Stephen asked: Does this non-invite of scientists by the USA's top politicians indicate something about how politicians value the input of scientists?
Stephen- Perhaps it does. But one must assume that the answers given are, in fact, what they'd do (which seems doubtful for it would require such unlikelihood as sincerity of response!). I am also reminded of something I constantly think of when I get miffed at my students. It isn't them who are "odd"! Yes, if I had my choice of three, at least two would be scientists. But that my neighbors would not choose to interact with scientists doesn't, I think, make them the odd birds in the sub-division. :) On the other hand, I'm a bit interested that none of them mentioned an economist! Hmmmm. (I guess one could argue that Buffet is or might have such insights). I suspect, upon reflection, that you are correct though. At least when it comes to most politicians (and I'm skeptical that it is US specifically) are rationalists and care more for argument and persuasion/debate than are fascinated or intrigued by the subtle hard work of a brilliant scientist. But lately I'm feeling a bit cynical about things political. I also suspect that most of these political folk are skeptical of anyone who cares more for the subtle intricacies of cause and effect than wealth or fame (darn- there's the cynicism again). Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
<<winmail.dat>>
