How important is science to you in choosing a candidate?

[Two Thumbs]

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.

I don't care if reps suck at science

libs suck at the economy, which is mathematics. you know, hard cold facts, not pull it out of your ass theories

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Ancient Hebrew stones found in Ohio indian mounds.



The tribesmen and jews that are familiar with older hebrew can read the words and come up with the same meaning

 

[editec]

If one exclused every candidate who CLAIMS to be a believer then basically voting for ANY believer means voting for people whose beliefs are in opposition to science.

FAITH by definition is in opposition to science.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Yeah I was wondering if someone would bring that up. The point remains however, economics is the issue, economics is the problem.

 

[PredFan]

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.

I've been working in the science of medicine for 30 years and I'm damn good at it. You fail.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Thank you. I wish I could give you double rep for this.

 

[Katzndogz]

Science is a tool. If a politician believes in junk science they make policy based on the junk science. A president that bases energy policy on the global warming hoax is a good example.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 want my elected representatives to have enough education to be aware of science and appreciate its importance in human affairs. As to what their personal convictions are re environment, creation/evolution, when life begins, etc., I honestly don't care all that much IF they have the right convictions about what the role of the federal government should be in these issues.

I don't want another George W. Bush who would push another energy policy that only a pro-global warming, environmental wacko religionist could love. And lordy, we don't want another Barack Obama who would run the economy over the cliff while funding every nutty 'green scheme' that comes down the pike. Neither do we want leaders who pay no attention whatsoever to the conventional wisdom, and more importantly, the intended motives re global scientific issues.

But so long as they understand that the rightful place of the federal government is not to get involved in most of these things, I don't care what their personal beliefs or understanding is.

 

[flacaltenn]

If one exclused every candidate who CLAIMS to be a believer then basically voting for ANY believer means voting for people whose beliefs are in opposition to science.

FAITH by definition is in opposition to science.

Actually not.. I think it takes more a LOT more faith to believe that all matter and energy in the Universe once fit on the head of a pin. Or that we ascended slowly and methodically from sea slime and are familiarly related to cockroaches. Or -- some of the weirdness of Quantum Physics -- takes A lot more faith than believing that Moses had God part the Red Sea for him..

A lot of science is taken on faith because we are unable to rationally imagine a Big Bang in terms of sheer numbers and statistics..

Humans can become extremely arrogant when they suppose that they have no role for faith in their lives..

 

[Katzndogz]

Half of science is faith! More than half. No one has yet seen a quark, nor has anyone discovered the god particle but all scientists have faith that they exist based on an effect going to something that they can see exists. That's faith.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:

Take the story of Genesis in the Bible -- REMARKABLY ACCURATE for a 4000 yr old "fairytale" ain't it?

It's got the Bang, the light, the firmament, the water, the fish, the birds and all the other creatures in approximately the proper order doesn't it? Only problem is that 7 days claim...

Someone slipped a digit. Or converted to english units instead of Metric. Happens at the Jet Propulsion Lab all the time..

 

[flacaltenn]

Half of science is faith! More than half. No one has yet seen a quark, nor has anyone discovered the god particle but all scientists have faith that they exist based on an effect going to something that they can see exists. That's faith.

Absolutely.. Faith and Skepticism actually are essential to the foundations of a good scientist.

Be skeptical about new claims -- have faith in the old..

 

[Vidi]

Half of science is faith! More than half. No one has yet seen a quark, nor has anyone discovered the god particle but all scientists have faith that they exist based on an effect going to something that they can see exists. That's faith.

Theres a line from a song I like:

look up into the night sky
I see a thousand eyes staring back
And all around these golden beacons
I see nothing but black

I feel the weight of something beyond them
I don't see what I can feel
If vision is the only validation
Then most of my life isn't real

- Black and Gold by Sam Sparro

 

[flacaltenn]

interesting.. Gone from worrying about candidates religious beliefs to lyrics..

The earth may be more than 10,000 yrs old, but I don't really care. Because there was no real conciousness back then to ponder science or politics. In fact, both of those are creations of man and they've only been in vogue for a couple millenium. Humility is a good thing -- IMHO..

 

[Old Rocks]

Economics. The cost of global warming;

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

The science of global warming, American Institute of Physics site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And how the present warming has already affected the climate and food supply;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vidi]

interesting.. Gone from worrying about candidates religious beliefs to lyrics..

The earth may be more than 10,000 yrs old, but I don't really care. Because there was no real conciousness back then to ponder science or politics. In fact, both of those are creations of man and they've only been in vogue for a couple millenium. Humility is a good thing -- IMHO..

Humility requires deference, which is something in short supply at the good old US message board.

 

[flacaltenn]

Economics. The cost of global warming;

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

The science of global warming, American Institute of Physics site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I see you've quoted that same AIP paper a dozen times in 2 weeks -- but still don't want to discuss specifics in it.. Pardon me for pointing out that it DOESN'T RESOLVE any real issues on Global Warming -- and is in fact loaded with misconceptions and deflections that are not even accurate like :::

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Back to the regularly scheduled topic of why politics mangles science... Largely because science does a constant mangling of the topic themselves..

 

[Foxfyre]

Economics. The cost of global warming;

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

The science of global warming, American Institute of Physics site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I see you've quoted that same AIP paper a dozen times in 2 weeks -- but still don't want to discuss specifics in it.. Pardon me for pointing out that it DOESN'T RESOLVE any real issues on Global Warming -- and is in fact loaded with misconceptions and deflections that are not even accurate like :::

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Back to the regularly scheduled topic of why politics mangles science... Largely because science does a constant mangling of the topic themselves..

In the whole issue of global warming, I do see a role of the United States in encouraging study of the issue. I cannot condone U.S. policy that puts U.S. citizens at a disadvantage however, when it is obvious it will accomplish little or nothing overall whether or not global warming is a serious issue. And I cannot condone any U.S. government giving up American soverignty and ability to chart our own course of action in anything.

 

[FA_Q2]

Economics. The cost of global warming;

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

The science of global warming, American Institute of Physics site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I see you've quoted that same AIP paper a dozen times in 2 weeks -- but still don't want to discuss specifics in it.. Pardon me for pointing out that it DOESN'T RESOLVE any real issues on Global Warming -- and is in fact loaded with misconceptions and deflections that are not even accurate like :::

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Back to the regularly scheduled topic of why politics mangles science... Largely because science does a constant mangling of the topic themselves..

In the whole issue of global warming, I do see a role of the United States in encouraging study of the issue. I cannot condone U.S. policy that puts U.S. citizens at a disadvantage however, when it is obvious it will accomplish little or nothing overall whether or not global warming is a serious issue. And I cannot condone any U.S. government giving up American soverignty and ability to chart our own course of action in anything.

That is one of the worst parts about the AGW crowd and their constant fear mongering this issue. The solutions that are proposed end up changing almost nothing. They talk about measures that will have a MASSIVE impact on the economy but will reduce world wide carbon emissions by a percentage point or 2. That is asinine as it will generate zero real effect on the problem even if everything they believe is totally correct.

 

[Old Rocks]

Economics. The cost of global warming;

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

The science of global warming, American Institute of Physics site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I see you've quoted that same AIP paper a dozen times in 2 weeks -- but still don't want to discuss specifics in it.. Pardon me for pointing out that it DOESN'T RESOLVE any real issues on Global Warming -- and is in fact loaded with misconceptions and deflections that are not even accurate like :::

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Back to the regularly scheduled topic of why politics mangles science... Largely because science does a constant mangling of the topic themselves..

The single largest scientific society in the world, a scientific society made up of scientific societies knows less about physics than an ananomous internet poster.