On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:38:43 -0700, wrote: [In response to comments by Mike Palij] >I don't know if Mike has visited the science debate link >site lately but the science debate did occur, although not >in person.
If you're referring to the following, I don't consider this "exchange" a debate (then again, things may have changed since my high school debate club days -- many things have changed since the Dark Ages): http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42 >And what reputable science debate would be held in person? The rationale for the "ScienceDebate2008" can be found at the following blog entry. A more mundane reason would be that same as that for having oral defenses for the Ph.D.: how well does a person know and present specifics and contextual issues (for the dissertation it would be the relevant theory and research; in a science debate it would be policy positions and rationales for them [e.g., stem cell research]), how well can one "think on one's feet", and how comfortable/persuasive is the person regarding science policies. >What would be the sound bite or photo op coming out of >such an event? (1) "Yep, I believe that humans and dinosaurs co-habited the earth and the universe is only about 6,000 years old." or (2) "Of course I accept scientific estimates for the age of the universe and scientific explanations for the development of life on earth." Depending upon one's political and sociocultural background, the two statements above appear to be irreconcilable and the selection of one over the other would clearly be news. >Most science debates are held in written form (in journals) as >befits a thoughtful response. Your response suggests that thoughtful responses are not necessary for economic issues, foreign policy, legal and judicial orientation, as well as many political issues (e.g., what is the role of government in society). All of these require thoughtful responses but yet they are still debated in public forums because, I suspect, the general public really wants to hear what a candidate has to *say* about the issue as well as how they present themselves (i.e., thoughtfully, arrogantly, "Presidentially", etc.). By the way, representatives of the Obama and Clinton campaigns did have a science debate at the AAAS meeting though McCain and Huckabee declined to participate. See: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2008/02/17/live-from-the-biggest-science-conference-in-the-world-hillary-and-barack-debate-science/ or http://tinyurl.com/3nozyx Which of the two statements above would have McCain endorsed? Which would have Huckabee? Which would have been news? -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
