The science questions Obama and Romney need to answer


16 Responses to “The science questions Obama and Romney need to answer”

  1. It seems to me that a Mormon and a black liberation Christian both have trouble discerning fact from fiction.  Why look to these two for anything resembling science?

    • Because plenty of religious people are capable of recognizing the importance of science and acting on it. Just because I think their religious beliefs are silly doesn’t mean they’re idiots. 

      Seriously, stop it. You’re making us atheists look bad. 

      • I reject the idea that people can successfully constrain their irrational tendencies to particular areas of life.  If you’re willing to believe crazy stuff, you’re willing to believe it.

        • I reject the idea that you (or I, or anybody) can magically make ourselves free of irrational tendencies. You’re not Spock. The human brain is pretty irrational at times. All of us, to one degree or another, confine the irrational and hold ideas that should be (rationally) in conflict. You aren’t special.

          • Walter Reade says:

            I tend to agree. For example, my observation is that all but the most hard-core atheists try to find some meaning in our existence. But, objectively, you really can’t. The universe will end, and that’s it. Happiness, sadness, pain, etc., are all fleeting chemical reactions in a biological “machine”.

            The point, really, is that we’re all irrational. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Even Spock isn’t Spock all the time.

        • awgrbr says:

          I suspect this statement may be more self referential than you intend?

      • Daneel says:

        Question is, can a Republican Presidential candidate, circa 2012, act on the importance of science, even if he recognizes it, given that so much of his core constituency seems to actively reject it?

    • Why the need for the “black” qualifier or is “black liberation Christian” a thing? 

    • DrunkenOrangetree says:

       I think you’re conflating fact and science too easily, and too quickly setting up “fiction” as an opposing category.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       Funny that you didn’t just say “religious” for both of them.

      • chenille says:

        Funny, indeed, that it should come up at all.

        If you make a list of ways Obama is out of touch, and his theology itself makes the top ten, you’re likely bringing it up out of prejudice.

        If you make a list of ways Romney is out of touch, and his theology itself makes the top hundred, you’re likely bringing it up out of prejudice.

        What things they believe based on theology might be very important, of course – but that’s exactly what things like science debates are for finding out.

  2. Walter Reade says:

    It’s a great list of questions.

  3. chgoliz says:

    “The Republican primary, for instance, featured debates that were themed solely around the candidates’ faiths.”

    What was: our 4,387th clue that the U.S. is swirling the drain, Alex.

    If someone actually gets the two major party candidates to have a debate on science topics, I will send $100 to the 501(c)3 of your choice, Maggie.  (A win-win proposition!)

    • Walter Reade says:

      I’m personally more concerned about the trend that a dwindling number people are responsible for creating an ever-increasing share of the GDP. It doesn’t seem that either party is addressing this adequately. If we’re not productive (and hence, increasing our wealth), the chances of meaningful climate policy, etc., getting passed are close to nil.

Leave a Reply