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])
