A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science

The Washington Post and Newsweek jointly ran an interesting article in which the author makes a call for a presidential debate solely on the subject of science. It's a short article so I'll post it in its entirety here.

At some point in this endless process of selecting a president, I believe there must be a presidential debate solely on the subject of science. Nothing could be more important for the survival of our planet.

We have reached a stage in our development where, to quote sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, humans are "the first species in the history of life to become a geological force." Through industrial pollution, the destruction of our rain forests, over-fishing, over-hunting and so on, we can destroy just about all life on earth. This is a problem that cannot be solved without an understanding of science, most specifically biology.

A publication of the National Academy of Sciences states: "The evolution of all the organisms that live on earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of the earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world. As the great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, "˜Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.'"

And yet, three Republican candidates have said they do not believe in it. Even George W. Bush believes "the jury is still out on evolution." That someone this scientifically backward was elected to such a powerful position at such a critical time is perhaps the most astonishing anachronism in modern American political life. Such a thing must not be allowed to happen again. Given all of the scientific challenges that face us, we must elect a president with a basic understanding of 21st Century science.

The format of the debate could be very simple. I would suggest a panel of four or five scientists who specialize in a range of disciplines from microbiology and medicine to the composition of the earth's atmosphere. I think if the scientists were famous, it would be more persuasive and attractive. A few Nobel prizewinners would lend credibility to the enterprise, but you would also need a scientific populist, someone like Gina Kolata, who writes about many aspects of science for the New York Times. Her job would be to translate and moderate if the scientific lingo became too arcane or the questioning too intense.

None of the candidates should know in advance what questions they might face. Not knowing the questions in advance would force them to study as much science as possible, and this in itself would be a marvelous thing. However, a statement would be read at the start stating that no one expects politicians to understand every aspect of the many scientific disciplines. The debate's tone would try not to be adversarial, but cordial and educational. It could even be fun.
There is a secondary, but perhaps equally important reason for this debate, which is that no discussion of science can really occur without an understanding of the scientific method. This could not help but lead to a conversation on the uses of reason and logic in the making of political decisions versus the uses of faith.

There is, of course, a chance that some of the candidates would refuse to accept the invitation to this debate, but an RSVP in the negative would in and of itself tell us a great deal: why on earth (I chose those three preceding words with care) would a candidate turn his back on the opportunity to learn more about science?

I think that's a very good idea. The US is not the only contributor to these problems but it's certainly one of the largest one. It would be nice if the person leading your nation had a halfwit's clue what's going on and the impact of it.

I remember reading about a survey the NAS did in the US in which respondents were asked, among other things, whether or not the earth revolved around the sun and took one year to do it. 50% of the respondents answered "false".

Now that seems to me a pretty straightforward 2nd grade science question to me, but the numbers of folks that correctly answered that were exactly the percentage you would have to expect from a 100% ignorant population who was simply guessing. The way I interpret that data, the numbers of folks with a greater than 5th grade education that knowingly answered correctly on that have to be offset by willingly ignorant fruitcakes since the statistical average would have to reflect a shift otherwise.

This, I believe, is really the danger in such a science-hostile approach like that of the current GOP. It is one thing (and a very nasty thing at that) to target a specific piece of scientific discourse (no matter how well accepted it is in the scientific canon). However, it seems the unavoidable spillover effect of it is that it promotes a sort of promiscuous willful ignorance that goes well beyond distaste for evolutionary biology.

I thought we had laws about separation of science and state?

Isn't it widely believed that any Presidential candidate that comes off as smart or intellectual is unelectable? Therefore any candidate that doesn't have a faith based learning disability wouldn't want to advertise the fact that they have a basic grasp of 21st century science. Especially when so much of the populace apparently doesn't.

As an aside, I always want to believe Jay Leno's Jaywalking is scripted and that they spent a lot of time hunting down dim people. (Don't dispel my fantasy, ok?)

Paleocon wrote:

I remember reading about a survey the NAS did in the US in which respondents were asked, among other things, whether or not the earth revolved around the sun and took one year to do it. 50% of the respondents answered "false".

Was this the one you were thinking of?

Paleocon wrote:

Now that seems to me a pretty straightforward 2nd grade science question to me, but the numbers of folks that correctly answered that were exactly the percentage you would have to expect from a 100% ignorant population who was simply guessing. The way I interpret that data, the numbers of folks with a greater than 5th grade education that knowingly answered correctly on that have to be offset by willingly ignorant fruitcakes since the statistical average would have to reflect a shift otherwise.

This, I believe, is really the danger in such a science-hostile approach like that of the current GOP. It is one thing (and a very nasty thing at that) to target a specific piece of scientific discourse (no matter how well accepted it is in the scientific canon). However, it seems the unavoidable spillover effect of it is that it promotes a sort of promiscuous willful ignorance that goes well beyond distaste for evolutionary biology.

That raises a question that might make a presidential science debate a nonstarter: Who will watch? It seems to me that it will be well educated voters who think critically, and these are typically not swing voters. Despite that the Dems would have an advantage in the debate, it would be a tactical error to participate because of the danger of alienating the faithful. Damn Realpolitik.

The XCKD author should be the moderator.

MikeMac wrote:

Isn't it widely believed that any Presidential candidate that comes off as smart or intellectual is unelectable? Therefore any candidate that doesn't have a faith based learning disability wouldn't want to advertise the fact that they have a basic grasp of 21st century science. Especially when so much of the populace apparently doesn't.

H.L. Mencken wrote:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental "” men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre "” the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.' The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

How apropos.

You see, if a politician comes off as intelligent, people automatically think they're some kind of elitist. But they'll show them, they won't vote for them. Now who's stupid!?

A "debate" on science issues is perhaps the wrong forum. It's pretty easy in a two hour discussion to hear tons of non-repeated Creationist nonsense that will sound even more plausible in one minute bites. This would serve only to bring the crackpot theories to the front, and given that Bush was able to lie about Gore's understanding of the budget during the 2000 debates, candidates who believe that Creationism is science will have their soundbites ready to go "to confound the experts".

As much as I'd love to see the candidates come out on issues like heliocentrism, I think this would do more harm than good.

You know, I think we ought to pass a law that forbids our politicians from believing in "-isms" in general.

Except for hedonism.

Crouton wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I remember reading about a survey the NAS did in the US in which respondents were asked, among other things, whether or not the earth revolved around the sun and took one year to do it. 50% of the respondents answered "false".

Was this the one you were thinking of?

Paleocon wrote:

Now that seems to me a pretty straightforward 2nd grade science question to me, but the numbers of folks that correctly answered that were exactly the percentage you would have to expect from a 100% ignorant population who was simply guessing. The way I interpret that data, the numbers of folks with a greater than 5th grade education that knowingly answered correctly on that have to be offset by willingly ignorant fruitcakes since the statistical average would have to reflect a shift otherwise.

This, I believe, is really the danger in such a science-hostile approach like that of the current GOP. It is one thing (and a very nasty thing at that) to target a specific piece of scientific discourse (no matter how well accepted it is in the scientific canon). However, it seems the unavoidable spillover effect of it is that it promotes a sort of promiscuous willful ignorance that goes well beyond distaste for evolutionary biology.

That raises a question that might make a presidential science debate a nonstarter: Who will watch? It seems to me that it will be well educated voters who think critically, and these are typically not swing voters. Despite that the Dems would have an advantage in the debate, it would be a tactical error to participate because of the danger of alienating the faithful. Damn Realpolitik.

Yup. That's the one.

I, for one, welcome our science-enabled Indian and Chinese overlords and remind them that my rudimentary skills in calculus and physics make me ideal in driving taxi cabs....

I really think that "Idiocracy" wasn't a movie, but rather a prophecy.

Scariest movie I've ever seen. Followed closely by Trekkies.

Actually the "2nd grade science" question is false, because it doesn't take exactly one year for the planet to go around the sun exactly once. However it does take approximately one year to make that trip, give or take about 1/4th to 3/4ths of a day (on leap years its too long, on regular years it is too short). I know its being nitpicky, but well those nagging details are a big part of science.

Nosferatu wrote:

Actually the "2nd grade science" question is false, because it doesn't take exactly one year for the planet to go around the sun exactly once. However it does take approximately one year to make that trip, give or take about 1/4th to 3/4ths of a day (on leap years its too long, on regular years it is too short). I know its being nitpicky, but well those nagging details are a big part of science.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what they had in mind.

Nos's point is a great example of the kind of stereotyping of science that allows it to be easily parodied and questioned. When the "nagging details" become more important than the big picture, not only do people roll their eyes, but unscrupulous people can change the relative importance of various details to their own advantage. This is why there is no surviving "big picture" challenge to evolution, for example - the attacks on the science that are presented these days are all very, very specific and designed to befuddle the average observer, who then concludes that the science is *not* as good as "the scientists" say, and how dare they try to fool us with their fancy talk and degrees! (Yes, there are people who make sweeping simplistic claims, but they are easily shown to be false, whether the person accepts it or not. The more usual challenges today revolve around concepts like "irreducible complexity" and are designed to function at levels of detail where they must each be individually refuted, a time and effort consuming problem that gives the doubter maximum air time.)

In point of fact, Nos, your objection does not fit the context of the question. You are answering perhaps "What is the nature of variation in the length of the sidereal year", but the question is much more simple. Two parts - "Does the earth revolve around the Sun?" And "What is the common name for the amount of time it takes to do so?". Your objection, while technically correct, is actually moving away from the point being made.

The ease with which this can be done is a good reason for politicians to avoid a debate on science.

Spot on.

This would also be an ideal venue to see all the candidates embarrassed. "Please name at least two carbon sinks and two carbon sources in the Earth's biosphere." "Um, yes, clouds, and trees are sinks, and cars and volcanoes are sources". "Oh, well, not clouds so much as oceans. Oceans. Water with plants in it. Better luck next time. Candidate 2, your question is about insulin, the glycogen cycle and obesity..." It's a nightmare PR scenario.

Better to do what all the other groups do and send out a score card for the candidate's handlers to fill in that directly addresses issues, rather than knowledge. After all, a campaign could embiggen it's science knowledge just by hiring a few experts, and who would that benefit? We want them to work with experts, yes, but not to answer quizzes. We need people who can understand issues and set policy in the administration.

Yeah, turning the debates into the SATs is a recipe for hilarity. We all remember what happened when someone assumed Bush knew what "sovereignty" meant.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Yeah, turning the debates into the SATs is a recipe for hilarity. We all remember what happened when someone assumed Bush knew what "sovereignty" meant.

Only too well.

Robear wrote:

Better to do what all the other groups do and send out a score card for the candidate's handlers to fill in that directly addresses issues, rather than knowledge. After all, a campaign could embiggen it's science knowledge just by hiring a few experts, and who would that benefit? We want them to work with experts, yes, but not to answer quizzes. We need people who can understand issues and set policy in the administration.

I've been looking for an opportunity to use that word for ages now. Well played sir, well played

Robear wrote:

It's pretty easy in a two hour discussion to hear tons of non-repeated Creationist nonsense that will sound even more plausible in one minute bites.

I don't see how, especially if they come off as backwards and primitive as Kirk Cameron.

I've been looking for an opportunity to use that word for ages now. Well played sir, well played

It is after all a perfectly cromulent word.

Robear wrote:

Nos's point is a great example of the kind of stereotyping of science that allows it to be easily parodied and questioned. When the "nagging details" become more important than the big picture, not only do people roll their eyes, but unscrupulous people can change the relative importance of various details to their own advantage. This is why there is no surviving "big picture" challenge to evolution, for example - the attacks on the science that are presented these days are all very, very specific and designed to befuddle the average observer, who then concludes that the science is *not* as good as "the scientists" say, and how dare they try to fool us with their fancy talk and degrees! (Yes, there are people who make sweeping simplistic claims, but they are easily shown to be false, whether the person accepts it or not. The more usual challenges today revolve around concepts like "irreducible complexity" and are designed to function at levels of detail where they must each be individually refuted, a time and effort consuming problem that gives the doubter maximum air time.)

In point of fact, Nos, your objection does not fit the context of the question. You are answering perhaps "What is the nature of variation in the length of the sidereal year", but the question is much more simple. Two parts - "Does the earth revolve around the Sun?" And "What is the common name for the amount of time it takes to do so?". Your objection, while technically correct, is actually moving away from the point being made.

The ease with which this can be done is a good reason for politicians to avoid a debate on science.

Case in point CO2 emissions on cars.
Also I answered the question exactly as it was written in the post, had it not been imprecisely worded the potential for ambiguity wouldn't have existed. What the question should have said was "Does the Earth revolve around the Sun and is the length of time it takes to for one revolution commonly called a year?" I didn't even nit pick about the fact that the Earth orbits around the center of the solar system and not the Sun itself (the Sun actually orbits this same point). Bad initial conditions result in bad data, bad data results in bad conclusions.

I for one would like to get all of the Republican candidates to admit that the earth is round and that it is older than 10,000 years. If we can get past that maybe we can have a debate on how many moons Jupiter has or if Copernicus' heliocentric model is correct. Then maybe after that we can get past the European renaissance...

You get the point.

Sounds like such a debate would look like the presidential candidate's episode of "who's smarter than a 5th grader".

Also I answered the question exactly as it was written in the post, had it not been imprecisely worded the potential for ambiguity wouldn't have existed.

And you missed entirely the social context that the question, and my point, addressed.

In all honesty, I don't care about a politician's views on pre-history, so long as their quiet about it if they're wrong. Does it matter if the president doesn't take into account what happened more than 6,000 years ago?

Not as much as if s/he doesn't admit to the strong inference of modern human impacts on the environment.

Does it matter if the president doesn't take into account what happened more than 6,000 years ago?

Yes, because we are not discussing "what happened" (ie, events) , but rather how the systems that operate in nature actually work. It's not like missing a question about the day the Maine blew up, but rather like not knowing what separation of powers means for the US democracy, to put it in a political context.

Getting specifics wrong at times, we all do that. Denying the way the world works in the face of overwhelming evidence is a whole 'nother ballgame.