How important is science to you in choosing a candidate?

[Politico]

Sigh......

 

[Two Thumbs]

The economy is more mathematics than a science.

And since liberals suck at math, that's always a concern for me.

 

[Ragnar]

The problem here is that the GOP as a whole have embraced and anti-science stance concerning a major problem that is already having serious consequences. That is global warming. We will be paying higher food prices this winter because of the effect of what we put in the atmosphere 30 years ago. That, for us, is an inconveniance. For those in many third world nations, it means watching their children starve.

I simply cannot vote for those that prefer fairy tales over reality.

If the Left believed in global warming we would have 30-40 more nuclear plants in America right now. If the Left cared about food prices they would be against ethanol fuel mandates and farm subsidies for food we could buy more cheaply from (and to the benefit of) third world countries. If the Left cared about starvation they would not oppose genetically modified food.

If the Left cared about science they would not back Keynesian economics or socialized medicine (or be at war with "big Pharma"). If the Left cared about science they would not be in the pockets of the teachers unions who have brought us generations of sub-standard (de-facto monopoly) education despite throwing more money at them every year.

Science is hugely important, however it is best served when advanced by scientist and not politicians. A minimum of government involvement serves science best, along with a maximum of government oversight on the necessary investments the government does make.

 

[ladyliberal]

I find anti-science words and acts to be quite distasteful. I believe in science as an institution, and it's really unfortunate when respect for that institution becomes a casualty of partisan politics (the same could be said about other institutions, such as organized religion, the press, etc.)

It hasn't really affected how I choose candidates, since I don't recall an election in which a candidate whom I would otherwise support espoused views on science with which I disagree. It does cause me to lose respect for some politicians, such as when Senator Coburn (an MD) used colorful clip art to criticize working scientists for researching, among other things, how and why chimps throw feces (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365).

 

[PredFan]

Scientists are for sale, if you don't believe that then you are hopelessly naive.

 

[Ragnar]

I find ant-science words and acts to be quite distasteful. I believe in science as an institution, and it's really unfortunate when respect for that institution becomes a casualty of partisan politics (the same could be said about other institutions, such as organized religion, the press, etc.)

It hasn't really affected how I choose candidates, since I don't recall an election in which a candidate whom I would otherwise support espoused views on science with which I disagree. It does cause me to lose respect for some politicians, such as when Senator Coburn (an MD) used colorful clip art to criticize working scientists for researching, among other things, how and why chimps throw feces (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365).

I think you mean "entomology" as opposed to "ant-science".















j/k

 

[AmyNation]

While I don't think a science degree will help you govern better, I'd like my representive to know more about the issues involving science that he will be voting on, than my 12 year old niece.

 

[Truthmatters]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

I don't think I could vote for someone who believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

However, I will be voting for someone who appears to believe that Native Americans are primarily descended from Israelites despite DNA evidence to the contrary. Of course, besides "little" things like that, Mormons are generally pretty accepting of modern science, so I don't feel any great concern that Romney's religious beliefs would trump science in a way which would interfere with his ability to govern.

Where do you draw your lines?

I would not vote for someone who denies sceince

 

[SayMyName]

Science is very important to me, and I doubt either camp or party comes close to using it as often as I would like in making decisions about our future.

 

[Vidi]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

I don't think I could vote for someone who believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

However, I will be voting for someone who appears to believe that Native Americans are primarily descended from Israelites despite DNA evidence to the contrary. Of course, besides "little" things like that, Mormons are generally pretty accepting of modern science, so I don't feel any great concern that Romney's religious beliefs would trump science in a way which would interfere with his ability to govern.

Where do you draw your lines?

I dont care if they believe the Earth is only 4000 years old...as long as they dont expect me to believe the same.

 

[Vidi]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

I don't think I could vote for someone who believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

However, I will be voting for someone who appears to believe that Native Americans are primarily descended from Israelites despite DNA evidence to the contrary. Of course, besides "little" things like that, Mormons are generally pretty accepting of modern science, so I don't feel any great concern that Romney's religious beliefs would trump science in a way which would interfere with his ability to govern.

Where do you draw your lines?

The problems this country faces aren't scientific questions. They are economic ones. If we had a candidate who believed that the earth was riding on the back of a giant turtle, but the guy had the right plan for the nation's economy, he'd get my vote.

Economics IS science.

 

[Vidi]

The economy is more mathematics than a science.

And since liberals suck at math, that's always a concern for me.

Aristotle defined mathematics as "the science of quantity.


This is why Republicans suck at science...they cant even figure out what is and is not science.

 

[ladyliberal]

I think you mean "entomology" as opposed to "ant-science".

Thanks. Corrected to "anti-science".

 

[ladyliberal]

I do have to question whether Romney (or Reid, or whoever) really believes that Native Americans are predominantly descended from Israelites. I assume this is a reference to a literal interpretation of Mormon dogma. I don't assume that a religious adherent necessarily agrees with his or her church (or synagogue, etc.) or with the religious dogma thereof. The average Catholic, for instance, holds very different views on permissible modes of human sexuality than does the Catholic church.

 

[flacaltenn]

Misuse of science for political purposes is rampant in BOTH camps.

The dissent for nuclear power, genetic engineering, and food irradiation to prevent spoilage are almost all in the lefty camp. They are advocates for Embryonic Stem Cell research without a purpose. Advocates for a phoney list of Alternative Energy sources, and probably the largest consumers of "homeopathic" remedies.

There is no place for partisian superiority. And it's wrong for GOVT to assert authority making CO2 equal to other pollutants when the concentrations are higher in your lungs than in the air.

Religious beliefs are different than scientific facts. And I believe that viable candidates can separate those things when it comes to policy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Economics IS science.

No it isn't. They may overlap and join together in areas, but they are two totally separate fields. One involves trade and commerce. They other involves experimentation and analysis.

 

[AmyNation]

Economics IS science.

No it isn't. They may overlap and join together in areas, but they are two totally separate fields. One involves trade and commerce. They other involves experimentation and analysis.

Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vidi]

Misuse of science for political purposes is rampant in BOTH camps.

The dissent for nuclear power, genetic engineering, and food irradiation to prevent spoilage are almost all in the lefty camp. They are advocates for Embryonic Stem Cell research without a purpose. Advocates for a phoney list of Alternative Energy sources, and probably the largest consumers of "homeopathic" remedies.

There is no place for partisian superiority. And it's wrong for GOVT to assert authority making CO2 equal to other pollutants when the concentrations are higher in your lungs than in the air.

Religious beliefs are different than scientific facts. And I believe that viable candidates can separate those things when it comes to policy.

Faith Based Initiatives proves that non viable candidates get elected to the highest office in the land.

 

[Greenbeard]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

There's an old joke that physics professors sometimes like to tell undergraduate classes. When some presumptuous pre-med student asks why physics is a required part of their curriculum, the professor responds: "Because physics saves lives! It keeps stupid people from going to medical school."

Though science often intersects with public policy, when it comes to your question that's actually beside the point--for me, at least. A person's comfort level with science is an excellent indicator of whether he can engage analytically with the world around him, whether he can critically evaluate evidence, and whether he can understand complex concepts.

Someone who thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old is failing all of those tests. A candidate's attitude toward and understanding of science is hugely important because it's a key signaling mechanism for how (and if) they think. Factor in the close relationship between science and policymaking and it only becomes more critical.

 

[FA_Q2]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

I don't think I could vote for someone who believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

However, I will be voting for someone who appears to believe that Native Americans are primarily descended from Israelites despite DNA evidence to the contrary. Of course, besides "little" things like that, Mormons are generally pretty accepting of modern science, so I don't feel any great concern that Romney's religious beliefs would trump science in a way which would interfere with his ability to govern.

Where do you draw your lines?

Personal opinions and beliefs on scientific theories don’t matter at all. I don’t care if they are insane young earth people. I don’t actually believe that most of these politicians actually hold the views that they claim to anyway. What matters is how those opinions and beliefs are going to impact policy.

For example; I find that Bush’s policy on stem cell research asinine and complete bullshit. That is the type of point that would influence my vote.

For Romney’s belief system, nothing suggest he is going to make any policy decisions that would impact science in a negative way based on his religious belief system. No reason to include it in my decision on who to vote for.