On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:14:34 -0700, Rick Froman wrote: >Mike Palij doesn't think the listing of policy positions for the >candidates counts as a debate.
If one use the following definition of debate (from www.oed.com) "b. intr. To engage in discussion or argument; esp. in a public assembly.", then, yes, a mere listing of policy positions does not constitute a debate. Sidenote, I am starting to have a strange sense of deja vu involving the argument sketch from Monty Python. >>"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 ). Well, I went to a Catholic high school and such activities would not have been allowed. The Brothers might have punched you if you were too much of a wiseass or got out of line (Martin Scorcese preceded me by several years and I have a feeling that his choice of making gang violence might have been influenced by this ;-). >>>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. I apologize if I was unclear. I was not saying that a Presidential debate is exactly like an oral defense but it is functionally comparable to an oral defense in that it is supposed to show that a person has a good grasp of relevant material, can think quickly to produce reasonable answers to reasonable questions, and convince viewers that one is engaging in online, real-time thinking instead of reciting pre-programmed responses. >Do we really think the President should be as informed and knowledgeable >about every scientific question as the specialist scientists in the field? The role of the President is not to have the knowledge that specialists in scientific fields have rather, I believe, the President must be able to articulate why scientific knowledge is valuable and should be supported and to distinguish it and keep it seperate from political and religious concerns. The President should have a science advisor who is capable of identifying relevant sources of information (be it scientists or published research sources) and make this available to the President in order to allow the President to make informed decisions about science policy, especially in articulating how and why certain scientific projects should be supported. I admit to being extremely disappointed in the role played by Bush's "science advisor" physicist John Marburger (who incidentally was the president of the university where I got my Ph.D.) who seems to have been more of an enabler of Bush's antiscience views instead of speaking truth to power. It only took Marburger until September 2007 to publicly acknowledge that climate change is due to mankind's activity. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm >I am still quite happy with science carrying on as it does in dispassionate >discourse and not in sound bites. "Dispassionate discourse"? Obviously, you've never heard Noam Chomsky and some of his colleague engage in "discourse" with those who disagree with them. >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. Do you mean something like President Kennedy's "hyperbole" about putting a "man on the moon" before the end of the 1960s? >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. I disagree. If you don't watch, you won't know what is being sold. >>>[Rick Froman wrote:] >>>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? A thoughtful moderator might bring up this choice and ask which one the candidate supports. This is not such a crazy thing given that during the Republican debates the candidates were asked whether they believed in evolution and four out of ten said that they don't; see: http://feedblog.org/2007/05/04/40-of-republican-presidential-candidates-do-not-believe-in-evolution/ or http://tinyurl.com/3u3kjq More traditional news media also carried this story so I'll leave it to the reader to find them if this link isn't convincing. >Maybe on SNL but not in an actual debate. Sorry, see above. >We would be lucky if the viewing audience lasted through the first 15 >minutes. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here but if you think a debate about federal funding for stem cell research, AIDS/HIV programs especially clean needle exchange, the use of robots vs. human beings to travel to the moon, Mars and elsewhere, and the development of new energy sources would be boring, well, I guess we'd just have to agree to disagree. >There is a reason that science is left to the scientists. If science didn't depend upon large amounts of money for its conduct, especially from the U.S. federal government, then science *might* be left to just the scientists. However, they still would need ethical oversight to make sure that they limit their "misbehavior". >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. If you cannot convince members of the U.S. Congress or the U.S. public why they should provide money for scientific research, then someone who can should take the job. Any chance we can re-animate Carl Sagan? >>"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. I'm sorry but "verbal jousts" about very important issues, including scientific issues take place everyday. Exhibit #1: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ >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. I'm actually a fan of the Watergate hearings and have used documentary video from them in a course on the authoritarian tendencies of the Nixon Presidency. I've been watching the recent hearings on the financial crisis, especially when Paulson, Bernancke, and Cox were on. If you didn't watch, you might want to read some of the following: http://uk.reuters.com/article/companyNewsMolt/idUKN1531847020080715 Presumably, everyone will be affected by the economy's downturn in the coming years (e.g., your bank being taken over by the FDIC or some other bank not to mention the decimation of any stock you own) and one should not only expect thoughtful answers but demand them. -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
