a future scientist, I really don't care much what the candidates think of science as long as they increase funding for the NSF, NASA, and other research funding agencies.
I just want to know exactly how they'll solicit and use advice from the scientific community. e.g. Does Professor Science Fiction author get a seat at the table? Professor Limbaugh? Or real scientists. But otherwise agree with JuanV: this would just be for entertainment only. There is no part of politics that makes people scientifically savvy. Okay, Carter was pretty savvy, but look what happened to him. (shiver)
I think this is a horrendously bad idea, as it would additionally further the idea that 'absolute scientific truth' can be determined by politics and debates; that if you debate well you can decree the shape reality. Depoliticize science.
I don't think a debate is a good idea but I would prefer Q&A-like format. Kinda like Jeopardy on Science. At least then we can assess how much candidates know about science and techonology which I think is very important in policy making these days.
don't most presidents have, you know, science officers for that? Do you think Captain Kirk knew that much about science?!?!
There really is not much to debate. Maybe they should pass a science proficiency test instead. You do not need to be a scientist to run the country well, but a basic understanding of science is a must in this day and age.
Well, you can ask some basic questions. I think presidents need to know at least the basics. Otherwise, how can they assess their science officers are any good. It is just like a CEO. It is better for him to know a bit about finance. Otherwise, he can be duped by his CFO
I think the writer is shocked, as well as many other scientists, on the blatantly destructive lengths this admin has gone in affecting our national science policies. The EPA, Forest and Wildlife service, USGA, and of course, stem cell research funding have all been meddled with under the guise of sound science. Too bad it's a misguided proposal as other members have mentioned.
Al Gore had to go the docudrama route because the facts simply were not persuasive enough to facilitate legislation through conventional means (debate). So he resorted to gross exaggerations and hyperbole in the form of a movie. In lawyer-speak, the prejudicial value of his movie FAR outweighed the probative value. Basically, he tried to scare everyone into believing him. Half the country that voted for him was sympathetic to his cause, and the liberal media was sympathetic to his cause, and in combination they tried to create an aura of inevitability w.r.t. his global warming fantasy. Someone needs to come forward and denounce this base, vile, intellectually dishonest method of scientific advancement before he gives the entire field a bad name.
National Press is ignorant about things scientific. Presidential candidates are ignorant about things scientific. Average Americans are ignorant about things scientific. How can this go well?
No, no, and NO. The last thing we need in this country is something that makes politicizing science the status quo. Politicians will pander to anything for votes, including outright malarky. And how many stupid-ass people will think candidate X's bull**** is reasonable despite any and all evidence to the contrary? Gag.
