I’ve been wanting to write about the Presidential candidates’ stand on science for a while now. In some cases it’s pretty clear: under Huckabee, for example, there’s little doubt that after a few weeks we’d be longing for the devastation wrought by Bush. For others, like Obama, it’s not as clear. He once said he wanted to take NASA’s money and give it to education (not understanding what NASA does for education), but he seems to have relented somewhat on that.
It’s now a wee bit easier to see what’s what, because Physics Today has a site with links to the Presidential candidates’ thoughts on science.
However, after looking through it, I don’t think their pages are all that reliable, since they depend on what the candidates have said in press releases, and not what they’ve said and done on the actual campaign trail. For example, on evolution, it just quotes what Huckabee said in an interview:
“If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that….I believe there was a creative process.”
Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the public schools and he doesn’t expect schools to teach creationism.
“We shouldn’t indoctrinate kids in school,” he said. “I wouldn’t want them teaching creationism as if it’s the only thing that they should teach.”
However, in 2004, Huckabee was a bit clearer about this:
But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution.
Huckabee is scary dangerous. He repeats the really bad creationist talking point about fact and theory like it makes any sense at all… but at least his position, to rational people, is crystal clear. I think it’s remiss of the Physics Today folks, whom I generally highly respect, to leave such an important topic so badly incomplete. A little digging would have been very helpful here.
As we have seen repeatedly, what candidates say and what they do are, in general, vastly different things. Relying simply on their press releases to gauge their stand on science is at best hopelessly naive, and at worst very dangerous.
Over the next week or two I will look into this issue more. With Romney and Huckabee it’s pretty clear. Of all the candidates, as far as I know, only Clinton has made a clear stand on science, and was clear about evolution, too:
“I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview. “I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason.”
“I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.
Evolution is not the be-all and end-all of science, of course, but these days it’s a pretty good canary-in-the-mineshaft for it.
McCain is at best hazy, having said after that one infamous Republican debate — where three out of ten candidates humiliated the US by showing that they didn’t think evolution was true — that evolution is supported by science, but that we should "expose students to other theories". Thing is, there are no other theories. There’s evolution, and there’s fantasy. So I’m not so thrilled with McCain either.
Mind you, the President does have influence here. The President can appoint judges, for example, and can influence Congress. And (s)he can set the national direction on many issues.
I’m not so naive myself as to be a one-issue voter, at least, not on this one issue. The past seven years have pushed this country to the thin hairy edge of disaster, and in many cases well beyond that edge. You will have your own opinions on the war, on the economy, on warrentless wiretapping, on torture, on purging attorney generals, on outing covert agents, and so on. Go ahead and vote your conscience on those. But on this blog I tend to lean heavily (though obviously not exclusively) on science. As I find out more, I’ll post more.
We’re coming down to the wire here, folks, and I am not being hyperbolic when I say the very future of our nation hangs on the balance here. Please, do due diligence on this. Find the information that concerns you, and vote accordingly. If science is that important to you, then by all means, let it guide you as well.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Thanx for the post.
I’d also like to find out more about Barack’s science policy. I read some months ago that he would double funding in certain research areas.
Maybe the BA could do a post on the candidate’s space and astronomy policy (if any).
Also, I think it’s just as important to find out where the candidates stand on evidence based policy decisions. Will Barack and Hillary make an effort to base their policy on the best possible science and evidence?
What about their policies on scientific freedom and independence from political control?
Who’s best for the environment? I haven’t heard much about the environment as an issue in the debates. Are Barack and Hillary committed to doing something real about global warming?
(I don’t care about the Republican candidates. If they can’t even admit that the war was a colossal mistake based on multiple lies then they obviously aren’t using evidence to form any of their conclusions.)
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I’ve got my own ideas - one of which is the I’m sure unpopular free secondary education. If it wasn’t seen as elitist it might be more acceptable to work towards and have a degree.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
What’s more important is whether or not the president will allow his personal beliefs to influence national policy. Mind you, noone is void of bias. However, the Constitution does a fantastic job of making it pretty clear how those biases should be considered. In short, they SHOULD NOT.
So, in a nutshell, I don’t care if the President believes that monkeys fly out of his/her butt and into pink space bubbles. So long as they don’t try to make it national policy or use my tax dollars to fund research into the existence of those monkeys, I honestly don’t give a damn.
Thankfully, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about science other than the government should just butt-out. I think that would be a fantastic way to erase the last few decades of Jesus-creep that we’ve seen make it’s way through this country.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Thanks, Phil! Keep us posted on Obama’s stand especially.
Rich in Charlottesville.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
sr2:
I would -hope- the government wouldn’t just “butt out” and not continue funding various of my favorite enterprises, like NASA & the NSF, and would start funding stem-cell research.
Rich, still in Charlottesville
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Sorry to be pedantic, pat, but university/college is tertiery education, not secondary. Secondary is high school.
*sigh* Australia used to have free university, but then the conservative baby boomers who got their finance and law degrees for free in the seventies decided in the 90s that only rich kids deserve a university education. My first year of uni was the first year of partial fees, and its crept further and further in the fifteen years since.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I’m all for hearing your opinion and in approval of using this blog as a source from which to glean information on this particular topic. In the blogosphere as a whole, this is an “A1″ site for this type of info (since you seem willing to dig
). I was a Richardson dude and anyone who’s actually looked at his resume may be disappointed in his towel-throwing. But, after W (and after finally understanding the mathematics involved), one thing I am not, any longer, is a third-party promoter. That means I have to choose between….ummm…..
Funny how the environment so quickly fell of the public’s radar. That proves that the best candidate must take on the role of educator. (One of my biggest complaint’s about W was his lack of relating to any public not in the ultra-con choir or over the age of 5).
@sr2-
well, how does your candidate stand on the monkey bubble issue?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Summed it up early this year…
glad to hear that BO has relented a bit on NASA. Worth reading when you have time… and I’ll look for your post.
Science in ‘08. Logic for VPOTUS.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Hypocrisy runs the same for both sides, I see, when most ask, “Why creationists can’t / won’t consider any other theories?”, when you say in your post…”There’s evolution, and then there’s fantasy”, how ‘elitistly’ one-sided on your part! (It’s okay, as long as ‘YOUR’ view, is the ONLY reasonable explanation !)
I always wonder why the scientific community, which ‘problem-solves’ through process of elimination and considers ALL ideas or hypothesis’, in coming to the best conclusion/answer for a problem, will, to-a-tee, never, ever consider a faith/religious based connotation, as a clue to solving something…what drives this ‘fear’?…You might as well be a modern day version of the ancient Pacific Islanders, who shun all outside ideas or practices, because it conflicts with the world they know !
And kudos to yet another futile exercise, in trying to elevate another political election, into something relevant…(RE:The very future of our nation hangs on the balance here), How many times has that been said this past century, and NOTHING changes : The same idiots get elected, and the other bunch of idiots (from the opposite Party), just try to sabotage/negate any actions being taken, so as to cause a stalemate, (on everything), until the next election cycle, “so they can get their chance to get in there”…Then we start this all over again, and NOTHING gets done !!!…Don’t even get started on deficits or budgets, etc. (when have these EVER affected your day-in, day-out lives, in the real world !), you just vote for the guy who’ll hurt you least ! Nothing scientific, just common sense, get a grip !
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
philipjfry, it is not elitist to stop investigating avenues which have proven to be dead-ends. There is nothing new under the religious sun (setting aside the modern micro-religions, most of which hew to some strand of pre-existing theology anyway). A math teacher who tells a student they are wrong if they sum three and two to get six (given some basic axioms about properties of transforms) is not behooved to instead investigate diligently whether 2+3=6 has value to the class. The student is wrong, not excluded
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
philipjfry, you seem to be confused on what exactly the goal of scientific discovery is and quite frankly seem to have the entire situation reversed. Scientists do not try to make everything fit into a precomposed world view of the Universe, we leave that to religion. The goal of science is to shatter everything we “assuredly” know. The reason science doesn’t give ideas like Creationism any weight is because they themselves have none. The moment there is even a trickle of evidence to support creationism, you will see it studied and researched vigorously, just like any other idea. But the fact currently remains that, by its own definition, religion is impossible to prove, so in the world of science it is thrown out the window.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
[…] is a fan of Clay’s catchphrase)“, (2) the elusive English gender neutral pronoun “s(he)“, (3) the historically qualitatively quantitative “(In those days, getting a few […]
February 4th, 2008 at 12:06 am
So I take it, Phil Plait, you’lll be voting for Huckabee then?
(JOKING!!!)
February 4th, 2008 at 12:10 am
What’s the phrase “Canary in the Mineshaft” mean?
February 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Regarding the BA’s comments on McCain :
“McCain is at best hazy, having said after that one infamous Republican debate … that evolution is supported by science, but that we should “expose students to other theories”. Thing is, there are no other theories. There’s evolution, and there’s fantasy. So I’m not so thrilled with McCain either.”
I think that depends how we look at this.
If by “other theories” we mean non-Darwinian theories like :
* Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ &
* Fred Hoyle’s & Wickramasinghe’s (spelling?) ‘panspermia’
& even - just perhaps - historically comparing Lamark & Darwin’s versions .. (Which I did in high school if memory serves.)
Then I have no problem with it or McCain’s view.
I’d even have no problem with teaching creationism-ID if it is done briefly as a “Why this isn’t science” debunking excercise.
If McCain means the whole “Teach the controversy” and put ID-Creationism up as a “viable alternative” though - definitely NOT as that’s a very different matter!
From what I’m gathering (perhaps wrongly) in the Aussie media McCain is now a virtual certainty for Republican nomination anyhow.
Which is far preferable than Huckabee or Romney IMHON. As for my preferred choice, I’ve got to say either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be top of my preference vote - okay, I’m an Aussie but crikey, we (& Britain & so much else of the Western world) are effectively subject states of the USA now ..
Reckon the laws should be changed to give us and other nations dominated by the US a vote in their elections? I do!
If you want to rule the world (”Full spectrum dominance” & current policies show this is clearly true) & if you claim to respect democracy - as you say - then why not give all the peopel you rule (ie. planet Earth as a whole.) a democratic say in who governs them …?
Just a thought!
In my preference order of most desired to least desired US president :
1) Obama
2) Hillary
3) MCain
4) Romney
5) Huckabee
&
20000,000000 millionth) George II the mad Presiking you’ve got now!
My biggest hope for the future : the USA learns its lessons from its invasions of Iraq, Vietnam & tehBay of Pigs (among others) & finally, unequivocally, decide to STOP INVADING OTHER NATIONS & start being a good co-operative constructive global citizen!
Whoever becomes President I frankly don’t like the chances of that happening ..
Incidentally, I _do_ love much about America and Americans - just NOT their foreign policy. In this I think about 90% of the planet is with me.
—————————
All In My Humble Opinion Naturally (IMHON)
February 4th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Sam: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071126043106AAbSZbo
February 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am
#philipjfry
Beyond philosophy, a fundamental tenet of science is what you can infer. What does it allow you to predict? If you posit a deity, then prediction is out the window as either hubris or apostasy.
I’m not being flippant. The whole point of a theory in science is not to look for meaning but look for description. Early theories only grossly described what we see, because they had limited ability to predict. Our current understanding of physics, by contrast, describe rather precisely the motions of objects in space.
Since you can’t (or at least I can’t claim to) know the mind of God or in the DI words “an outside intelligence” it prevents you (or me) from making any positive predictions. A positive prediction is not what we won’t find, by the way. It is something akin to “mars will be at this position in our sky at this date and time.”
This is different from faith: faith tests the individual, not the other way around. Attempting to wedge faith into a predictable outcome negates its purpose: as a test for individuals without proof.
DI and AIG are in the unenviable position of being a pair of doubting Thomas’ attempting to corrupt the faith of others.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am
@phillipjfry-
So, you’re saying that a supernatural-based answer has been tested and the observed evidence fits the hypothesis? Why have you been hiding this from the world? It’s big news!
@Sam-
It means as a quick litmus for the issue as a whole, as a canary is for poison gas in a coal mine.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Just watched Obama’s speech and interview he did at Google back in November. Here are a couple of standout quotes I think you all will appreciate:
“I am a big believer in reason, and facts, and evidence, and science and feedback.”
“I want people in technology, I want innovators and engineers and scientists like yourselves, I want you helping us make policy based on facts, based on reason.”
Reading the quotes don’t do it justice. He was quite emphatic.
He also said he wants to double science funding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
February 4th, 2008 at 1:47 am
A few more Barack Obama science statement also from Physics Today:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/barack_obama/
His statements on science, as Phil noted taken from press releases more than quotes, lean toward applied sciences, technology and education. I’m an Obama fan but would vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I’m also an Edwards fan but he’s out of the running.
Obama is quoted by New Yorker Magazine’s David Remnick as stating on religion:
“Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.”
February 4th, 2008 at 1:53 am
I heard a few seconds of the most recent Republican debate, in which McCain said that we ought to be doing something about the environment and global warming. Some of us wonder why the right wing dislikes McCain, and perhaps it’s his tepid environmentalism as well as his opposition to torture and support of election reform. He’s just not crazy enough for them.
When I roll the cursor tomorrow and pause before clicking on Hillary or Barack, it doesn’t seem, today, that their approach to science will decide me.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:58 am
You can read Obama’s education policy from his site here (pdf file) He has repeatedly stressed math and science education with long-term goals. I support his education policy plans. He supports science R&D. Regarding NASA in that document:
NASA budget still has to go through Congress. I’m not too worried about his above position. He has also said positive things about space and space technology. So has Hillary - they’re campaigning.
You can read all of the pdf files of Obama’s plans here on his site. Environment, etc.
This site has also collected information on all the candidates, their views, and how they voted on major issues.
Well, that would be a change! Yes, it helps to listen to people.
There’s only one day left for 22 states to read up on the candidates. Thanks, BA, for reminding everybody.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Since I have “Live Bookmarked” your blog on Firefox, I saw this under the sub-menu
Did you know? Facebook edition
The Earth is Round!
Well, I thought, the BA had learnt something new.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Oh, I’m very sorry. That previous comment was supposed to be in “The Earth is round!” post.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Regarding the supernatural:
It isn’t quite the case, historically, that science has always excluded supernatural explanations. In the generation of Newton and Leibniz, Hooke and Leeuwenhoek, the line between the natural and the supernatural wasn’t clear. Chemistry was a mystery and biology was even beyond that, and the books they had contained centuries of testimony of miraculous events. Patiently they tested one assertion after another and teased fact from fancy, and never found any evidence of supernatural phenomena.
Newton supposed that God had to intervene from time to time to keep the planets in their orbits, but Laplace, who investigated the question in exquisite detail, said “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
Been there, done that. If there are any demons or angels around they seem to be very shy of skeptics. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I have studied science.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:16 am
@phillipjfry: Prove there’s an entity one could call a god or that the supernatural actually exists and we’ll talk. Until then it’s like saying that the socks that go missing between the time you take them off and the time you start matching socks are being stolen by leprechauns. After all, it is a legitimate theory, right?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:38 am
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 3:39 am
If by “other theories” we mean non-Darwinian theories like :
* Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ &
* Fred Hoyle’s & Wickramasinghe’s (spelling?) ‘panspermia’
& even - just perhaps - historically comparing Lamark & Darwin’s versions .. (Which I did in high school if memory serves.)
Punctuated equilibrium is about the speed of evolution (long stagnation punctuated by phases of rapid evolution), and it opposes the traditional view of gradual evolution, absolutely not the Darwinian evolution itself. Panspermia is a theory how life arrived on Earth (i.e. an alternative to Earth-based abiogenesis). Note that the theory of evolution does not explain how life began, but how it evolved though there was probably some non-biological “evolution” before the first true replicator.
Lamarckism was a pre-Darwinian theory of evolution that could be seen as a competitor of Darwinism. However, it is demonstrably false. There is no known organism that can change its genotype and copy it to its offspring.
So, none of these are alternatives to the Darwinian evolution.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Re: Lamarkism.
Computer viruses can do that. And when we finally obtain practical gene therapy and targeted delivery so will we.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:27 am
When I hear a candidate (especially a Republican) who is “hazy” on the issue, I usually assume that they agree with evolution but are engaged in a balancing act to keep the Republican base happy. Unfortunately, this probably means they will compromise on the issue most of the time.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:41 am
I’ve got my own ideas - one of which is the I’m sure unpopular free secondary education. If it wasn’t seen as elitist it might be more acceptable to work towards and have a degree.
I thought high school was free in the USA? I am guessing you meant post-secondary education.
The spectre of that gets raised here in Canada from time to time. Free university degrees for the taking. I am opposed to it for a number of reasons.
1. Not everyone needs to go to university. In fact, we NEED more people taking trades (electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc.) because the population of skilled tradesmen is aging and not being replaced. If society needs any engineering, it would be to convince people that your willy ISN’T bigger just because you have a university degree.
2. A lot of people take university degrees that set them up to have no realistic way to return the cost of tuition back to society. A BA and African Women’s Studies (or worse, general arts) might be chock full of interesting information, but what are you going to DO after university? People asking for free post-secondary education are asking for society to foot the bill… for what? Although the arts and humanities communities may disagree, I don’t believe we need to be funding people taking basketweaving degrees out of taxpayer dollars.
3. Not everyone is cut out for university, and we shouldn’t be encouraging people to go to university just to punch a ticket. People should be going to university to study in their chosen field because they have a direction in life… not because it’s free and mom/dad think you should go.
As it happens, in Canada and the US you actually can get a university degree for free. Join the military, and/or win scholarships are two ways right off the top. Both require a lot of hard work and it may well be easier to just work a normal job and pay for university… but you do have a choice.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Wow! I can’t believe (if the quote is right) that Huckabee said Evolution is just a theory and not scientific fact! How utterly ridiculous!
Read a book people!!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 5:45 am
I got my university degree paid for by the military… I was a kid from a poor family. You do what you have to do.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Barack Obama. Well….
Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:12 am
In response to Christian Burnham’s question, I think Hillary has the best stance of any of the candidates in relation to global warming. Barack isn’t bad, but he tends to keep emphasizing “clean coal.” On the GOP side, McCain appears to take global warming seriously, but his proposed energy plan doesn’t deal with it very well. Fred Thompson, who has fortunately dropped out of the race, apparently didn’t believe in it, and used the stupid denier talking point about no SUVs on warming Mars in one of his speeches.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Fry writes:
[[I always wonder why the scientific community, which ‘problem-solves’ through process of elimination and considers ALL ideas or hypothesis’, in coming to the best conclusion/answer for a problem, will, to-a-tee, never, ever consider a faith/religious based connotation, as a clue to solving something…]]
Because that’s how science is done. It originated with the natural philosophers of the Christian high middle ages, who were trying to get their students to stop saying something was true “because God wills it.” “You fools!” writes Nicholas Oresme to his students c. 1300 AD. “God can make a cow out of a tree, but has he ever done so? Therefore produce a reason why something is so, or cease to hold that it is so.” Science studies how nature works and how natural causes produce natural effects. It is not equipped to study the supernatural or miracles. It can’t say God exists or doesn’t exist, or was involved in creation or wasn’t involved in creation. That just isn’t the kind of thing science deals with.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Sam –
In premodern mining, bad air was detected by carrying a caged canary into the suspect part of the mine. Birds have a very high metabolism and much more easily have their respiration upset than mammals. So if the canary suddenly dropped unconscious, it was time for the human miners to pull out. In modern ecological studies, various species are sometimes said to be “the canary in the coal mine” for some important natural cycle. E.g. if the algae/plankton were to disappear from the sea, it would show that the whole ocean ecosystem was about to collapse, since the ocean trophic pyramid is based on algae/plankton.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:22 am
StevO — punctuated equilibrium IS a type of Darwinian theory. It’s still evolution by natural selection. It’s just a disagreement with the gradualists over the pace of evolution (long periods of stasis punctuated by brief episodes of speciation, or gradual speciation at roughly the same rate all the time). Evolutionary biologists are now trying to subject the debate to quantitative analysis, and the unit of evolutionary change (defined mathematically) is called the “darwin.”
February 4th, 2008 at 6:29 am
bad Jim writes:
[[Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I have studied science.]]
I wonder if Fritz Haber would agree with you. Or Werner von Heisenberg. Or Enrico Fermi.
Science is the best method we have for studying nature. It is not a guide for moral behavior and it doesn’t produce good people, just people who think a bit more clearly about natural phenomena. You can be scientifically educated and still be a crazy SOB or an idiot outside your field of study — think of Phillip Lenard, William Turner, William Shockley, Konrad Lorenz, William Hamilton, or even Richard Dawkins.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:47 am
I can still remember good old Harry Truman, and yet in all the years that have passed I have only been excited by one candidate other than Obama, and that was Eugene McCarthy (a poet!). I can easily imagine Obama and James Hansen sitting down to talk and Obama listening with eagerness to learn and grow, and able to change his mind if need be. And I never expect a candidate to be “perfect.” No one else is.
Now, just how bad is the teaching of math and science in this country? Ask around and see if “Visiting International Faculty” is operating in your school district, as it is here in many southern states since there is an incredible shortage of teachers. They are recruiting heavily in the Philippines, a county I know well and which would never be my first choice for recruiting teachers of math and science. I own several rentals that are occupied by these folks, and nice they may be, but when I see a Filipino math teacher with a “In God we trust” on his front bumper, I know that he is not the person I would want teaching my children. I think I will have to get a bumper sticker made: “In Euclid we trust.”
February 4th, 2008 at 7:35 am
#Evolving Squid
The line about “Not everybody is cut out for…” is part of what I’m talking about. It would appear that to make it work, you would insist that everyone with a degree have a job. That’s not how it works, really. Having a degree is not an entitlement to have a good job; it’s a benchmark that says you’ve had more exposure to academia, and it is part of the cure for magical thinking.
I don’t believe that there is a body of knowledge that people should not aspire to. Nor do I believe that a degree sentences you to not be able to work a trade. If anything, it makes a tradesman more aware of what is going on.
Example: I’ve got a basic degree, and was therefore an officer. I worked with enlisted folks, most of whom did not have a degree. After catching one smoking five feet from an open fifty-five gallon drum of diesel used for cleaning tools in an asphalt laying operation in 115 degree Fahrenheit heat in the desert, I was told by her there was no danger because the ignition temperature of liquid diesel is higher than the burning temperature of the cigarette.
She’d been exposed to trade knowledge. My rudimentary knowledge of chemistry told me that the flash point of the vapors coming off of that liquid was probably much lower (the smell was really strong), and I told her to humor a dummy and just stay away from smoking near the open container. By the way, diesel’s flash point for the vapor is 125 degrees - much lower than the burning temperature of a cigarette.
Education would have prevented that situation, and would probably prevent quite a few more accidents as well as reduce predation by charlatans. Not stop, mind you, but it might work to make folks more skeptical.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am
While I agree that the presidential candidates’ views on science are very important, I also believe we need to look very closely at their domestic agendas. For example (btw, I am an Independent, so please do not refer to me a “Neocon” or some such nonsense), I read with interest an article about a statement made by Hillary Clinton over the weekend. The article starts, “Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance in order to achieve coverage for all Americans.”
I don’t know about you, but this scares me. If I don’t want to buy health insurance, I don’t want the government garnishing my wages, no matter what the national health plan might be. This is the kind of rash comment that makes me believe Hillary is not the right choice for the country.
So, we need to view the candidates on all of their views, keeping in mind that science is just one facet.
- Mikel
February 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
To MO Man…
Tell you what, I don’t blame you for disliking that bumper sticker. I think the Fillipino math teacher should take it off their car. Oh, yeah, and while you’re at it, why not just send me all that filthy money you have with that same stupid motto on it. I’m sure you don’t want that, either.
- Mikel
February 4th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I agree,
Due to the fact that we have had 8 years of the USA becoming a joke around the world, and getting further and further from the reality of nature and the ‘real world’. I HAVE to vote on just one issue this time. I wish I didn’t have to, I wish I could pay attention to more ‘normal’ issues. But this has become the election of ‘one’ issue for me.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Here we have a blog that encourages skepticism and yet Mikel reads one article about Hillary and accepts it at face value? A good tactic is to read, wait a few days for the rebuttals (if any), and in general wait for the bear to shake out of the tree. Jumping to the conclusion that a story is true just because you read it somewhere could even make you vulnerable to believing things you heard on Fox! And do notice the choice of the word “garnish.” Isn’t that already being done in one sense when Social Security is taken from your check, so is this just another case of “phrasing?”
February 4th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I don’t believe that there is a body of knowledge that people should not aspire to. Nor do I believe that a degree sentences you to not be able to work a trade. If anything, it makes a tradesman more aware of what is going on.
I totally agree with those statements. But I don’t see how Bob’s quest for knowledge is a problem that requires my paying for it. Hell, in Canada, post-secondary education is ALREADY subsidized about 60% compared to the USA, and that’s not good enough for some people.
It’s not a matter of “get a degree, be guaranteed a job”. It is a matter of “taxpayers invest money, taxpayers expect something in return.” No country needs thousands of educated burger flippers, or professional students sucking from the taxpayer tit to get free educations in fields that have no realistic chance of returning on the investment.
I’d much rather spend the money helping people make decisions about where they want to go in life and get them on the right track early than spend the money putting some yahoos through university because it’s free and allows them to avoid getting a job for 4+ years.
I worked with enlisted folks, most of whom did not have a degree.
Yes, I was an officer as well in a different situation… in the Communications branch, some of the enlisted technicians had university degrees in science and engineering - even postgraduate degrees. But they just liked working with radios or radar or whatever. Good on ‘em!
Education would have prevented that situation, and would probably prevent quite a few more accidents as well as reduce predation by charlatans. Not stop, mind you, but it might work to make folks more skeptical.
You don’t need a university education to learn not to smoke around inflammables. You especially don’t need that university education paid for by taxpayers.
The free university people seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere, and the people who pay that money will want a say in how it’s spent. I would reasonably expect that if it should ever occur in Canada or the USA that free undergrad degrees are offered, the degrees would very likely be limited to science and engineering only since that is where the greatest demand for knowledge is. People favouring the humanities will be up in arms, but are always hard-pressed to justify the value to society of yet-another-English-major.
and it is part of the cure for magical thinking.
Sadly, millions of university educated religious people prove that statement manifestly false. Although I agree that it *SHOULD* be true, it doesn’t seem to be in practice.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I’m sorry, but when the very first word in an article is a grammar error - the possessive “President’s” instead of the plural “Presidents” - I immediately lose respect for that publication and the content of the article.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Here is a very useful site from Popular Mechanics:
Geek the Vote
February 4th, 2008 at 8:57 am
@Evolvingsquid
There is of course a cost. But there currently is a cost as well. In the US, our litigious culture means that every time somebody does something that is preventable, it is assumed they are too ignorant or uneducated to know better. They then are paid a large sum.
I do not expect education to make everything glorious overnight; but if it made that person aware that their small amount of knowledge was not the whole picture, that’s different. It’s not that she didn’t know not to smoke around inflammables; it was that she was given a statement from an authority and did not have the applied knowledge to properly evaluate that statement. Yes, don’t smoke around inflammables. But according to her and her expert knowledge, liquid diesel was not inflammable.
You see the disconnect? Not making that leap to “well, what’s the ignition temperature of the vapor?”
How much money could be saved if people knew better, I don’t know and could not put a dollar figure on. I don’t like the idea that some people can’t learn, or that a degree is something to be wielded socially like a club. I’d rather a degree be ho-hum, and that people be encouraged to get education rather than derided for not having it.
Part of it is what I believe Carlos Mencia stated once: expectation. If we don’t set high expectations people will not have anything to reach for. Old anthropology texts and even current ones point out that minority disparities in testing occur around age 12, and I believe this is because at that age students learn what is expected of them in terms of achievement. If we push the twin ideas that some folks just aren’t meant for college and that tradesmen don’t need educations, we continue to propagate both educational elitism as well as resentment towards the disparity.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:03 am
As an external observer, the one thing that annoys me about the democrat campaign is this:
“Do we vote for the chick or the black (Oh sorry, afro american.) guy?”
I remember an article on cnn.com that stated that black women were really in big trouble now! Who would they pick? Their race or their gender?! Ouh! The big decision!
I’m sorry, I thought that we were more advanced than that as a race by now. I’m sick and tired of hearing people chose on the SKIN COLOR and GENDER. I thought what was important was the temper, the ideas, the stature, the potential as a leader? Girl, boy, indian, chinese, white, why does it even matter?
We had such a thing here. I remember our provincial government boasting half their ministers were women. I don’t CARE they are women. I hope they took these women because they were capable people, not because they had a vagina and they wanted to look socially advanced. Such a blank debate.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“With Romney and Huckabee it’s pretty clear.”
When you bring to light the ignorance of Huckabee’s comments and then make that statement you imply that Romney shares them. Is this indeed the case? I have not heard what he has to say on the subject.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I do not expect education to make everything glorious overnight; but if it made that person aware that their small amount of knowledge was not the whole picture, that’s different. It’s not that she didn’t know not to smoke around inflammables; it was that she was given a statement from an authority and did not have the applied knowledge to properly evaluate that statement. Yes, don’t smoke around inflammables. But according to her and her expert knowledge, liquid diesel was not inflammable.
But you’re making a false dilemma. There’s no guarantee that a university education would have helped her situation either. University educated people do stupid things too.
Proper work-related WHMIS training WOULD have helped in that situation - but you don’t need to go to university for that.
In the US, our litigious culture means that every time somebody does something that is preventable, it is assumed they are too ignorant or uneducated to know better. They then are paid a large sum.
That situation is repairable simply by passing “reasonable man” legislation - a law that says that if, in the opinion of the court, a reasonable man would have found a situation to be silly (like putting a hot coffee in your lap) the suit is dismissed (i.e. you can’t sue McDonalds for making hot coffee) with costs awarded to the defendant. So the onus in the McDonalds/coffee thing would be on the defendant to prove that it is reasonable to put a cup of hot coffee in your lap while driving as opposed to the in-vehicle cup holders. Good luck with that…
That allows people with reasonable claims to sue, and weeds the idiots out of the system.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Evolving Squid writes:
[[and it is part of the cure for magical thinking.
…
Sadly, millions of university educated religious people prove that statement manifestly false.]]
Squid, do you understand what the psychological term “magical thinking” actually means? To equate religious faith with “magical thinking,” besides being offensive, is bad science. Anyone who gets annoyed with a vending machine may be experiencing magical thinking. Do you have any proof, any proof at all, that the thought processes of theists involve more “magical thinking” than the thought processes of atheists? I mean a double-blind, peer-reviewed study. If not, what is your justification for making such a remark? Just prejudice?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Michelle, repeat after me:
Democratic campaign
Democratic campaign
Democratic campaign
“Democrat campaign” or “Democrat Party” or “Democrat candidate” is a pejorative invented by the GOP. Do you call the GOP the “Republic party?”
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
If not, what is your justification for making such a remark?
Religion is unequivocally magical thinking.
Getting annoyed at a vending machine may be magical thinking, but is probably just frustration.
Thus, millions of university educated religious people do, in fact, prove that a university education is not a cure for magical thinking (the original statement being discussed). In fact, I’ll go farther and agree with you that the fact that atheists graduate university and still believe in luck, etc. further supports that conclusion.
QED.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Barton: Gimme a break, I’m canadian.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Then why don’t you tell me what the difference is between praying for rain and wearing your lucky shirt to a sporting event.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
To equate religious faith with “magical thinking,” besides being offensive, is bad science.
I was going to let this drop, but I think it’s important to the overall topic at hand, especially in light of the general beliefs of US presidential candidates.
Barton: What part of religious faith is not magical thinking?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Re: Lamarkism.
Computer viruses can do that. And when we finally obtain practical gene therapy and targeted delivery so will we.
I wouldn’t count computer viruses as organisms.
Sure, I didn’t say that Lamarckism couldn’t work in theory. I encounter Lamarckism on daily basis on my work with evolutionary algorithms in mathematical optimization. A true Lamarckian organism might easily be fitter than a Darwinian organism. It is just that Lamarckism apparently doesn’t exist in nature.
I got my university degree paid for by the military… I was a kid from a poor family. You do what you have to do.
You could fix your education system. It is outright stupid that only people who can pay (or who are ready endanger their lives for vain) are eligible to the higher levels of education. In a tax-based system like ours those all of those who are bright enough to pass entrance examinations are eligible to study for an academic degree without a tuition. System like yours tend to increase the rift between rich and poor which really does not benefit anyone. Sure, in a welfare state people must bear heavier taxation, but on the other hand richer people too benefit from much more secure society.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Chip: I’m also an Edwards fan but he’s out of the running.
Edwards made his money with junk science lawsuits. He should be at the absolute bottom of any skeptic’s list.
Did he ever shut up with that tiresome mill worker story?
Michelle: I’m sorry, I thought that we were more advanced than that as a race by now.
What ever led you to that conclusion? All empirical evidence points in the opposite direction.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:52 am
It is outright stupid that only people who can pay (or who are ready endanger their lives for vain) are eligible to the higher levels of education. In a tax-based system like ours those all of those who are bright enough to pass entrance examinations are eligible to study for an academic degree without a tuition.
I’d be willing to accept that with three provisions:
1. The entrance standards are increased much higher than they are now; and
2. The types of degrees paid for by the state are based on requirements derived from things like the census (i.e. they pay for degrees where we are short people… like medical degrees, for example).
3. You must work for a number of years after graduation equal to what was paid for in the country that paid for it. So if Canada gives you a 4-year degree, you must produce records for 4 years of employment in Canada.
The former reduces the wastage due to people who just want to go to university as a dodge.
The latter two help ensure a return on the invested taxpayer dollar.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:54 am
To MO Man…
Give me a break. More than one news source quoted Hillary. She is the one who said it, so it’s not a matter of believing or not believing.
Look, Hillary says stupid things. Obama says stupid things. McCain says stupid things. So do Romney and Huckabee. They can’t help it - they’re politicians.
It’s just that some things are more stupid than others, and using the word “garnish” is definitely stupid.
And, oh yeah, when can I expect you to send me the money?
- Mikel
February 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“What ever led you to that conclusion? All empirical evidence points in the opposite direction.”
I know I know… I guess I’m just so fed up I imagine things. I still feel like slapping some skulls when I hear it.
It’s an insult to everybody.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“In Euclid we trust”? No! In Riemann we trust!
Seriously, Evolving Squid: I have not made up my mind about free university education (yet), but I do not find your arguments very convincing:
1. “Not everyone needs to go to university. In fact, we NEED more people taking trades.”
I agree with that, but a free university education would in my mind also imply free vocational education, and all the rest. By making all education free, you remove the financial bias.
2. “A lot of people take university degrees that set them up to have no realistic way to return the cost of tuition back to society.”
This seems reasonable, but the problem is that it is very hard to quantify this. A BA in African Women’s Studies may not have a direct economical benefit, but it is not worthless (and you do not imply this, either). Exactly what this “worth” consists of is the question, and the next question is whether it is worth paying for. I think the jury is still out on this one.
3. “Not everyone is cut out for university, and we shouldn’t be encouraging people to go to university just to punch a ticket.”
I agree, but I do not see this as an argument against free education. Most people who are not cut out for university have no desire to go to university (epecially if other educational routes are free as well). And even if they do go to university (e.g., due to parents’ pressure), it is easy (and reasonable) to kick them out after the first year if it doesn’t work out.
In general, every government of a democracy wants a reasonably well-educated population, because it is economically beneficial. At the same time, a well-educated population is a real pain in the back-side for any such government, because it means it is harder to mislead the public. This means that we always have to push our governments to improve the general standards of education.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Exactly what this “worth” consists of is the question, and the next question is whether it is worth paying for. I think the jury is still out on this one.
It’s a huge issue and one that requires great planning. If we pay for scientists and engineers now, where will we be in 40 years when the humanities have suffered and we have nobody left who understands anything but math and science.
Taxpayers, however, expect to see results and a program without obvious short-term results is going to be first in line for the axe at budget time. You need not look at free education to see this, just check out the NASA budget, or Canada’s general budgets for research.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
@Kullat -
Well, it’s not really as black and white as the statement “only people who can pay are eligible to the higher levels of education”. Although the statement is TECHNICALLY true in that you must pay for higher education, your insinuation is that you must be WEALTHY. And as has been pointed out here on a few occasions, this is patently false.
I know this to be true because I am a perfect example. My family was exteremly poor… inner city projects was my upbringing. I went to a free public High School (although it was a highly regarded Latin School), and worked my tail off to earn scholarships and grants. My degree was paid for up front through my own hard work.
However, that being said, State funded Universities do offer an excellent education at a much lower cost than a Private University. Often times you must take out loans for the education, but most of my frinds, just as poor as I was, were all able to attain a University degree, despite their humble origins.
I don’t know for a fact that this would be the case with a “free” higher education system, but it has been my experience with most “free” social systems: You get what you pay for, and often times free = limited. I’d rather pay money, or take out loans that go towards furthering an acedemic institution’s capabilities and receive a higher level of education than see my choices of higher education dwindle under a “free” system.
This is really just my opinion and of course I’m more than willing to have my mind changed, as always… but I’d be more likely to support a “subsidization” than I would be a totally “free” system.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I should also like to note that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of Science magazine and general promoters of science in the US) has a site up comparing candidates: http://election2008.aaas.org/. They covered the major candidates a few weeks ago in Science. On the Democratic side, they liked both Hillary and Obama. Hillary’s stances have been more overtly pro-science, but they also note that Obama has shown in the Senate that he pays attention to experts (including scientists) before deciding on his policies.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I remember an article on cnn.com that stated that black women were really in big trouble now! Who would they pick? Their race or their gender?! Ouh! The big decision!
This is something that bothers me about the electoral process in general.
It shouldn’t matter if the candidate is black, or green, or a cephalopod. It shouldn’t matter if the candidate is male or female.
People should be voting because of the candidate’s stand and the stand of the party that candidate represents. To vote for someone because their skin is a particular colour or because they do or do not have a willy is *-ist to the highest degree.
Although I believe it is a civic duty to vote, I have to admit, I kind of wish people who use selection criteria like “woman” or “black” would just stay home and leave the choice to people who have taken the time to think about it.
——
Ok, it should matter if the candidate is a cephalopod because that would be a good thing. Can change its colour to blue on social issues, and red on economic issues. Arms and tentacles can do multiple things at once. When a cephalopod puts up a screen of ink to distract attention from a real issue, it’s obvious and there’s not avoiding it. No more elephants and donkeys… Cthulhu and Kraken instead. And let’s be honest here… Deep down, we’d all like to see Bin Laden eaten by a squid.
“Vote Cephalopod… How much worse can it be?”
February 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
@Evolving_Squid
President Squidward? My daughter would be ecstatic!
February 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Ron Paul
Yes i’m aware that he’s pandered a bit on the Evolution issue, but no more than all the others pander about science issues/cutting Nasa to fund “stuff on earth”. But he’s by far the best canidate. I agree with the guy on 70%+, and thats more than i can say for any other currently in the race.
If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I’m hopeful Ron Paul will consider a third party run necessary. His name recognition is low still but polling shows he already has enough to garner him the 15% needed to get into the debates, which could lead to an awakening in the American public on the failure of Keynesian economics, perpetual war spending, corporatism, and the bias two party monopoly that perpetuates all levels of our current “democratic” political system.
None of us here really want the Bush LEGACY to continue: Preemptive War, Patriot Act, Suspension of Habeas Corpus, Military Commissions Act, No Child left Behind, Homeland Security Department, More regulation of the health care industry, over 5000 troops killed in two middle eastern countries, warantless wiretaps, no enforcement against the invasion of our souther border, no control over entitlements, and contributing $6 Trillion dollars to the national debt.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
It’s always funny/sad to watch religion vs. science debates. It almost always results in nothing but straw man arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) being thrown from both sides.
In my view, science mostly asks the “how?” questions and religion mostly asks the “why?” questions. Religion assumes that there is more to life than what’s traditionally observable. If you don’t agree with that, that’s fine. But to turn around and insist that anyone who holds any kind of religious belief must be delusional is not only egotistical but naive as well. The same goes for those who insist that others who do not have religious beliefs are somehow inferior or not as ‘enlightened.’
Science and religion have, or at least should have, the same goal–the pursuit of truth. Whenever I see, or see others describing, a conflict between religion and science it falls under one of three categories:
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science
Given the many advancements in science over the past century and the incredibly diverse and often contradictory religious spectrum, I tend to see mostly #1 or #2. As a religious person who loves science, I think that it is just as important to know what your religion is as it is to know what your religion is not. Too many of these debates stem from religious or non-religious individuals trying to stretch religion or science beyond their intended uses and making invalid inferences.
On a personal level, I derive just as much joy out of religious matters as I do learning more about science. Why? Because both true religion and true science involve the discovery of truth, something which is fundamentally joyful to experience.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Yikes… Ron Paul?
we’ve discussed him pretty thoroughly on this board and I’ve got to say… sorry… he scares the bejebus out of me as much as Huckabee…
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/12/26/just-in-case-you-thought-ron-paul-wasnt-so-bad/
February 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
On the flip side a continuation of the Bush legacy will probably lead to increased emigration from the USA. Canada has a declining birth rate and the only solution that people see is increasing the number of people to support our social programs.
A big influx of people from the US would stave of the inevitable for a generation
At least until the US invades to take our water and other natural resources.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
It’s always funny/sad to watch religion vs. science debates. It almost always results in nothing but straw man arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) being thrown from both sides.
In my view, science mostly asks the “how?” questions and religion mostly asks the “why?” questions. Religion assumes that there is more to life than what’s traditionally observable. If you don’t agree with that, that’s fine. But to turn around and insist that anyone who holds any kind of religious belief must be delusional is not only egotistical but naive as well. The same goes for those who insist that others who do not have religious beliefs are somehow inferior or not as ‘enlightened.’
Science and religion have, or at least should have, the same goal–the pursuit of truth. Whenever I see, or see others describing, a conflict between religion and science it falls under one of three categories:
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science
Given the many advancements in science over the past century and the incredibly diverse and often contradictory religious spectrum, I tend to see mostly #1 or #2. As a religious person who loves science, I think that it is just as important to know what your religion is as it is to know what your religion is not. Too many of these debates stem from religious or non-religious individuals trying to stretch religion or science beyond their intended uses and making invalid inferences.
On a personal level, I derive just as much joy out of religious matters as I do learning more about science. Why? Because both true religion and true science involve the discovery of truth, something which is fundamentally joyful to experience.
Sorry if this comment is a dupe. It errored out the first time I submitted it.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:50 am
BA, you should take some sort of stand and try to give a good representation of the issues you think are important (it won’t alienate your intelligent readers, you’ve given enough opinions on this blog to make you a good sounding board).
February 4th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Quiet_Desperation - What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
One is a flaming Nazi gasbag but the other was a German airship.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science
Caleb: what differentiates false religion from true religion?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Andy Makon:
> Wow! I can’t believe (if the quote is right) that Huckabee said
> Evolution is just a theory and not scientific fact! How utterly
> ridiculous!
>
> Read a book people!!!!
I think he did. You can find a copy of it in many hotel room, thanks to the Gideons.
Perhaps what needs to be done is ask a direct question of everyone who says we should teach “other theories”:
In the phrase “theory of evolution”, what does the word “theory” mean?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Caleb Jones: I’m sorry I can’t see the logic in your arguments, or your points, but you left out an important factor, which is probably more important than you realize:
4. True religion vs. true science
That’s why most people argue about it. People who are religious enough to deny the testimony of the senses, and therefore science. They believe only what they’ve been told, not what they know from experience or understanding. They are trapped in a world of ignorance, and cannot be pulled out of there by any means, because of their unyelding belief.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Celtic_Evolutionon -
On Dr. Ron Paul:
Yeah, you’ve discussed him, and the fact that he made a few dismissive but still pandering statements on evolution sucks, but it’s NO WORST than Hillary or Obama pandering on Nasa and in Obama’s case, pandering on every issue. as Phil said, don’t be ONE ISSUE voters. But if you want to continue out of control entitlement spending, in the face of a 9 trillion dollar debt and a falling dollar, sure, vote for one of those two dems. And if you want to continue perpetual war on a conceptual noun, vote for John “100 years in Iraq” McCain.
If you want a constitutual canidate, who’s admittedly more extreme libertarian views will naturally be kept in check by the congress, vote for Dr. Paul. moderate libertarianism is what we need, and what we’ll get. (there are checks and ballances to keep an executive’s ideas in the mainstream, although you wouldn’t know it from the dictator we’ve had the past 7 years.)
Vote Ron Paul! Duh!
February 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
@Caleb_Jones
“In my view, science mostly asks the “how?” questions and religion mostly asks the “why?” questions.”
Not sure I agree with that. Science asks “How, when, why, where” and then chellenges you to prove it, or at least attempt to do so. Religion may ask the “why” questions, but it removes the “how” questions from the equation… and that’s where the problem lies for me. The how is as important as the why, in my opinion.
“Science and religion have, or at least should have, the same goal–the pursuit of truth. Whenever I see, or see others describing, a conflict between religion and science it falls under one of three categories:
1. False religion vs. false science
2. False religion vs. true science
3. True religion vs. false science”
I’ve heard this argued before… but I’m not sure I see that as true either.
First, define “true religion, false religion, true science, false science”. Can you do that objectively? That falls into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. And what, exactly, IS false science?
Second, I’m not sure I see where in religion the pursuit of truth as the ultimate goal… if that were true, religion would not ask one to “take it on faith”. Making that requests requires one to stop searching for truth once you come to the point where truth can not be found. Hence the whole “because God / the Bible says so” argument. There’s no “truth” to that statement that doesn’t require “faith” to accept it’s “truth”.
Although not religious myself, I don’t begrudge those who accept religion as a means for deriving a moral compas and way to teach love and compassion. I’m not sure religion is a REQUIREMENT to embrace those things, but I certainly understand why someone would want such a thing in their lives. My problem occurs when that religious belief gets in the way of critical thought and reasoning… and the statements made by the afore-mentioned candidates (Huckabee, Paul and Romney) lead me to believe that in fact that’s exactly what has happened with them. And to me that’s dangerous for a person in such a position of power and influence.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
The heck is a false religion? I mean, false science I know but I thought religion was unprovable.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
@Joel
My opinion of Paul is certainly not based on that one thread… it was merely an example… And I’m certainly not going to vote for him because he might be considered the “least looney of the loonies”. I don’t think I’m forced to consider that as my only option, thank you.
As an Independent registered voter, I hold no affiliation to either party (although I have to point out the in NY State where I live, I’m a “blank” voter… otherwise I might be confused as an “Idependance Party” member… which is WAY different than being independant.). My decision to narrow it down to Clinton or Obama is based purely on the fact, as has been pointed out here, that each seems willing to listen to reason and apply scientific principal and logic in their decision making processes.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
[…] Astronomy reviews the presidential candidates' views on science. Caltech astronomer Mike Brown assures us he's no fan of pseudo […]
February 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Celtic_Evolution:
I respect that you’ve distanced yourself from both parties, as I have. I have a serious problem with the status quo, as I’ve said, and the two party system that simplifies every issue into a black vs. white contest. I too view voting as more than “the least loony” or “least evil”.
But to say Obama and Clinton somehow apply a great amount of logic to issues? Let’s see: Democratic front-runners have championed for “change” when they are, also — in truth — champions of the status quo, which is a direction of insurmountable national debt.
How can we expect to maintain economic viability for future generations within a trend of runaway, exponential growth in spending, waste and corruption? Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations,
The Bush stimulus package is a joke. Basically the US Treasury takes a loan from China to send everyone $600, because we don’t have any money, and owe 9 trillion dollars in fact. Then they expect everyone to spend the $600 on Chinese made goods that bias trade deals like NAFTA make possible. And the Federal Reserve cuts the interest rate a full 1.25%, thus dramatically increasing the money supply, which is what led to this sub-prime mortgage crisis and rapid inflation in the first place!
Former Democrats switching parties to vote for Ron Paul are keenly aware of that reality and are also particularly attracted to Ron Paul’s stance against waging unconstitutional wars of aggression. While recognizing the real and actionable threat of radical zealots, Dr. Paul holds up a proverbial mirror to the illogical rationale and blatant hypocrisy of our current offensive foreign policy. In the recent South Carolina debate (in a statement edited out by Fox News in subsequent replays), Dr. Paul said the following:
“Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war; we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here?”
Obama and Clinton make clear their opposition to the Bush doctrine applies to Iraq, and that’s essentially it. They have no problem threatening Pakistan or policing the world in the way we’ve done for the past 50 years. They have no problem funding dictators.
What is going on here? Why does the U.S. maintain over 700 military bases in roughly two-thirds of the world’s nations? How can we expect to maintain the moral high ground if we are not keenly aware of and concerned about how that presence affects the indigenous population of those nations?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Well, first, to clarify, I didn’t say Clinton and Obama use a GREAT amount of logic. I said they seem to be willing to do so based on what I’ve read and heard. They are, however, politicians… and so to claim to know what is truly in their hearts would be naive of me… all I have to go on is the information available to me and the public record for each, and based on that… well, I’ve already said.
And as for Ron Paul, I agree that a sharp turn is needed from current policy on many issues, and some of what he has said on certain issues is, at face value, valid… but based on what some of his platform is built upon from what I have read and heard from him… I must respectfully disagree that he is the right person to lead the way…
February 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Don’t forget that Clinton purged EVERY attorney general at the beginning of his second term, not just six.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Pullquote from the New York Times illustrating Mitt Romney’s position on teaching evolution in the classroom.
[quote]
While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.
“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies
class.” [/quote]
Full statement found at this link: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/mitt_romney_on_teaching_evolut.html
What think ye?
February 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Re Barton Paul Levenson
“Do you call the GOP the “Republic party?”
No. I call it the Rethuglican party,.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
@Duane -
Well… Romney seems pretty wishy-washy on the whole subject… although it’s been pointed out that much of his political positions seem to be wishy-washy… here’s an article to that end as far as the evolution issue goes:
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/05/08/mitt-romneys-evolution/
Although he at least does seem smart enough not to commit the error of dismissing evolution altogether, he makes statements like “Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world.”
Hmmm….
February 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Romney also states, just prior to making his statement about not supporting the teaching of creationism / ID in public schools:
“I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”
Ugh… talk about playing both sides against the middle…
February 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I quit, my boss is a ghost hunter, and the presidential candidates hate science! I hear British Columbia is nice.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Re Magical thinking: magical thinking is what people use to resolve dilemmas that are otherwise to common experience nonsensical. Happenstance and chance, bad “luck” and misfortune, failure to function. Set up any of these scenarios and you’ll find people invent good luck charms (correlation equalling causation), rituals (see above) and explanations of malevolent beings or intent, or retribution or punishment(”That traffic sign changed on purpose!”, “It was Karma”).
People can take advantage of this by selling good luck charms or offering to change this nonexistant condition.
Theism is a combination of many things: tradition, moral systems, allegory, history, and some magical thinking. This doesn’t mean a non-theist is immune to any of these influences; any he has are not historically accepted.
The source of these for a theist is primarily an article of faith.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Well, you have Hillary invoking religious beliefs when she campaigns in the South; I doubt whatever beliefs she has (I doubt she’s either athiest or agnostic) will influence her policy decisions on science.
And I will say this as a religious person myself (full disclosure
): Jesus said it best when he made the “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” comment, and it sounds like Romney is trying to make the same distinction.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Once again, remember that at no point did Huckabee place people into scientific or educational positions in Arkansas based upon his or their personal beliefs. I can say this with absolute authority because I used to work with the Science & Technology Authority in determining science curriculum in the public classrooms. Huckabee placed some of the most competent people imaginable in those positions. It is because of those people that Arkansas will never face the situations seen in Kansas and Pennsylvania over the evolution debacle–and Huckabee signed off on it.
I don’t believe Huckabee is what’s best for the country, but blind accusations are unwarranted. Aren’t science-type nerdy people supposed to be skeptical? Check the fossil records of his political career sometime. (I swear, sometimes I think I’m the only one from Arkansas who reads this blog!) Huckabee created more growth in education and technology in my state than any governor in history. Bill Clinton could have, but his wife stepped on some toes in our education department. [More on that if anyone cares to hear it.]
I’m not writing because I think Huckabee’s great. He has a ton of skeletons in his closet that haven’t hit the big news networks yet. Those keep me from supporting him. But certainly not his record on education and scientific advancement.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Huckabee, or Obama, Romney or Clinton… as a member of “The Rest of the World ™” I feel obliged to state that it is frightening that someone who talks to invisible voices might (will) be placed in charge of one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world. It’s even more frightening that not only will this happen, but that millions of people think it’s the proper thing to do, even going as far to openly reject people who don’t talk to unseen voices.
Although I have to admit, I have much more confidence in the feeling that neither Clinton nor Obama will wake up and run around yelling that the unseen voice told them to nuke Iran or anyone else.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“I don’t begrudge those who accept religion as a means for deriving a moral compas and way to teach love and compassion.”
I’ve come to agree with Hitchens, that organized religion itself teaches and supports bad morals; that the only good morals taught, even when gleaned from religious-based sources, are secular in nature.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Evolving Squid posts:
[[Religion is unequivocally magical thinking.]]
Bzzzt! Wrong! Go back to square 1 and get an introductory comparative religions text, my molluscan friend. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
TheBlackCat posts:
[[Then why don’t you tell me what the difference is between praying for rain and wearing your lucky shirt to a sporting event.]]
The difference between a magical spell and a prayer is that the prayer is a request that can be turned down, whereas a spell (or a lucky shirt) is supposed to work every time. “Teach me the patience of unanswered prayer,” goes one hymn in my church.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Squid posts:
[[Barton: What part of religious faith is not magical thinking?]]
Let me turn the question around. What part of religious faith is magical thinking?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Joel posts:
[[If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I’m hopeful Ron Paul will consider a third party run necessary.]]
I hope so, too! I think Paul would pull a lot more voters out of the McCain column than the Hillary column, thus ensuring Democratic victory in ‘08! Run, Ron, Run!
February 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Okay. It’s true, prayers aren’t supposed to be answered all the time from what the big book says. But what proof do you have that your prayer being “answered” is not just random happening and is the work of God?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Squid writes:
[[Caleb: what differentiates false religion from true religion?]]
True religion corresponds to reality and false religion doesn’t. What differentiates false science from true science?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Celtic posts:
[[what, exactly, IS false science? ]]
The theories of Erich von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, Zechariah Sitchin, modern astrology, creationism, etc., etc., etc. I.e. things which try to present themselves as “science” but don’t follow the empirical method.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“True religion corresponds to reality and false religion doesn’t. What differentiates false science from true science”
If you ask me, there aren’t a lot of religions that correspond to reality… And quite frankly, it’s faith. You cannot decide which faith is more “reality like”, really.
What differentiates false science from true science is simple: false science is stuff like intelligent design - it’s debunkable extremely easily and yet the folks who think it is right won’t give up. True science is made out of hard facts that CAN be debunkable. and when it is, we go “okay.” and move on with the learning.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Michelle writes:
[[The heck is a false religion? I mean, false science I know but I thought religion was unprovable.]]
Yes, it’s a widespread misconception among atheists that all religions are of exactly equal validity, i.e., none. Of course even from an (intelligent) atheist point of view, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, since peoples’ religious views will have real-world consequences. It’s kind of like thinking that all fiction is of equal value, so Beetle Bailey is exactly as meaningful as War and Peace or the Iliad, and Battlefield Earth is just as good a film as 2001: A Space Odyssey. (They’ve both got spaceships!)