>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates.
Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke.
This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks there aren't fiscally conservative scientists out there who want to shape the Republican party into something better is deluding themselves.
The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person.
I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They picked a rapist trust fund baby autocrat as their leader. He is now our president.
So yes, we are going to be partisan. We wouldn't be allowed to run as a republican if we were 'fiscally conservative' but felt that gays should be treated as people, refugees with compassion, women with respect, the environment with car, and that religion was crazy.
Furthermore anyone with a scientific bent would look at the empirical evidence provided by other nations with good standards of living and economic freedom and NOT BE fiscally conservative in the way the republican party is. It has no evidence supporting its efficacy!
Agreed. By most metrics I am very liberal (although am orthogonal to the left/right axis by some metrics), and I would love to see Republican primaries jammed up with intellectually honest science-believing fiscal conservatives. And should any of them make it through the primaries, I would be double plus thrilled to see a contest between two people who weren't batshit insane.
We really, really need this.
Having one party be the designated party of batshit insanity, and the other party be the party of... well, not much, aside from non-batshit-insanity... is very bad for society. It does nothing to promote good civic dialog, and holds the second party to an incredibly low standard. Don't get me wrong: on average I want is for Democrats to win, but I'd say that America really needs is more sanity amongst Republicans.
The headline is a little misleading, but this isn't actually a "support scientists, in general, running for office," but rather "support specific scientists running for office who support the issues 314 wants to address."
You know how whenever there's a terrorist attack, Republicans are the first ones complaining that "good Muslims" aren't out there speaking out and condemning it? Why aren't all the "conservative scientists out there who want to shape the Republican party into something better" speaking out and condemning their party's continual assault on science?
But if the official party platform includes climate change denial and other explicitly anti-science positions, wouldn't it just be a waste of time and money to try to put up candidates who the party would refuse? Sure, it worked for Trump, but I think he's an exception - good luck finding conservative scientists with his particular mix of personality traits and pre-existing celebrity status (and perceived business acumen).
More broadly I think the "changing the party from the inside" tack is a dead end, especially for the Republican party whose power actors seem to only ever double down on their positions and tactics.
there are a few oddballs who aren't financially liberal, and a few oddballs who aren't socially liberal-- but we're talking like 1/100 for each of those cases.
realistically, most of the scientists i've ever met would fall into the green party best, but hold their nose and vote democratic party because it's the closest they'll get to actually liberal policies.
>to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats
the republican electorate is largely anti-intellectual and distrustful of scientists, so that won't work. i don't mean to be dismissive here... but it just isn't going to work because of the culture. no way, no how-- those people are not accessible by the eggheads. i guess if you got a climate denier or creation scientist or some other quack out there, it might work... but that would defeat the point.
i do agree that the only way we'll survive is by driving a wedge within the republican party so that they don't vote as a unified bloc consistently. i'm really not sure what demographic to go after in order to make that happen, though.
Ok, but please do not vote for anyone calling themselves "scientist" who practices NHST, you will only be perpetuating this nation- (even civilization-) destroying practice:
"We are quite in danger of sending highly trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missiles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort."
Do not be blinded by a degree, there are a lot of these people out there. As a heuristic, you may have to limit "scientist" to mean physicists and engineers, as those communities have been least affected.
>Ok, but please do not vote for anyone calling themselves "scientist" who practices NHST, you will only be perpetuating this nation- (even civilization-) destroying practice:
Are you suggesting that use (or otherwise) of statistical significance tests in a scientific field would have an affect on your performance as an elected representative?
The article doesn't mention the word "technocrat" but the wiki seems relevant even if the scientists only have modest goals of participating in government rather than grand ambitions of controlling the government from the top down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
I'm not sure it applies. You can still be well educated and greedy/egotistical and not work for your constituents.
But within elections, what else SHOULD we vote for other than merit?
What really bothered me when Obama was elected was people throwing the word "elitism" around, because he was smart, eloquent and well educated, like that was somehow a bad thing.
I sure as hell hope that the people elected are smarter than me, because I would have no idea what I was doing in office.
But I guess we'll now see what happens when you elect someone that's "just like us", except born with money.
Scientists and engineers cannot simply give up their positions for several years and then easily return to their industries, and not just academia like the article points out. Professions such as lawyers have it easier in that regard.
Great? Angela Merkel, Maragaret Thatcher, Frauke Petry. Whatever your political persuasion there is, i'm sure at least one of those you would not describe as 'great'
With ever-more-complicated technical marketplaces into which legislation pokes its head, the need for technical guidance for this legislation arises. Here in the US at least, lobbyists (usually funded by trade groups) are able to fill that role and in some cases might be a net benefit.
What I want to know is -- is there a market for a "constituent pro-bono consultant"? I don't want to become a career politician (not even part-time), but I would be willing to consult with legislators on technical matters without compensation. I won't buy my representatives lunch or even coffee, but I'd be willing to try and be a balance against the trade groups for the sake of the people.
Scientists I think are too ideological to make good leaders by themselves. It takes all kinds of kinds. You need historians, engineers, scientists, marketeers, salesman, and finally organizer-executors. Right now our government seems mainly ran by salesman...
As a former scientist who is very sad about the way politics are going right now, I was extremely excited to see this group forming. Then I saw that they've inexplicably co-mingled gun control and science. By all means we need to take every measure possible on climate change, energy production, and science education (the other issues listed on their site), but scientists are no better suited to have an opinion on gun control than any other citizen (except some of them might have a slightly better understanding of statistics, but those can lie in either direction).
Doesn't the very fact that statistics lie in either direction mean that someone with knowledge of statistics (any scientist would be more knowledgeable than nearly every politician i.e. lawyer that we have today) would be crucial to ferreting out the consequences of gun control legislation, and therefore better able to make an informed decision? I do agree that a group promoting science shouldn't pre-suppose an answer to a question the jury isn't out on yet like gun control. And even if the question were answered (suppose legal guns cause enormous increases in death) there's still a moral question to be answered there, weighing the freedom to own them vs. the destruction they cause. Just like no scientist will disagree that climate change is real and caused by humans; plenty of reasonable scientists disagree on what we should do about it.
What can a scientist do that no other person can at a macro-level?
On minimum wage, there are scientists who have two schools of thoughts:
a. Minimum wage can be increased without negative impact to individuals
b. Minimum wage is a horrible action that harkens back to racist unions trying to keep black people out of jobs and has unseen consequences in a labor market.
In this instance, the answer from the 314 Action group is that those scientists that agree with Democrat policies are more equal to others.
Another example of this would be in the realm of climate change modeling. Let's say we have two climate models that utilize carbon dioxide as an input. Model A uses less of a feedback loop than Model B, resulting in less global average increase in temperature. Both were put together by top scientists, there is just an existing dispute in the scientific community as to the amount of feedback that can occur. Will these scientist politicians be able to allocate resources any better than a politician? If according to the Atlantic, the next five years is the time to act, will there be time to set up a committee to review the differences and make recommendations?
For one, they can read and understand the significance of various scientific literature that is intended to shape their policy decisions. They also generally don't support people who spew falsehoods and bullshit.
Of course anyone can learn these skills, but so few do.
You say that, but take a look at the HN thread on Peter Thiel's prospective gubernatorial campaign[0]. It's needless to say the idea of a Thiel governorship was not very popular.
This isn't to say the criticism found there is unreasonable, just that it's not special. People in science and people in tech can get involved in politics, but most of the political issues out there are not scientific or technological so support for them will break down on ideological lines, not technocratic ones. The case of Peter Thiel isn't special, i.e. a conservative member of the tech community would not prefer Richard Stallman to Marco Rubio, just as a progressive member of the tech community would not prefer Peter Thiel to Jerry Brown.
If you want technocracy, I would suggest encouraging tech-minded folks to move to the public sector rather than run for office. Personally I would oppose that, as I think most tech talent would be somewhat wasted there.
It reminds me of something Asimov wrote -- scientists are used to inflexible facts and not flexible people -- that might make scientists either unelectable or imcompetent.
OTOH, I pulled this gem from an Asimov quote website -- "[Creationists] make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
Not just scientists. Engineers should to, and for the same reason
If you're a civil engineer, chemical engineer, electrical engineer, or a software engineer, you can find far too many examples of Republican politicians offering rhetoric and policies that are directly at odds with the domain knowledge of your profession.
[+] [-] hueving|9 years ago|reply
Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke.
This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks there aren't fiscally conservative scientists out there who want to shape the Republican party into something better is deluding themselves.
[+] [-] jackmott|9 years ago|reply
I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They picked a rapist trust fund baby autocrat as their leader. He is now our president.
So yes, we are going to be partisan. We wouldn't be allowed to run as a republican if we were 'fiscally conservative' but felt that gays should be treated as people, refugees with compassion, women with respect, the environment with car, and that religion was crazy.
Furthermore anyone with a scientific bent would look at the empirical evidence provided by other nations with good standards of living and economic freedom and NOT BE fiscally conservative in the way the republican party is. It has no evidence supporting its efficacy!
[+] [-] nkoren|9 years ago|reply
We really, really need this.
Having one party be the designated party of batshit insanity, and the other party be the party of... well, not much, aside from non-batshit-insanity... is very bad for society. It does nothing to promote good civic dialog, and holds the second party to an incredibly low standard. Don't get me wrong: on average I want is for Democrats to win, but I'd say that America really needs is more sanity amongst Republicans.
[+] [-] croon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wnevets|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkaziz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Practicality|9 years ago|reply
The headline is a little misleading, but this isn't actually a "support scientists, in general, running for office," but rather "support specific scientists running for office who support the issues 314 wants to address."
[+] [-] mjmsmith|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxfordAndSons|9 years ago|reply
More broadly I think the "changing the party from the inside" tack is a dead end, especially for the Republican party whose power actors seem to only ever double down on their positions and tactics.
[+] [-] cryoshon|9 years ago|reply
there are a few oddballs who aren't financially liberal, and a few oddballs who aren't socially liberal-- but we're talking like 1/100 for each of those cases.
realistically, most of the scientists i've ever met would fall into the green party best, but hold their nose and vote democratic party because it's the closest they'll get to actually liberal policies.
>to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats
the republican electorate is largely anti-intellectual and distrustful of scientists, so that won't work. i don't mean to be dismissive here... but it just isn't going to work because of the culture. no way, no how-- those people are not accessible by the eggheads. i guess if you got a climate denier or creation scientist or some other quack out there, it might work... but that would defeat the point.
i do agree that the only way we'll survive is by driving a wedge within the republican party so that they don't vote as a unified bloc consistently. i'm really not sure what demographic to go after in order to make that happen, though.
[+] [-] nonbel|9 years ago|reply
"We are quite in danger of sending highly trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missiles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort."
Fisher, R N (1958). "The Nature of Probability". Centennial Review. 2: 261–274. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf
Do not be blinded by a degree, there are a lot of these people out there. As a heuristic, you may have to limit "scientist" to mean physicists and engineers, as those communities have been least affected.
[+] [-] aphextron|9 years ago|reply
Can you expand on this? What is NHST?
[+] [-] richmarr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croon|9 years ago|reply
But within elections, what else SHOULD we vote for other than merit?
What really bothered me when Obama was elected was people throwing the word "elitism" around, because he was smart, eloquent and well educated, like that was somehow a bad thing.
I sure as hell hope that the people elected are smarter than me, because I would have no idea what I was doing in office.
But I guess we'll now see what happens when you elect someone that's "just like us", except born with money.
[+] [-] sremani|9 years ago|reply
I welcome technocrats from hard-sciences and engineering.
[+] [-] donretag|9 years ago|reply
Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?: https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-...
Eight Out Of China’s Top Nine Government Officials Are Scientists: https://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17/eight-out-of-chinas-to...
Scientists and engineers cannot simply give up their positions for several years and then easily return to their industries, and not just academia like the article points out. Professions such as lawyers have it easier in that regard.
[+] [-] croon|9 years ago|reply
I get the appeal of non-career politicians voted into office, but I'd much rather take reasonable, well-educated scientists than the opposite.
[+] [-] return0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ysr23|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyldfire|9 years ago|reply
What I want to know is -- is there a market for a "constituent pro-bono consultant"? I don't want to become a career politician (not even part-time), but I would be willing to consult with legislators on technical matters without compensation. I won't buy my representatives lunch or even coffee, but I'd be willing to try and be a balance against the trade groups for the sake of the people.
[+] [-] exabrial|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arouqa|9 years ago|reply
Would be very intriguing to see this play out in a democratic society.
[+] [-] mgberlin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wfo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burkaman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Agustus|9 years ago|reply
On minimum wage, there are scientists who have two schools of thoughts:
a. Minimum wage can be increased without negative impact to individuals b. Minimum wage is a horrible action that harkens back to racist unions trying to keep black people out of jobs and has unseen consequences in a labor market.
In this instance, the answer from the 314 Action group is that those scientists that agree with Democrat policies are more equal to others.
Another example of this would be in the realm of climate change modeling. Let's say we have two climate models that utilize carbon dioxide as an input. Model A uses less of a feedback loop than Model B, resulting in less global average increase in temperature. Both were put together by top scientists, there is just an existing dispute in the scientific community as to the amount of feedback that can occur. Will these scientist politicians be able to allocate resources any better than a politician? If according to the Atlantic, the next five years is the time to act, will there be time to set up a committee to review the differences and make recommendations?
[+] [-] j2kun|9 years ago|reply
Of course anyone can learn these skills, but so few do.
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cderwin|9 years ago|reply
This isn't to say the criticism found there is unreasonable, just that it's not special. People in science and people in tech can get involved in politics, but most of the political issues out there are not scientific or technological so support for them will break down on ideological lines, not technocratic ones. The case of Peter Thiel isn't special, i.e. a conservative member of the tech community would not prefer Richard Stallman to Marco Rubio, just as a progressive member of the tech community would not prefer Peter Thiel to Jerry Brown.
If you want technocracy, I would suggest encouraging tech-minded folks to move to the public sector rather than run for office. Personally I would oppose that, as I think most tech talent would be somewhat wasted there.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13401358
[+] [-] squozzer|9 years ago|reply
OTOH, I pulled this gem from an Asimov quote website -- "[Creationists] make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
[+] [-] ocschwar|9 years ago|reply
If you're a civil engineer, chemical engineer, electrical engineer, or a software engineer, you can find far too many examples of Republican politicians offering rhetoric and policies that are directly at odds with the domain knowledge of your profession.
We can't let this continue.
[+] [-] gremlinsinc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihaveahadron|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]