In general, however, Otto thinks the news media has not done enough to press the candidates to explain their positions on important scientific issues, citing cutbacks in science reporting, understaffed newsrooms under deadline pressure, and a trend toward repackaging canned content.
“Then there’s the presumption by many in the media that the public isn’t interested,” Otto added. “Our polling shows this is absolutely false. This is likely selection bias by reporters, editors, and news directors, many of whose last science class was likely high school chemistry, and who likely avoided science in college. They often presume the public shares their views. But in a science-driven global society and economy, the media is the missing link in helping the people remain well informed about these critical issues that affect our lives.”
Otto’s words should be a reminder to journalists nationwide. Even if ScienceDebate.org’s dream comes true, and the candidates go head-to-head over science and engineering on national TV, reporters everywhere need to make these issues part of their daily coverage of the presidential and Congressional campaigns.
"Questions about: the role of science and technology in innovation and the economy, climate change, energy, education, pandemics and biodiversity, ocean health, water, space, public health, and federal support for basic research remain basically the same as the last go-round. Questions about critical natural resources, the Internet, and food safety replaced ones about national security, genetics research, and stem cells. And a question about scientific integrity was reworked into a question about science in public policy."
Looks more like a "quest for more national socialism."
#1 Posted by Daan A., CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 08:18 AM
Because caring about science is socialistic behavior.
#2 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 12:18 PM
I'd like Obama and Romney, devoted Christians that they each claim to be, to (i) write out a balanced chemical equation for a water-to-wine conversion and to (ii) draw a free body diagram describing the forces at work on Jesus while walking on water.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 04:26 PM
If you pretend the world has finite limitations on resources and space for waste, then you're a communist.
If Glen Beck says so, must be true.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 04:30 PM
PS. Question for candidates and commenters, all this boils down to is a simple question.
How do you handle externalities which are unaccounted for in the transactions of the market today?
Ban them? Attach a tax penalty? Do nothing and let the society take the hit while corporations take the profit? (a popular libertarian response)
Go on. What do you suggest we do if activities that do not factor into the price of product are causing great harm, but any step to limit these unaccounted costs is labeled "national socialism"?
PS "I'd like Obama and Romney, devoted Christians that they each claim to be"
Mormon == Christian no more than Christian == Judaism
"(i) write out a balanced chemical equation for a water-to-wine conversion and to (ii) draw a free body diagram describing the forces at work on Jesus while walking on water."
The miraculous does not obey scientific principle (as we know it). If walking on water was explainable, we wouldn't be talking about it 2000 years later. Faith transcends evidence, much like free market economics.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 04:47 PM
Thimbles wrote: The miraculous does not obey scientific principle...
"Faith is believing what you know isn't true" -- Mark Twain
Science and religion are inherently incompatible.
Science is based upon the assumption that our senses can discern the ways of the natural world. Science not only lacks the ability to deal with supernatural phenomena, but in fact specifically forbids it. Observations rule science, not hypothesis or conjecture.
Religion, on the other hand (or at least the vast majority of religions) are founded upon purported supernatural phenonmena. A star standing still. Dead people walking around. Loaves to fishes. Wine to water. Etc. All of these "miracles" violate the known laws of science.
Do you notice something all religious "miracles" have in common? They are nothing but violations of physical laws. They NEVER teach. They never provide any new information. Jesus didn't give us a parable with the formula for stainless steel. Or tell us about atoms or molecules. All these "miracles" amount to a magic show - a display of supernatural power for its own sake. Snake oil.
The reason we're "talking about walking on water 2000 years later" is that a Roman emperor arbitrarily chose Christianity over competing religions in a doomed effort to preserve the Roman empire.
Scientific observation is the death knell of any religious dogma. For example, 10% of all the Catholic saints are credited with the "miracle" of levitation, but not a single one has been credited with such anti-Newtonian flight since the development of photography.
True science is now in the process of destroying another religion - Warminingism. Observations don't lie. Glaciers aren't melting. The global temperature hasn't risen in 15 years. Antarctic ice is growing. Etc. Etc. The Warmingists have jumped to conclusions regarding feedback mechanisms to let conjecture take over for data and in order to "wipe the smug grins" from the faces of those who question the "Cause". But eventually, the data will rule.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 06:06 PM
Thimbles opined: Mormon == Christian no more than Christian == Judaism
Yeah.. And the Rev. Wright's Freaky Deaky Church of Anti-American Black Liberation Theology.. Now THAT is some "real" Christianity for you, right?
Preach on it, Brother Thimbles!
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 06:10 PM
"Science and religion are inherently incompatible."
Science is concerned with the nature of what is, religion is concerned with what it means.
Much of the friction between science and religion comes from the confusion of these ideas. Religion doesn't reveal what is, science does not impart meaning. When you think of religion like that, it becomes impossible to be a fundamentalist since you're not fighting over 'truth', you're fighting over taste.
"The reason we're "talking about walking on water 2000 years later" is that a Roman emperor arbitrarily chose Christianity"
We're still talking about Krishna, Mohammed, Moses, Obi wan, etc.. We talk about faith so long as people find meaning in it.
"True science is now in the process of destroying another religion - Warminingism. Observations don't lie. Glaciers aren't melting. The global temperature hasn't risen in 15 years. Antarctic ice is growing. Etc. Etc."
Sad. Here we have a case where we have the equations explaining it, making the testable predictions of it, having predictions of it confirmed, having measurable signals of it rising above the noise of variable weather, having plans put forth to claim and exploit the resources and trade routes of the northern passage that was opened because of it, and you still deny it because of what it means, not because of what it is.
What is your religion, friend? What gives your life meaning? What motivates you to stick your fingers in your ears while the world screams 'It's getting a bit hot in here!'? How long are you going to keep it up?
Science measures what is and we've measured this pretty well. You must either process the facts within your faith (find a non-offending solution) or adjust your faith to handle the facts (find a means to permit an offending solution). The facts aren't going to change much. Are you going to deal with them or are you going to lie?
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 02:39 AM
Thimbles blithered: Here we have a case where we have the equations explaining it, making the testable predictions of it
padikiller responds: The name of the computer model that can accurately predict the increase in the average global temperature due to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is _________________________.
When you can fill in the blank, get back to us, Thimbo.
Until then, you and your anticapitalist Chicken Little buddies have a whole lot of nothin' going on.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Sure. Does increasing CO2 contribute to atmospheric warming? Unquestionably.
But how much? Who knows?
Does increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.03% to 0.06% result significant global warming? Who knows?
Are there negative feedback mechanisms that work to modulate atmospheric temperature - i.e., to counteract the warming effect of increasing CO2 concentrations? Almost certainly, given the remarkable stability in the global temperature.
How do these feedback mechanisms, if they exist, work? We don't know.
Is global warming, if it exists, a "bad" thing or a "good" thing? Who knows?
Warmingism, like any religion, is based on supposition, faith and bias. Just as most religions persecute heretics and apostates, Mike Mann and his gaggle of Warmingist buddies have a documented history of persecuting those who dare to question the "Cause" and a documented history of manipulating and hiding the data to suit their beliefs.
Religion (like Warmingism) is a crutch. A substitute for knowledge and a hindrance to inquiry.
When you write that religion is concerned with "what it means" instead of "what is", you hit the nail on the head. "Meaning" is an emotion. A feeling. An irrational response. A fabrication of a troubled mind.
Science and religion are not independent of each other, as you claim. Neither are they complementary. Both have the same stated goal - to explain the Universe. However, they are diametrically opposed in their methodologies. Religion (at least most of them) provides the purported explanation first and then does everything it can do to inhibit investigation and to suppress any contention counter to dogma. Science, on the other hand, presupposes the falsity of a hypothesis, and then demands investigation and only reaches conclusions based on observations.
Apple v. orange.
The difference, of course, is that science works, while religion doesn't. Science makes stainless steel. The Qu'ran doesn't. Science predicts the Higgs boson. The Bible doesn't. Science tells us how to synthesize ammonia, thereby feeding billions of people that wouldn't otherwise be fed. The Torah doesn't. Etc.,etc, etc,l
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 06:47 AM
"Because caring about science is socialistic behavior."
No. (Demagogue much?) Getting everyone to pay for your "science" by govt mandate would be national socialism (to say the least).
#10 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 07:33 AM