The author of the article here (Why Don't We Elect More Scientists?") says, "To avoid receiving the candidates’ canned responses on these and other issues, I sometimes wish that a debate moderator would forgo a standard question about immigration or jobs and instead ask the candidates to solve a simple puzzle, make an elementary estimate, perform a basic calculation."
Read the article and then respond in the comment section, please. You may be askd to join the NYT subscription list...it's free...just do it.
Write down your intellectual response to Paulos' proposition that we would be better off if more scientists were in government.
In your writing, make good points...show off your writing style...present yourself as bright and interesting!
There is a reason that scientists are not involved more with politics. It is not, nor is it remotely similar to, the field in which they study. While scientists are extremely bright, politics is not their field of expertise. Politicians are much more suited for dealing with an issue like foreign policy then a scientist would. Politics are based around the opinions of the people. Opinions can be swayed, scientific evidence cannot. Oftentimes in politics there is no solution that is going to be beneficial for everybody. Scientists, on the other hand, deal with the invariable laws of nature. The opinions of the people, however, should be based upon hard evidence reported by scientists and other researchers. Paulos mentions how certain facts can be skewed to support both Democrats and Republicans. Scientists need to be more vocal about their findings and what they mean.
ReplyDeletePaulos states that “attitude is more important that aptitude” in bringing about social change. Obama might not be an expert on the subject of global warming but that does not mean that he isn’t fit to be in office and that a meteorologist would be better. I believe that politician’s (as well as the people’s) stances should be formed upon scientific fact and the government should use researchers to form specific plans dealing with the issues they specialize in. The top energy researches should meet with congress to form a plan that will produce the most energy, the cleanest energy, and the most jobs. The top climate change researches should meet with congress to form a plan that will reduce man’s harmful impact on the environment. The top experts in healthcare should meet with congress in order to form the best plan to provide affordable healthcare to everyone. The experts in a specific field know far more on a subject then any politician may know. That doesn’t mean they should be the politicians though.
Scientists have no buisiness being political leaders, but I do believe their voice needs to be heard more in the government. They have innumerable amounts of knowledge on many everyday problems such as healthcare and natural resource conservation, but most scientists do not have the "people skills" to promote the great ideas they can produce. The problems they could be solving cost Americans ridiculous amounts of money, and are ruining our economy. Scientists could come up with new innovative ideas that could help save energy, resulting in better days to come for the future and money being saved for today's generation. With the help of scientists, politicians could then propose these ideas to congress, and get them implemented into society where they could start making a difference in many peoples' lives.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay Paulos says that politics is run on the idea that " attitude is more important than aptitude". He goes on to disagree with the statement by saying attitude will only get you so far in politics. I agree with Paulos on this arguement, the government needs evidence based policies to get any sort of progress with improving the economy. I believe that with the help of scientists, political leaders can accomplish more problems that can make our economy better than ever.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy can’t a scientist be a political leader? While it may not pertain directly to their field of study, every scientist is trained in an area where it is becoming evident politicians are not efficient in: problem solving. Politicians can only solve problems that make their parties happy, whether it is a good solution or not. While a politician may do this in their best interest and at least 51% of the population’s similar interest at the time of their election, a scientist will ignore what is popular and make the decision that is going to get something done. Ultimately the point is those who are not trained in the hard sciences are too swayed by public opinion to do anything universally beneficial, while someone who is trained in these fields will be presented with a problem, do their best to solve it, and act on it, all while believing wholly that the solution is beneficial for everyone in the long run, and a scientist can do it all in the time it takes your everyday politician to survey the public and discover their wishes.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Paulos’ proposition that we would be better off if more scientist were in government. Scientists are people of expertise and deal with indisputable fact, whereas politicians are the opposite. In politics the facts are often smudged. This is done in order to gain popularity, manipulate the thoughts and opinions of others, and instill in them positive reinforcement. Politics requires you to sell yourself to your audience, no matter the cost, with or without truth. This is something a scientist could not do. His very field asks of him the opposite, to find the truth and make it known. In Paulos’ essay he describes how “Too few scientist” are willing to take part in a debate and “risk some jeering from a few colleagues.” A scientist’s lack of confrontation is contrary to that of politicians, where men/women constantly stab at each other’s throats like rapid dogs. I believe scientist would be incapable of handling this pressure and harsh attacks from other “colleagues” despite Paulos’ optimistic view that they could if attempted. These scientists are expertise in subjects outside of politics, lacking necessary public and people skills to do what it is politicians are trained to do. This is not to say that scientist’s could serve no purpose in government though. I believe there knowledge could be essential to the further development of society, and they should have a vital impact in government but not as political figureheads.
ReplyDeletePeople with scientific backgrounds should be more prevalent in public office in America. Scientists deal with evidence and facts not opinions, which is what politicians deal with. As Paulos points out politicians massage evidence and facts to support their parties claims. This fact means that the government is making decisions based on false facts which can only harm the United states in the long run. If scientists were in office this dilemma would not arise. Scientists as a rule only deal with hard evidence, because of this they ethically would not massage the facts to support their case. They would analyze the facts and then make the best possible decision whether it was popular or not. Scientist's impartiality when interpreting facts would transfer well to politics because they would not be swayed by there parties rhetoric but would instead make a decision that would benefit all of the nation.
ReplyDeleteThere is always room in the White House for one more scientist. Someone who backs up their thoughts with real evidence could be beneficial these days. These people have somewhat more knowledge and are prepared to use it. Paulos shows us that even Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry who became one of Britain’s greatest Prime ministers. Paulos also demonstrates to us that in China, one of the world’s most economically prosperous countries, eight out of nine of their best government officials have scientific degrees. This may be a coincidence but then the author purposely moves into other countries all having government officials with scientific backgrounds. This is because scientists use the scientific formula for planning and making decisions so their ideas and plans are well thought out and initiated. These plans have been processed many times after the formation of a hypothesis, the studying of data, and months of analyzing the situation. Regular Government officials are not suit for this because they are risk takers and are quick to throw their ideas out and hope they work.
ReplyDeleteJohn Allen Paulos argues that more scientists should be involved in our government. I disagree with the author’s stance. I think politicians should be the ones involved in our government. Lawyers should not be performing root canals, accountants should not be constructing buildings, librarians should not be extinguishing large fires, pilots should not be surveying land, and musicians should not be playing professional sports. Why, then, should a scientist concern himself with politics? A good politician knows how to appease the masses, how to sway the voters, how to treat foreign ambassadors, how to propose his policies. A good scientist knows how to conduct experiments, how to analyze data, how to collect observations, how to draw conclusions. A scientist has about as much business in the government as a politician has in the lab.
ReplyDeleteAs it pertains to a scientist’s particular area of expertise, let us, by all means, take advantage of this person’s knowledge by letting him solve a particular scientific problem. For example, in World War II, the allies found themselves in need of a superior weapon. A group of extraordinary scientists gathered and collaborated to form the atomic bomb, which the United States was able to utilize for its purposes and win the war. Scientists are absolutely essential, but in terms of their knowledge and research, not necessarily in terms of their “people skills.” I think we can all agree that everyone benefits from a healthy, cooperative partnership between science and politics. It is better to have a scientist and a politician working together, both performing to their full potential, than to have a single scientist/politician who is limited in both areas. Each must be willing to commit to his particular field.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it would be a good thing for scientists to become our politicians. Politicians are extremely misleading and use massaged facts to pretend like their position has truth. In the book Candide, Voltaire points out the problems with blind optimism but also with putting blind faith into an uninformed individual. Young Candide places all of his trust into the family tutor, Pangloss, and places all of his trust into his teachings of optimism and this leads him to being forced into the army, flogged, shipwrecked, betrayed, robbed, and tortured by the inquisition. This is like the politician leading the people he represents into calamity after calamity. They used generalizations without evidence to prove their rigid idealisms, stretch facts to the point of breaking and stomp on the true opinions of famous and well respected individuals. They tell horror stories of imaginary death panels, teachers corrupting and brainwashing your children, and treat medicare as a socialist hell-spawn. Lying to prove a point.
ReplyDeleteThe show Mad Men shows inside the lives of 1960’s corporate advertisers and shows not only their process of selling things but also their dealings with politicians. This is a perfect symbol for what politics has become, in that it is clearly very similar in the way campaigns try to sell their candidates like tiny, packaged personalities in a bottle. Now politics is all about selling a candidate, making him likable, making him look presidential. All campaigns are trying to make a candidate seem fun, with a good personality, like a guy you’d want to have a beer with, no matter how hard it is for Mitt Romney. Noam Chomsky points out that “Everyone that has turned on a tv set is aware that business devotes enormous efforts to undermine the markets of abstract theory, in which informed consumers make rational choices. An ad does not convey information, as it would in a market system; rather, it relies on deceit and illusions to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. Much the same methods are used to undermine democracy by keeping the electorate uninformed and mired by delusion.” This is clearly shown by a Gallup Poll that showed that in 2004 only 6% of Bush supporters voted for him based on the policies he supported- Kerry had 13%. IN the song “electioneering” by radiohead , they point to an aspiring politician saying things that people want to hear and will get him elected, The point of politics is not to inform the populous but to get elected. An ignorant population is easier to fool and govern.
The fact that scientists can’t enter American politics is not a condemnation on scientists but a condemnation on American politics. Scientists are capable of entering politics in other nations like China, but why not America? It’s not that scientists have some weird birth defect that doesn’t allow them to have opinions, but the type of conversation that scientists could engage in is not accepted in American politics. Scientists are informed individuals that want to have calm conversations that could help establish a scientific consensus, but simply watching one of the Republican debates will show that we are not having that type of conversation in America. It’s sad that we can’t have a simple conversation without it descending into a childish shouting match. If we elected scientists we may have the type of civil, informed conversations that allow democracy to prosper. Now we are in a society where science is considered elitist and all scientists are fancy liars trying to corrupt our children with their big words and facts. It can’t be taken lightly when presidential candidates take pride in raising their hands at a debate to confirm that they doubt evolution. With scientists maybe politicians would have more informed statements and be able to act with more decorum.
No matter what background you have, being a leader requires a skill that some people to not have. If you have this skill set, and are worthy of the position, then any additional skills and knowledge could only aid you further. Is there some reason that scientist should not be in positions of power? The answer is a definitive no. Scientists employ logic and reason in everything they do. Is that not what any leader should do? Our political leaders point their focus in a direction that best suits them. In politics you must always worry about the here and now, not the future. Scientists live their lives in a constant state of curiosity and never turn away from a potential way to expand our knowledge. Science is universal and this simple fact, if our leaders were scientists, would save us all. In the world of science there is no need for war, famine, or poverty. Scientists see this and our world would be so much different if they had the chance to change it.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how significant you believe empirical data to be, as an American you have to face one crushingly relevant fact. America is loosing its edge. We are loosing superiority in key areas fundamental to societal advancement. The Oriental counties are just giving more attention to the right fields of study. I know the saying “the grass is always greener on the other side,” holds some truth, but the media is constantly bombarding us with news of yet another technological advancement from a rising foreign power. The Chinese seem to be racing past us technologically and economically. Americans have clung to the same methodologies and conceptions about the world around us for comfort, but we forget what escalated our country to its current prestige, innovation. We can’t be afraid to rethink how our society is run when the change is called for, and I think it’s safe to say now is the time to do so. More scientifically wired politicians might do the job, but were not going to make progress without exhausting our options. Seeing as the science at its route is just the discovery of truth, how can it hurt. It all depends on what direction do we want society to go; what things do we deem important, and what can we do to make those things central in society. Unfortunately Americans have become addicted to being the alpha male, so I find it very hard to believe that we are going to enjoy existence as a non-factor in the world. Therefore, we must keep up with the times, and put more emphasis on science and technology. Having politicians that better understand science and how it is conducted, would produce legislature to aid scientific advancement. Everyone’s scared to have someone who knows the facts tell them that they should be doing something differently. Its understandable, but we need to become more open minded if we seek progress. Advancement is impossible doing the same thing over and over again.
ReplyDeleteBeing a scientist, in no way qualifies you to be a politician. Should a Harvard lawyer be in charge of cancer research? No, just because he is well read and very intellectual does not give him the right or opportunity to be in charge of such a matter. Government, in any regard, involves leadership and a thorough knowledge of history and government. The scientists can be a part of goverment to help the real leaders in decisions such as stem cell research because that is their area of expertise. If a scientist were to be the President then we would be very well involved in cancer resaerch, global climate change, and stem cell research. But what about terrorist issues? Could a man with a doctorate degree in nuclear physics help us with the wars in the middle east, or the budget defecit? I wouldnt trust him to do that. I would trust a man who can lead in a charismatic way with a vast knowledge about that particular subject. Just because he can solve basic math problems or solve an irrelevant puzzle does not make him a world leader.
ReplyDeleteA Scientist, by no means, should ever be a politician. Atrributing a scientist with the ability to be a politician just based on the mindset that "oh he must be smart!" is a complete farce. Scientists are specialists in whatever field they pursue, but politics is not one of them. Scientists are to focused on facts and figures, while a politician looks past this and focuses on repairing whatever problem he/she is faced with. Scientists would also disagree greatly with the public. They would most likely not be appealing, conflict with religious views, and even if they somehow turn out to be a good candidate for election, the public eye would overlook them completely for the well trimmed politician simply saying "Yes we can."
ReplyDeleteIt can be easily said that an apple and an orange are two different things, but they are very similar. Scientists and Politicians compare in this exact same way. Scientists are experts in the field of science, and politicians are experts in their field of politics and government. Should scientists become more involved in the political side of the US? Sure, but up to a certain extent. They should offer insight on information that specifically pertains to their field of science. Politicians are specifically in a position to discuss, and negotiate politics, they don't bring any other information regarding engineering, chemistry, or physics to the table. But, that's how it should be. I believe a good balance is needed, the scientists to lay down the facts and the politicians, to be the professional speaker, who projects the facts.
ReplyDeleteAlthough scientists are very intellectually sound people, this doesn’t make them an adequate politician. To argue that we should elect more scientists into political positions, in my opinion, is absolutely ridiculous. Scientists are very smart and capable in their specific field of study. Though their field of study has nothing to do with things politicians must deal with, such as foreign policy or even things as simple as basic leadership skills. In order to be a politician one must have a strong knowledge in government, how to deal with trade and export, what bills to pass that will actually have positive effects, and how to simply please the general public. Scientists are very smart people but without enough political knowledge they can never be an effective politician.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that scientists cannot be politicians. With enough experience a scientist can make a very fine candidate for political office. In fact scientists, with enough knowledge of politics, may make a better politician than your average Joe. With issues such as global warming a scientist might actually make better decisions on that particular issue than some lawyer who ran for an office. In fact scientists are very good at interpreting data and could very possibly make a better decision based on given statistics than others. Bottom line is that being a scientist does not qualify u to be a politician but it is not to say all scientists make bad politicians.
Does a scientist have the qualities to become a political figure? No, not at all. This isn't one of those "It's so easy a caveman can do it" situations. The political and scientific fields are two careers which may sometimes seem to be quite similar but are actually completely different. Many people may think electing an environmentalist would be an excellent choice in helping to save the environment from pollution but they neglect that an environmentalist doesn't have the ability to relate and cooperate with the people like a trained politician. You wouldn't have someone who has studied law go into a laboratory and start experimenting because they are smart and know the legal restrictions for researching. That's foolish. Government officials must be able to react and make quick precise decisions to the various dilemmas that he or she faces each day. I'm not saying that having a scientist to advise and guide a politician in the right direction with knowledge of nuclear weapons, global climate, and cancer research is a poor idea, but having a scientist without the skills of a political making these choices most definitely is.
ReplyDeleteScientists shouldn't be politicians and vice versa. Scientists have specific fields like anesthesiology, not at all what a politician does. Scientists are known to be socially retarded in a way. They usually serve best as advisors to leaders in government, but that's the closest I would let them get to leading our Country. Paulos says that “Too few scientist” are willing to “risk some jeering from a few colleagues.”A politician is always being battered with questions from “colleagues”. Even though Paulos claims that scientists could be politicians, I wouldn't want a physicist holding a position in my government unless he has proved he has what it takes to be there. You need to be an expert in History and Government to be a successful politician. Politicians need to know history so we don't repeat it. If you're a Scientists with aspirations of becoming a politician, at least have some knowledge of history and government first. Oh and you might want to learn how to be a social genius, because you'll never be a successful politician if you can't withstand being verbally-attacked your "colleagues".
ReplyDeleteA scientist should remain a scieniceist and politician should remain a politician. In no way are there carriers even remotely similar. I political must negotiate and have people skill in order to push his or her augment through while a scientist relies heavily on facts and data. If the data is true then the conclusion and what the scientist is saying must be true, it has no bearing on whether the scientist is likeable or not. That brings me to my second point a politician must be able to have people skills not only to influence other but to be elected he must have the leadership and possess the charisma to persuade other people to follow him. There carrier choice of a scientist takes there focus away from history and government, the staples of a politician. While a scientist might be good at mapping the genealogy of the grasshopper I drought he possesses the required knowledge to successfully plan and execute a operation to invade Afghanistan. Scientists’ should remain in their labs and leave the politicking to the politics.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we live in a society where anything goes, where we have freedom of speech, and where we have the freedom to chase our childhood dream job, certain professions should not be interchangeable. Scientist pose an important role in american life, but do not have the right knowledge to support our country as politicians. Scientist work in labs, performing experiments and analize data, they do not work with large amounts of people, or vote on tax laws from there blackberry phones, nor do they have the knowledge on our countries history and government to keep the country stable. But the same situation applies for politicians. They are not meant to be in a lab creating new ways to fight cancer, or create new military weapons, or find the mysteries of the world. The government is set up by the people whowere meant for the job; politicians. Any major change in this government could lead us into an even more complicated economy than we are in know.
ReplyDeleteWe should elect more scientists into the United States government. Scientists are propblem solvers so they are trained to make the decisions that are backed by logical explanations and evidence. It has been a long time since a non-politcal professional has been elected president on the country. In my opinion this has caused many problems in the United States because many politicians cannot be trusted. Science is based completely on fact and truth. The criticism that scientists are timid while making decisions may be true, but taking time to make the right decision is much better than taking time to make the wrong decision. Scientists are trained to be unbiased in their research which will help them to be unbiased in their work as a politician, so that all groups benefit from the politicians decisions instead of just one.
ReplyDelete