Mike Palij doesn't think the listing of policy positions for the candidates 
counts as a debate.

"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";

Yes, debate has changed since your time. We now have coaches mooning the 
audience and other intellectual activities (see 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwy2VuA2V4).

>And what reputable science debate would be held in person?

"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."

A dissertation defense is only relevant if you believe the candidates for 
President should actually be scientists instead of having science advisors. Do 
we really think the President should be as informed and knowledgeable about 
every scientific question as the specialist scientists in the field?

I am still quite happy with science carrying on as it does in dispassionate 
discourse and not in sound bites. The kind of hyperbole that would have to be 
used to sell science to the public is quite beyond the equanimity it takes to 
actually do science. Of course, as long as science requires funding from the 
public, it will always be politicized and require selling. As a scientist, I 
just don't want to have to watch it.

>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."

So you think that such a  sound bite would come out of such a debate? Maybe on 
SNL but not in an actual debate. We would be lucky if the viewing audience 
lasted through the first 15 minutes. There is a reason that science is left to 
the scientists. The level of dumbing down (and I mean that only in the best 
possible sense) that would be necessary for a scientific debate to inspire the 
populace would make it worthless.

"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.)."

What my response implied was that thoughtful responses are not the currency of 
verbal jousts. What comes out of such affairs are things like the deep meaning 
of "that one" or "lipstick on a pig". I would say the same for economic issues, 
foreign policy, legal and judicial orientation, etc. Have you ever watched a 
Senate hearing? Have you heard the "questions" they ask the witnesses? They are 
nothing but speeches that are designed to inform or persuade no one.

Rick

Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR  72761
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to