It has some big league sponsors, too.I think it's a great idea. The current administration has been pretty weak in it's support of the sciences, so making it part of the campaign can only help, IMHO.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04
Tuckers! Science! Automotive Oddities! Boycott Trek XI! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither.

Hear, hear!

Great idea in "theory", but if recent debates are anything to go on, nobody will actually "debate" anything. The candidates will simply take turns at the lectern reading sound bites and campaign bullet points!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Wouldn't this just further the politicization of science? It just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. We aren't electing a Chief Scientist. We're electing a Chief Executive. As such, he (or she) doesn't need to know everything. In fact, the worst executives are the ones who think they know everything. Instead, a good executive needs good advisers who know their subjects, be it science, the military, foreign policy, etc.

The person I supported in our caucus has issued a science policy that, among other things, calls for putting science in the hands of scientists. Also seriously supporting the space program. I can also think of at least one candidate whom we know doesn't support science, or at least several important aspects of it, and espouses belief in creationism. However, I also believe that those who care about science and a candidate's stance on it will research it on their own, and those who don't care won't be sparked to care by a debate.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Candidate policy statements are most often little more than a collection of platitudes written by staffers, not the candidates themselves. Among those platitudes will be statements such as "putting science in the hands of scientists". They sound good but have little substance.

As long as science depends on government funding, "putting science in the hands of scientists" isn't necessarily a good idea. As disreputable as some politicians are (or are considered to be), they are accountable to the electorate. "Putting science in the hands of scientists" sounds very much like removing them from accountability. IMO, we already have too much of government that is unaccountable. This only applies to that science which is government funded. I have little problem with privately funded science doing what it wants within broad legal and ethical guidelines.

I can't give out information like that online. Mum said.

__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song

This is not about government funding science (which is a good thing, by the way). We need our politicians to base their policies on sound reasoning, not ideological hysteria as has been the case lately in certain superpower administrations. Sound reasoning is the natural province of science.

Having candidates at least debate the matter brings it into public focus.

Can you think of any way to avoid politicizing science? Or should I say, to un-politicize an already politicized subject? It involves education dollars, what experiments are legal, funding for various programs, creationism versus accurate teaching of facts, and other things inherently (at least in this country) political.

It's not about how much science one person knows, but about how much they and their orbiting cronies will support science education and research. Not that a debate will tell us the truth (ever), but it'll give their general attitudes toward certain subjects, like ID and space exploration.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

It can tell you some things. Not about what the candidates really think, of course, but about what they feel they can get away with saying in public, what they choose to imply between the lines when they speak, and how far they feel they can go in terms of promises. This can be informative in itself.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Not that a debate will tell us the truth (ever), but it'll give their general attitudes toward certain subjects, like ID and space exploration.

It can tell you some things. Not about what the candidates really think, of course, but about what they feel they can get away with saying in public, what they choose to imply between the lines when they speak, and how far they feel they can go in terms of promises. This can be informative in itself.


Given that politicians tend to speak in platitudes and go out of their way as much as possible to avoid saying anything definite, I doubt we'd learn any more about what they really believed about science than about any other subject. They go out of their way to avoid alienating potential voters so you aren't likely to learn what they think about subjects like ID.

These debates are little more than a waste of time. If you want to know about a candidate's understanding of science, just administer a monitored closed book test and publish the grades. Something tells me you aren't likely to get any of them to go for the idea.

Do they know any science? What grades did they get in college in science? Do they understand the scientific method? If they have nothing intelligent to say, it'll just be a farce.

__________________
"fifty is nifty" , unknown poet

Over the last year or so, they've had many (dozens, it seems) debates. Has anything truely useful came out of any of them? If we're going to create special interest debates, how about history or even more important, economics? From what I've heard, none of the surviving candidates from either party seems to have a clue about economics.

Do they support laws mandating the teaching of ID in public schools?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

It's not about their understanding of science, but about how their administration will affect everyone else's understanding of science. Someone can test well and still implement bad policies.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

It's not about their understanding of science, but about how their administration will affect everyone else's understanding of science. Someone can test well and still implement bad policies.

And you think a debate is going to tell you anything substantive about what they'd actually do in office? Consider this example on trade and foreign policy from the debate held this week.

Allegations of double talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government within the last month -- saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

This particular example happens to involve one candidate and is being disputed. However, it shows how politicians in general will pander to an audience on the one hand and will turn around and say that it's "just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously" on the other. These debates aren't really debates and about the only time anything interesting happens is when someone makes a verbal gaffe. Holding one on science would be a similar waste of time, IMO.

Not really, but that doesn't make it worthless. What it'll mainly do is tell the voting public that science is a serious topic, something that even politicians can't ignore. It might even make Joe Average say, "hey, it's not just some dry academic topic, science actually has some effect on the real world." (That's a best-case scenario, of course. But with millions listening in, it'll have better odds of affecting at least a few.)

Oh, and anecdotal evidence is still not evidence. So giving "examples" of bad debates doesn't mean all debates are bad.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Oh, and anecdotal evidence is still not evidence. So giving "examples" of bad debates doesn't mean all debates are bad.

Turn it around and give me an example of a good debate from this election cycle. A good debate is where there's meaningful discussion of the issues instead of preprepared platitudes. Just one will do.

1. Any examples I give will also be anecdotal evidence.

2. This election cycle is just one election cycle.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

And you're pointly ignoring my contention that nothing of substance has come from these debates. Since you can't provide a counter example, it seems my contention stands.