The Associated Press
Hillary Clinton, in the lab.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 20 weeks 1 day ago
Should the presidential candidates participate in a science debate?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will participate next week in a "Compassion Forum," a debate about faith and moral issues. But so far they're ducking a science debate that organizers had hoped to hold in Philadelphia before the Pennsylvania primaries. Organizers say they want to hear the candidates talk about science and engineering issues like economic development, health care and the fate of the environment. Should the candidates participate in the science debate?
Thoughts
Science is basic, but our
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by AnonymousScience is basic, but our surrogate nervous system, the media, is composed of people who took journalism so they wouldn't have to do math. And it shows.
Just heard NPR's Science Friday on new ways to make biofuels with enzymes, and the majority of the scientists had heavy foreign accents.
Debating science is a good idea, but McCain would win. Pilots are techies, actually, although they don't like to admit it. Obama has no background in science, and at least Hillary has talked with Al Gore.
But Gore lost a lot of votes by letting his inner wonk show through. Oprah's endorsement will mean a lot more votes in the polls than any amount of wonky geekness from Hillary or McCain.
America does not like or deserve bright leaders, and by God, we are not going to get any at this rate.
Agreement!
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousWow, a topic on which both sides appear to have selected similar articles. I suppose that in the absence of debate neither will pay attention to the issue
** in full flight from reason **
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by Anonymous. . . ever since Jimmy (I lusted in my heart) Carter pushed believer-ship to the foreground, we've seen a parade of god's sycophants lusting for imperial purple.
George W our born-again post-modern Caligula rants about his non-existent divine guidance in perfect harmony with Paul’s delusional anti-intellectual ravings in 1Cor1. Little Bush’s untreated (alcoholic’s) will-to-death still threatens us all. Turning to a fictional right-wing Jesus was no substitute for psychotherapy and medication.
I hope that Obama’s xianity is just required hypocrisy. Clinton’s surely is.
The US is such an aberration -- in its affinity for religious self-delusion and in its failure to accept now elementary fundamental truths like evolution via natural selection.
I think that Necessity (Ananke) has already decreed the outcome:
“those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make demented.”
bipolar2
Hi.
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousIt's ridiculous that we would even CONSIDER a candidate without a strong scientific background. I don't just mean a background in the sciences(they don't really need to be experts on the details they have advisers for that) but a dedication to the scientific process in general. I mean jeez its only the fundamental process for decision making that brought humanity out of the dark ages. The fact that we would consider leaders who not only don't understand the philosophy behind it but actively shun it in favor of faith and gut based decision making is insane.