Why Scientists Should Have a Greater Voice On Global Security 167
Lasrick writes "Physicist Lawrence Krauss has a great piece in the NY Times today about the lack of influence scientists wield on global security issues, to the world's detriment. He writes, 'To our great peril, the scientific community has had little success in recent years influencing policy on global security. Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II. The problems scientists confront today are actually much harder than they were at the dawn of the nuclear age, and their successes more heartily earned. This is why it is so distressing that even Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world’s most famous living scientist, gets more attention for his views on space aliens than his views on nuclear weapons. Scientists' voices are crucial in the debates over the global challenges of climate change, nuclear proliferation and the potential creation of new and deadly pathogens. But unlike in the past, their voices aren't being heard.'"
Because government no longer listens ... (Score:5, Insightful)
An increasing number of politicans will only listen to the scienticians if what they're saying supports the conclusions they've already arrived at.
They're not interested in facts, just their own ideology.
Re:Because government no longer listens ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with science and scientists is that they are money losing ventures. Scientists are not rich, they talk in very complicated manners, and do not come to conclusions! Scientists know the world is complex and all problems are complex and solved in a piecemeal manner.
Its much easier to say, "And I am here to tell you 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2013/jan/08/alex-jones-pro-gun-tirade-piers-morgan-video [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y [youtube.com]
There is nothing factual about this. Nothing of value, but gee it sure sounds good and makes a good impression. This is what American society and many other societies have degraded to. So yeah no politician wants to listen to a scientist because this is what a scientist sounds like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anfbjiShjP8 [youtube.com]
Compare the Youtube count, 6 million vs 100K. Yeah people are interested in facts!!!
Re:Because government no longer listens ... (Score:2)
What about this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs [youtube.com]
Shapiro's position isn't that much different from Jones in certain ways, yet you'd be hard pressed to argue there's no factual information or one of value. Just the opposite: Shapiro's arguments are informed and well-reasoned.
Just because a message is simple does not mean it's wrong, as your post implies.
Re:Because government no longer listens ... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not interested in facts, just their own ideology.
Criticizing politicians for having an ideology is absurd. Political questions are not like engineering questions - 'how much should we spend on bridges' is not at all the same category of question as 'estimate the ultimate load-bearing capacity of this bridge'. Political issues require consideration of things like the underlying values of society, legitimacy of decision-making and economic priorities, none of which have a single 'right' or even an 'approximately right' answer. Stephen Hawking is not a nuclear weapons specialist (although I dare say he knows more than 99% of the population) so why should his views on nuclear weapons be particularly important given that many of the questions involved are about fairness, desire for security and economic constraints? When deciding whether Truman's decision to drop the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was appropriate, how useful is it to understand the technical difference between the two types of bombs used?
Of course, many politicians ignore the facts on subjects like Global Climate Change, and that can't be approved of. But I also groan when I read scientific experts move from explaining the facts about a subject to advocacy of their preferred course of action without differentiating the statements.
Re:Because government no longer listens ... (Score:3, Informative)
Criticizing politicians for having an ideology is absurd.
The criticism is when they ignore evidence against their particular ideology.
Political questions are not like engineering questions - 'how much should we spend on bridges' is not at all the same category of question as 'estimate the ultimate load-bearing capacity of this bridge'.
Although there certainly are decisions that cannot be made objectively, your example is not one of them. We can certainly do cost-benefit analyses to decide whether building a bridge somewhere is worth the amount of money that will be spent building it.
Sometimes it is subjective. For example, most of us are not anarchists and believe that the government should establish certain laws, even though every law is a restriction on your freedom. We do, however, disagree on where that line is between order and safety and freedom. This is purely ideological. However, even if you lean towards sacrificing more freedom for increased safety, we can empirically determine whether a piece of legislation would actually make people safer or not, whereas right now we don't bother with that.
Re:Because government no longer listens ... (Score:2)
Criticizing politicians for having an ideology is absurd.
The criticism is when they ignore evidence against their particular ideology.
Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics and invented a Cosmological Constant simply because he didn't like the way things were shaping up. The fact that he eventually called it his biggest mistake doesn't mean that he didn't, at one point, use more of a "feeling" about how things should work out to influence his calculations.
Of course, amusingly, there are many mentions of a Cosmological Constant in today's cosmology, so maybe he wasn't as wrong as he thought, but he sure as heck didn't get there from the solid thinking that you want to assume that all scientists must use. He didn't even really use that with his science.
Now, I am not trying to undercut Einstein, or scientists, but they can suffer from their own conceptions as much as anyone else. Politics may well be able to reducible to certain concepts, but there's enough of the concepts to render the exercise non-trivial. Science discovers what is there to discover, and desired outcomes are not given value. Politics is about the application of power to achieve desired outcomes.
Re:Because government no longer listens ... (Score:2)
Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics and invented a Cosmological Constant simply because he didn't like the way things were shaping up.
I agree with your point 100%. I'm not saying scientists are immune to this problem. They're human. I'm also not saying that you need to be a scientist in order to make good decisions. I'm saying that people should, whether they're scientists or not, learn to take a more evidence-based approach in their decision-making process, especially when it comes to politicians.
The fact that he eventually called it his biggest mistake doesn't mean that he didn't, at one point, use more of a "feeling" about how things should work out to influence his calculations.
No, it doesn't. Einstein was human, after all. However, when Einstein was shown evidence that the universe was expanding, his reaction was to say he made a mistake and to remove the cosmological constant from the equations. On the other hand, Christopher Columbus kept insisting he reached Asia to the day he died, despite all the evidence that it was a new continent. Some people will just completely disregard any evidence that goes against their beliefs. It's not about being a scientist or not, and there are scientists who will dogmatically cling to their biases, but we point at scientists because at least they have a culture of testing their hypotheses through observation and replication of experiments.
Scientists on slashdot (Score:3)
An increasing number of politicans will only listen to the scienticians if what they're saying supports the conclusions they've already arrived at.
They're not interested in facts, just their own ideology.
It's not just politicians, it's everywhere - even on Slashdot.
If you look at the gun control debate and only consider the evidence, the answer is obvious. It's been obvious for a long time - there was an article in Scientific American decades ago which explained the evidence and statistics. The conclusion hasn't changed since then.
And yet, people go back and forth on this very website arguing storylines instead of facts. Both sides continuously cite heartfelt stories in an attempt to sway others that what they believe is correct. The statistics are there, there's some attempt to mislead the debate by framing the numbers in specific ways, but overall it's clear-cut.
Being a scientist means you make evidence-based decisions. I may not like the decisions, and it may feel wrong to me, but at the end of the day I know that basing decisions on evidence is the most likely path to success.
If you don't form your beliefs based on evidence in the gun debate, why bother using evidence at all? If you can believe stories over evidence, then vaccinations cause autism, cell phones cause cancer, a little inflation is good, and a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat an apple from a magic tree.
There are cases where we don't have enough information, and "best guess" and "expert opinion" can probably serve; however, many times the evidence is overwhelming and the path is clear.
We would all do well to stop talking "pathos" [wikipedia.org] in our posts and concentrate on facts.
That's what we should be doing, really: keep the debate focused on evidence. When there's a clear indication from evidence, don't let the other side wander off into storyland.
(I chose gun control as an emotionally-charged topic that's fresh in people's minds. I claim the point is valid for many issues discussed on Slashdot.)
Re:Scientists on slashdot (Score:2)
there was an article in Scientific American decades ago which explained the evidence and statistics
Citation please? And I don't ask that because I doubt you, I ask that because I'd be curious to read it, and any followups that have been done since.
I'd like to, but... (Score:2)
While writing the post I googled the article, but can't find it. The current debate on gun control is flooding the search results right now, even for something as specific as Scientific American.
On further reflection, I decided to say nothing as to which side was the "right" side of this issue. I'm trying to make a larger point, and the actual debate is secondary. Also, I'm hoping that this will encourage people to post evidence that I'm unaware of. (I clam that the evidence is clear on this issue, but I might be wrong.)
I can remember reading the article in my youth, it had clear conclusions. It's less relevant today than more modern statistics.
Sorry for the omission, it was somewhat on purpose.
I applaud the attitude. Verifying assumptions and otherwise scientific thinking are what we need most.
Re:Scientists on slashdot (Score:2)
My best guess is environmental lead poisoning and its reduction following the banning of tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive; its specific form of brain damage tends to lead to anger management and impulse control problems later in life. The evidence is fairly compelling, but I didn't specialize in neurology.
Re:Because government no longer listens ... (Score:2)
Indeed. This is the road to hell though.
There is nothing stopping anyone... (Score:2)
Re:doublethink away precise definitions (Score:2)
+1
3 problems (Score:5, Insightful)
To much politics in science today to trust them with decisions.
There is a lot of junk out there being passed off as science.
Many scientists are available for sale to the highest bidder.
This has caused a loss of trust in the scientific community by the general public and the leadership.
Re:3 problems (Score:5, Insightful)
- Science is too political to be trusted with decisions, leave it to those who are entirely political
- The signal-to-noise ratio, while significantly higher than current political rhetoric, is less than one.
- Not every scientist can be bought.
FTFY.
Okay, snark aside, at a time when Congress ranks below cockroaches [publicpolicypolling.com] are you truly suggesting this wouldn't improve the situation? Your points are, in a sense, all valid, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. An improvement is just that, and need not be perfection.
Re:3 problems (Score:2)
Re:3 problems (Score:3)
If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:4, Interesting)
- "hackers" would be called "tireless researchers"
- finding security flaws would be called "peer-review"
- there would be a lot more 14-year-olds leading new scientific advances
and...
- people who put their own self-interests aside to disseminate paywalled scientific research for the betterment of humankind would be labeled "heros," and be awarded posthumous honors
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:3, Funny)
--
Necessity is the mother of invention. Greed is the mother of patents.
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:2)
Look, seriously. If scientists ran the world and occupied political positions of power, if we got rid of marketing departments and corporate communications, then what jobs would be left for stupid people?
fry cook? scientist need to eat, construction worker? some one has to build the building around the partial collider, janator, bogon^^^^^ office workers, and most important of all farm hand on coffee plantations. that is of course until they are all replaced by robots or in the case of office workers macros and scripts.
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Necessity is the mother of invention. Greed is the mother of patents.
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:2)
That seems terribly optimistic. Most likely every kindergarden teacher in the world would write their own "see spot run" textbook and charge the little runts $90 per copy (which is OK, because Kindergarten tuition even at the dumpiest schools would rise to $50K/yr) and release a new book edition every semester just to crater the resale market.
I will say I enjoyed one prof who seemed to delight in running right along the razor edge of "fair use" by basically copying a page or two out of hundreds of different books to give us what amounted to a looseleaf textbook, for a class where in his opinion there existed no good textbook and he was too busy to write/edit one. It was an upper level EE type class in a rather obscure subject (well, at that time anyway)
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:3)
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:3)
LOL if science was in charge of global security:
If you want to join .mil, basic training in .mil would be about four to six years long, you'd have to pay $50K and all expenses to .mil for your first 4 years, afterward for a couple years they might (or might not) provide you room and board while you're basically a drill instructor to the new recruits, then if they like your work, and most importantly if you're lucky, about 1/4 to 1/2 of you would get hired to become Generals, of which maybe 1/2 would get tenure and $1M/yr jobs and everyone else who didn't make it would have to quit the whole subject and become freelance computer programmers or bums or whatever. And no one would get more than $20K/yr except a couple elite tenured Generals at the top none of whom would make less than $100K/yr (actually kind of sounds like the corporate view of the ideal future)
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:2)
there would be a lot more 14-year-olds leading new scientific advances
But their professors would take all the credit.
Re:If Scientists Ran Global Security... (Score:2)
What was that old quote? "I'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard."
Scientists promote Godless ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
--
Necessity is the mother of invention. Greed is the mother of patents.
A quote (Score:5, Informative)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
-- Isaac Asimov
Re:A quote (Score:2)
Re:A quote (Score:2)
The term 'Intellectual' is now merely a label appropriated by folks with an agenda. Oppose the cock-eyed plans of self-labeled 'intellectuals', and you get called an 'anti-intellectual'- despite the lack of intellectual basis for the agenda at hand.
In the abstract, Asimov was correct. In the real world, the term 'intellectual' is just another plaything for partisan politics.
Re:A quote (Score:2)
No, the term intellectual is only a label to people who lack the education and understanding to know what an intellectual is.
You can tell the difference between the two very easily. One use facts and research to back up what they are saying. The other ones manipulate facts to say something that fits in with their agenda, but if you put any small amount of scrutiny on them, the facts just don't hold up.
The anti-intellectual movement are the people who don't trust you because you have a higher education. Because you have researched more on a certain subject, you are not to be trusted. It is ridiculous but that is where the country is at.
Re:A quote (Score:2)
Do you propose that the term 'intellectual' could never be appropriated in a manner contrary to your definition, for partisan ends?
Or, somewhat more generously,do you propose the term would never be used by folks who mistake their dorm-room bullshit sessions, which lack a foundation in relevant real-world experience, for 'intellectualism' ?
Re:A quote (Score:2)
Or you mean, people who know nothing about the second amendment try to use it to defend their right to own any type of weapon they want.
Or the idea that when people are shot, there should be more guns in that situation.
Or that we need guns to protect ourselves from the NWO.
Sorry, I am on the side of the people who use the term "clip" incorrectly over people ranting that the government is out to take their guns.
Re:A quote (Score:2)
Gun owners have a year to liquidate their property, probably because they figured that was the best they could get away with. On the subject of evidence, I submit mine that you're wrong about the government (of a certain state). Inductive reasoning is risky, but I can see why someone in their position would be worried as of today.
A Question of Fields (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been a long time since anyone existed who could only call himself (or herself) a "scientist." The term is now a generic way to refer to people whose actual work is in any of a staggering number of highly specialized fields. There is some acknowledgment of this in TFA, which states (correctly) that many of today's greatest scientific minds don't work directly in the fields related to the things that affect our security. To use the article's own example, Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist: he doesn't work on nuclear weapons.
But for a given question, what grounds are there to privilege the viewpoints of those whose expertise is not in a field of direct relevance to that question? On questions concerning nuclear weapons, for example, why should Stephen Hawking's viewpoint be held as equivalent to a nuclear physicist's viewpoint? For that matter, why should his viewpoint be held as superior to the viewpoint of anyone else who is not a nuclear physicist?
Re:A Question of Fields (Score:2)
Stephen Hawking has shown himself to be capable of weighing evidence and making good conclusions in at least one field. A politician on the other hand has only shown himself to be good at shmoozing.
Re:A Question of Fields (Score:2)
Certainly on nuclear physics topics, I'd probably tend to listen to the nuclear physicist over Stephen Hawking...
But why should I listen to either Stephen Hawking or Dr Krauss or any other nuclear physicist on questions regarding nuclear weapons? How does being knowledgeable about the physics make him an expert on non-physics topics?
Re:A Question of Fields (Score:4, Insightful)
But for a given question, what grounds are there to privilege the viewpoints of those whose expertise is not in a field of direct relevance to that question?
The capacity to apply critical thinking? Which probably leads to conclusion of "I don't know enough" - if the scientist attempting this is outside the area of expertise required - but nevertheless will show what other things need to be known to reach a conclusion.
BTW, critical thinking is something that most of the politicians don't show/use in their exercise.
Re:A Question of Fields (Score:2)
You don't understand what a scientist is because there are still plenty out there and you don't need a degree.
To be a scientist, you need to conduct your research using the scientific method. Your research should be validated through peer review. If you research stands up, then it stands up. So that case, Hawking's viewpoint will be equivalent or better from a nuclear physicist because his research has passed peer review.
Re:A Question of Fields (Score:2)
Re:A Question of Fields (Score:2)
I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or arguing against me?
Re:A Question of Fields (Score:2)
poorly paraphrasing almost the same idea
There's no time for reason... (Score:2)
Re:There's no time for reason... (Score:2)
And there you have it.
Scientists do not pay politicians. (Above or under the table)
Crooked people do.
So why should a politician listen to a scientist for free?
Re:There's no time for reason... (Score:2)
The ultimate reason for even caring about security for politicians/lobbyists/etc is money, specially short term one. For most problems the approach is either deny them or try to make profit enforcing measures for the non-lobbyist ones.
I wonder when the politicians campaigns will be honest and put as catchphrase "after us, the deluge"
Well, not these scientists (Score:2, Insightful)
The BAS is the perfect example that scientific knowledge doesn't translate to political insight. They've been crying wolf for 60 years, and are now surprised why nobody is listening to them anymore? If science really has lost influence, it's because of people like these guys who hide behind science and call everyone 'anti-science' who disagrees with them.
Re:Well, not these scientists (Score:2)
The danger does not decrease simply because it hasn't happened yet, just as the odds of rolling a '1' next round are not affected by the four '20's you just rolled.
Re:Well, not these scientists (Score:3)
But nuclear warfare isn't random, it's not like Putin and the President throws a dice every day to decide whether or not to launch. The chance in this case came from lack of knowledge, which over time has disappeared. By your analogy, after rolling 20s for decades, it's safe to say that the dice is loaded.
Re:Well, not these scientists (Score:2)
That assumes that international politics is a series of independent events, which simply is not the case (though in some ways it might be better if it were). History matters, for good and for ill, and a history of non-hostile relations does indeed decrease the danger.
More likely... (Score:2)
"Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II."
More likely it's because people finally figured out that being a scientist doesn't make you an authority on non-scientific topics. (Not to mention that the golden era he laments, like all such golden eras, never really existed.)
Re:More likely... (Score:2)
Not to mention that the golden era he laments, like all such golden eras, never really existed
Sure about that? I'd think mass marketing advertising along the lines of "actor wears white lab coat, makes ridiculous claim in support of product" might poison the well a little bit.
Also some chicken and egg question about the ultra cheesey, terribly popular hollywood movie trope of "evil mad scientist".
Re:More likely... (Score:2)
That's material aimed at a mass audience (and is usually doctors, not scientists), which isn't the decision makers that Dr Krauss thinks should be ringing him up for advice on a regular basis.
Also, one would note that the stereotype of the "mad scientist" far predates the post WWII era he laments as being a golden age (even though it wasn't).
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In their fields (Score:2)
It's for scientists to convince the populace that nuclear proliferation is an issue worth bothering about.
Politicians who care about it are also making a lousy case. I distinctly remember one of the Bush-Kerry debates back in 2004, when as the final question the moderator asked each candidate what they thought the most important issue of the day was. Kerry responded with nuclear proliferation, and everyone looked at him like he had 3 heads or something.
That said, the way the world has been responding (or more exactly, not responding) to issues of global warming, I'm not sure how much longer nuclear proliferation will matter.
Re:In their fields (Score:2)
no, its highly intelligent.
The reactor in my "backyard" is owned by a company based 1000 miles away in an economic system with a proven track record of not caring about what happens beyond ned quarters numbers. They would kill me and my family in an instant if they thought it would improve their numbers. Currently, it would not, lucky me... so far.
The folks with fingers on the button truly have their bacon in the game, and so far none of them have been crazy enough to want to vaporize their entire family and country just because they're mad at us.
I'd trust a russian general a hell of a lot more than I'd trust an american CEO, any day. Trust does not equal blind obedience or worship... just means... trust.
The actual message: (Score:3)
The writer wants greater influence from scientists who agree with him.
I suspect that given the chance to have given Edward Teller or William Shockley greater influence on global security, he might decline.
On the other hand, he might have wanted more influence by someone like Linus Pauling.
All three mentioned were good scientists in their fields. So, the criterion becomes what their positions are rather than just that they are good scientists.
Scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time you create a process whereby people can acquire power, that process will be abused. Remember the fighting between Oppenheimer and Teller? It can get much, much worse than that.
If scientists have more power than average people, then everyone will rush to redefine themselves as scientists, like this guy [slashdot.org]. Instead of marketers, we'll have "social researchers." Instead of accountants we'll have "capital flow researchers." And I'm not going to stay out of the game, I'll definitely be a computer scientist, not a programmer. Soon the term "scientist" will lose its meaning.
If scientists want to affect policy in a democratic society, they need to get better at explaining. Albert Einstein reportedly said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." It may sound excessive, but remember that's what Feynman did with advanced theoretical physics. You can do it. Of course, in a democratic society, if everyone collectively wants to shoot themselves in the foot, there's not always much you can do about it.
Re:Scientists (Score:2)
What he's saying is that we have a cultural problem where domain experts are ignored (and non-experts in the domain get disproportionate attention), and one domain he's looking at in particular is the natural sciences
What he's saying is that scientists, in particular physicists, aren't being listened to about how to achieve peace in the world (ie, avoid nuclear proliferation). Physicists as a group are definitely not 'domain experts' in foreign policy.
Would we want scientists? (Score:2)
Given their hostility to religion, they would be the first to advocate blowing up Mecca and starting WW3.
Re:Would we want scientists? (Score:2)
Theist persecution complex ENGAGE!
I'm sure the anthropologists would be first to reach for the button.
Re:Would we want scientists? (Score:2)
You may want to investigate what the 9/11 terrorists studied in school before they hijacked those planes.
Source: New York Times, The Madrassa Myth [harvard.edu]
You are, I assume, referring to the infamous Bush position that federal money would not be used for stem cell research? Bush simply witheld federal dollars for stem cell recearch on new stem cells, he did not limit study on pre-exisiting stem cells, nor did he prevent any private funding of stem cell research.
In fact, George W. Bush was the first President to provide ANY federal funding for stem cell research. [archives.gov]
Re:Would we want scientists? (Score:2)
Really? You mean it was not scientists advocating "eugenics" who sterilized women, the mentally deficient, advocating the extermination of gays, Jews, and other "undesirable" groups? Last I checked, science is responsible for inventing nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, flamethrowers, and torture devices.
Blind Faith vs Science (Score:4, Interesting)
The major power structures, church and state, are formed around blind faith.
They know what is best and will do it for you. You just have to believe.
Science is based around inquiry and questioning what is going on.
To accept science you must be open to doubt.
The major power structures are based on doubt and questioning being a very very bad thing.
If we want science to go up we must become free of the current power structures.
Re:Blind Faith vs Science (Score:2)
Tough to do. You have the alpha sociopath running the show. They hold vast segments of the population in their thrall due to low information voters or the "free shit" legions. I've seen scientifically brilliant people be utterly undone by political ideology, both left and right. It's more than memes- it's a mind cancer. I don't see a way out of it all.
Re:Blind Faith vs Science (Score:2)
I completely agree. Yet for some reason I am guessing that you and I would both thing each other has "mind cancer" considering you think there are legions of "free shit" people.
What's to say on nukes? (Score:2)
Scientist: Nuclear weapons are bad, mmmkay?
World: Gosh. Thanks.
Science and politics (Score:3)
Science should have a greater voice on policy at all levels. Laws are intended to accomplish goals. They should be tested regularly to see if they accomplish those goals, and repealed if they do not. Evidence based legislation is a good idea for the same reasons evidence based medicine is.
Re:Science and politics (Score:2)
Restore science to it's rightful place (Score:5, Insightful)
Four years ago a candidate for President promised to "restore science to it's rightful place" [american.com] - why hasn't it happened? He got elected (and re-elected) to office on that pormise (among others)?
Re:Restore science to it's rightful place (Score:2)
Actually, Obama has done a lot for science and is a great supported of science. One of his science cabinet members came and spoke at my company and it really illustrated a lot of the funding and effort in to funding and supporting science.
I think you also don't understand politics if you think he can wave his hands and fix the problem. You would need Republicans to support the idea of science as well. And since they pander to a base that believes in zombie Jesus over climate change...just isn't going to happen any time soon.
politics and scientific riggor are antithetical. (Score:2)
The politicians, political leaders especially, all seek power to enforce their wills upon the world around them. Some may feel this is for the greater good, (religious theocratic leaders), others merely for self-fullfillment (ordinary dictators, and many elected officials.) A good many are somewhere between.
The scientist looks at the stark reality of the world around them, and work studiously to distance themselves from their own wants and desires for outcomes of experiments (eg, BIAS.) A real, proper, and riggorous scientist accepts hard data with a stoic air, and breathes easier as his bias gets swept away by review, leaving only objective truths behind.
The politician has "a vision" of how the world "should be".
The scientist tries to build a model of how the world actually is.
This is why the scientist is ignored studiously by the politician; the scientist harps on and on, and on about what is, while the politician seeks to change all that, and philosphically rejects harsh limits on what can be done. The politician often feels the current or natural state of things is something to OVERCOME, not something to respect and build into policy.
As such, the politician is only interested in what the scientist has to say in regards to methods of envoking change, looking for tools and weapons to use to produce the changes the politician feels are needed, to make the world match his own internal view of "ideal."
Chemistry and metalurgy give rise to internal combustion engines and industry, and chemical fertilizers. It isn't about the knowledge or truth, but about what you can extort out of nature by bending and breaking rules. That's all the politician cares about.
As such, the politician simply *does NOT* want to hear about how a policy he deems essential will cause all hell to come to breakfast. Like global warming and pollution; the scientists have predicted that heavy industrialism would result in a damaged and possibly unlivable climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The politicians simply would hear none of it. Industry was essential to their wish fullfillment, and the consequences were unwelcome distractions, treated as evil distractions and detractions from their glorious dreams of the ideal societies they would build through "progress." (With themselves, naturally, enshrined as heros and architects of that grand future they were the visionaries for.)
Short of a hostile takeover from the madmen of politics, awash in their selfish fantasies, I don't see science making a dent in the RDF those bastards create for themselves.
Re:politics and scientific riggor are antithetical (Score:2)
No, they are not antithetical at all. There is nothing stopping from a scientist who tries to build a model of the real world can't run for office and be a politician. There are certainly scientifically minded people in our government right now.
I think the issue is more that the type who is attracted to power tend not to be the scientist type. They are more the sociopath type that believes they are better than everyone else and whatever view they have is superior.
Careful what you ask for (Score:2)
Careful what you ask for: next thing you know, scientists will be (even more) selected on their policies.
Agreed. Over. (Score:2)
I totally agree, and I am one of them.
We have given up and have passed the baton to the bean-counters of all sorts and all worlds. In a nutshell, we have allowed ourselves to be prostituted in scales of rankings and economies. We have given up all ethic authority for breadcrumbs at funding, evaluation and throughput.
The Problem is us (Score:2)
Rule by pure science (Score:2)
There is only one rule: http://druptest.dailywav.com/sites/default/files/wavs/obey2.wav [dailywav.com]
two obvious problems with the claim (Score:2)
That's classic argument from authority. He wants to have his way so he wants policy decided in such a way that he becomes a primary authority and his interests are furthered. So what makes him a better source for nuclear weapons policy?
Second, we have the fundamental problem that scientists are cheap. As may be recalled, the tobacco companies had little trouble finding scientists to produce pro-tobacco health studies.
As much as we all hate politicians, he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists are specialized brains who devote a significant majority of their life and time to one discipline or sub-discipline. A specialist is good for explaining how something works in layman's terms, a generalist is better at integrating this information into other specalist's explanations to mesh out something that works. A scientific council with general recommendations and upper/lower bounds to possible solutions? Great. A scientist deciding the solution outright? No sir.
Three scientists in a Mexican standoff... (Score:2)
...will they behave differently from anyone else in such a situation? I doubt it. Scientists are human, too. Thrown into the political arena, and they too will act politically.
Re:As much as we all hate politicians, he's right (Score:2)
I don't know about that. Someone like Richard Feynman, who's specialty in quantum mechanics was built upon a pretty broad background in physics would do well. He had a knack for understanding varied disciplines and being able to communicate the basics to laypersons.
Trouble is, I don't think many people like Feynman and his ilk would want to deal with the manipulation and power games necessary for a career in politics.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps that indicates a problem with politics rather than scientists.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
That's like saying there is a problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Politics is what it is. The fact that they are both inconvenient doesn't mean you can necessarily just change them.
For it to be different, you'd have to change people. Maybe over time, but good luck with that in the interval.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:5, Insightful)
their tests for success and advancement are radically different than those in the political space
This is exactly why they are supremely qualified to work on policy. Scientists and politicans have different tests for success because only scientists are concerned about truth and effectiveness. Politicians are concerned about getting reelected and doing favors for their cronies. It is actually politicians who are hoplessly unqualified to work on policy.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
Oh the other hand, scientists aren't big on compromise -- which is good if you're running an authoritarian state, not so good if you have diverse constituents.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is compromising with people who are demonstrably wrong a desirable feature?
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:3)
Why is compromising with people who are demonstrably wrong a desirable feature?
Because it enables you to actually accomplish something.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:3)
Because you can't always demonstrate that they are wrong to everyone's satisfaction. Experimentation *may* clarify outcomes, but often the political battle is whether to do the experiment to begin with, because experiments have their own effects.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
Doomsday clock is stuck so closely to zero because of geopolitical stalemates, and these stalemates are not easily solved by dumping more scientists into the fray since there are often far more to consider than "what is the right thing to do."
Deescalate, and you might find yourself vulnerable to an internal coup, escalate, and you'll certainly might find hardliners on the other side gaining power. It takes a lot of negotiating, trust-building, and patience measured in generations to settle things calmly and predictably.
Effectiveness for what? (Score:2)
That's the point that you miss... effectiveness is in the eye the beholder, and that's what politics is for. Sure, you can scream bloody murder about a coal mine operator in Kentucky funding opposition to AGW, but, by the same token, he's under no moral obligation to care that New Jersey's coast might get battered by rising seas when he chose live on top of a mountain. Politics recognizes this, and science doesn't.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:5, Insightful)
Effectiveness being a weasel word. Effective based on what criteria?
Obviously those criteria should be set out in the law itself. Every law should have a goal, and specify a way for evaluating progress towards that goal.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
They don't build large political or commercial organizations, their tests for success and advancement are radically different than those in the political space, so they are just hopelessly unqualified for that role.
Indeed. Look at how scientists have handled the politics of climate change. Their involvement has been a disaster. They have alienated large segments of the public, and support for action on AGW has gone down even as the evidence has mounted. In politics, perceptions matter much more than facts, and scientists have a hard time dealing with that. I cringe every time I hear a scientist refer to the IPCC, which has been utterly discredited politically (deservedly or not). Nobody in politics cares about your credentials, or what journal you were published in, and nothing is worse than having a haughty attitude. It is much more important to be able to go on TV, crack some jokes, and have a good rapport with the host even if he or she doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:3)
How do you think climate scientists would be doing if they had the same PR budget as many of the forces trying to discredit their work do? How would you feel about it if they spent 5 or 10% of their grant money on PR? Should scientists spend more time schmoozing and thereby reduce the amount of science they end up doing? Some scientists are good at that sort of thing but many are not. Scientist's jobs are to study reality and publish their findings and to pass their knowledge on to the next generation of scientists.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
Everyone should be scientists.
I don't mean getting a degree, I mean that they are always trying to understand the world around them and pursue factual information. So anyone can be a scientist. We need to remove the people who make decisions based on their gut or ideology. These are the ones that are the problem because they stopped caring about learning and improving. They just want to impose their view of the world on everyone else.
Re:What do scientists know about politics?` (Score:2)
Man, if you got your wish, the art would well and truly suck. ;)
Besides, it'd never work in the practical realm. Communism tried that... failed miserably. Seems it opens things up for too many political operators to slide in and own the joint.
Re:that's because... (Score:2)
Re:that's because... (Score:2)
Re:And a good reason why they shouldnt. (Score:2)
This is your average idiot's opinion of scientists and understanding of science, and why we can't have nice things.