On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:06:52 -0400, Stephen Black wrote: [snip] > Does this non-invite of scientists by the USA's top politicians indicate > something about how politicians value the input of scientists?
You betcha! Perhaps it is because science has lost its appeal to certain significant political groups (e.g., social conservatives) or maybe real science is too hard for people to follow, but the political candidates were urged to hold a "Science Debate" to review what sorts of science policies they would advocate and support. The physicist Bob Parks has covered this over the past year in his "What's New" weekly email newsletter (see: http://www.bobpark.org ) and there was a website devoted to advocating that the debate be held (and this was started back in December 2007 while the primaries were still going on); see" http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php Of course, there was no science debate but there was a "faith forum". Presumably the latter was much more accessible to "everyone" because the U.S. is such a predominantly "religious" country while "Science is Hard!" (paraphrasing Barbie). I guess that we can take some comfort in that Obama at least mentioned science once in his presidential nomination speech while McCain didn't mention it at all. Still, I'm waiting to for someone to ask the candidates the question "Do you believe that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together?" At least we know what Sarah Palin's answer would be. See: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss or http://tinyurl.com/4s3kc6 One has to wonder what a President Palin would do to the U.S. federal science programs. Would the NSF become a faith-based organization? -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
