It’s possible the republicans don’t want scientists, but that’s no excuse for not helping conservative scientists who want to try. As long as you work on a local level parties can be very different from the professionals you see in congress.Get a position on a school board and you can start doing some good even if the position isn’t so glamorous.
8 Likes
First, you have to find the extroverted scientists. You know, the ones staring at your shoes when they talk to you.
12 Likes
I’m speaking of government run by people who rule out the “human factor” and depend solely on science to govern; I wasn’t sure which “-cracy” covered that, if any.
I don’t want a theocracy, either, for whatever that’s worth.
5 Likes
So, if Pi day is March 14 in the U.S., when is it in the U.K.?
8 Likes
Approximately 22/7
25 Likes
Wait, wait…
OK, I love the idea of more science-literate humans in office, but -
Senators and congressmen are literally in the business of making law. They are legislators. They aren’t scientists and engineers by profession because they are Senators and Congressmen by profession, it’s axiomatic.
That being said, the more former scientists and engineers who want to go into law, the better.
4 Likes
1st May, obviously. (31st April)
7 Likes
Wait.
So you’re saying men and women of both houses have passed the bar in order to be eligible to currently serve their term in office…
2 Likes
No; replying to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I am saying that if your job is making laws, then your profession is law, and it doesn’t particularly bother me if you have some education and expertise in the law. I think that’s a very scientific stance.
If your job is making bread, you’re a professional baker, and I don’t really mind if you are not a parachutist or a deep-sea diver as long as you don’t give me ergot poisoning.
6 Likes
But why waste the effort? It’s pretty clear that the only scientists the republicans would accept would be ones who slavishly follow the party line. Alas there are some out there. And the last thing we need is a legislator who can say “I have a PhD in Biology from Liberty University, and the theory of evolution is just a theory.” It’s bad enough when bozos like Lamar Smith froth at the mouth about bullshit science.
Back in the sixties it may have been different, of course.
5 Likes
A non-crazy scientist endorsing the current GOP makes as much sense as a Black Klansman.
The modern Republican Party is not a legitimate political organisation. It’s an anti-democratic white supremacist hate group.
16 Likes
Which is the downside of this: four hundred scientists in politics means that four hundred highly trained and talented people are no longer free to do what they’re best at.
5 Likes
That’s dead right; we only need science-literate folks in government - the demographic of this BBS, for instance.
4 Likes
I don’t think every person in congress needs to be proficient at drafting law. What they do need to do is represent the best interests of their constituents and have the ability to scrutinize proposed laws.
6 Likes
There are aides and members of the permanent bureaucracy (and, for Republicans, ALEC) whose job it is to do the actual drafting and revision on behalf of the sponsoring legislator. A Senator or Rep. has to be able to read and parse the work, but all that requires is good reading comprehension skills, diligence, and a college freshman’s understanding of American civics.
On that narrow basis, I’m not sure why anyone would think that a scientist or engineer would make a less effective Representative than known moron and professional legislator Louie Gohmert.
11 Likes
Slightly OT, but I think Representatives should represent their constituents, regardless of their own personal opinions, and Senators should act solely on their principles and beliefs. Sort of a “checks and balances” thing. I don’t know of anyone else who believes this, but I do.
The big problem for legislators is Dunning-Kruger, and figuring out who to trust concerning issues of which they know nothing. Because none of us can possibly know everything, and it’s very easy to be misled…
2 Likes
I like your comment but I have a slightly different take. I take it more that they don’t teach enough science and communication skills to scientists and engineers or at least emphasize to those future professionals that they need to communicate outside of their profession. (Source: family friend who taught university English for tech majors)
So they don’t communicate enough or well to “outsiders”. Those who can NDT, Bill Nye, Cory, Xeni, etc stand out.
But get 'em tipsy enough and they will all talk about their work. Not clearly perhaps but they want to talk as much as any human wants to talk about their true loves.
3 Likes
10 Likes
I do think it’s worth the sacrifice. A substantially science-friendly set of state legislatures (even–crossed-fingers!–a science-friendly Congress!) will result in a much, much science-friendlier educational system nationwide, which will encourage the training of many, many more scientists.
13 Likes
Speaking as a government scientist, I might not have much better to do in a few days.
20 Likes
