Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

[patrick bateman]

Originally Posted by RetroSan

don't ya'll watch movies, whenever there's a outbreak or the worlds about to blow up its always the scientist fault

so its safe to assume all scientists are the Devil

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

And most are Atheist *mind blown*

 

[airmaxpenny1]

Because people like candidates that resemble TV characters and have cool likeable personalities.  As long as you could imagine yourself having a beer with the guy, he could be president.  This country has a profound anti-intellectual current that running through it

 

[essential1]

Because scientists will show in certain aspects we need to be collectivists to solve certain issues (environmental issues for one) and that sounds like socialism or communism... Whichever one they mix up with the other..... Can't have that... Because Capitalism rocks, and the United States doesn't have 1 single ounce of socialism..

Before you quote me and say anything I was trying to lay the sarcasm on pretty thick.

 

[twozerosix]

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Because they don't know @*#! about running a country...

 It's this simple. 

 

[acemaster193]

This country is blowing its shot with Dr. Ron Paul.

 

[thorrocksjs]

Ron Paul the guy who gets backed by racist and wrote racist newsletters how about no

 

[tecca nena]

Maybe scientists just arent running for president

 

[|A-Man|]

Always been more partial to the idea of Americans electing philosophers. Scientists should be aids, consultants, advisers, etc. unless they have the exceptional capacity to lead. Of course I know politics is more about being charismatic than being right or having the best ideas or the most sound plans to accomplish goals but I always questioned why not seek out the ppl who spend their life studying and discussing ethics/morality (and metaphysics, epistemology, etc.).

 

[sighfur]

Because scientists arent politicians.

But seriously, the president is just a public relations rep anyways. A great scientist is needed for just that, science.

 

[kiendienn]

Scientists are too open-minded to engage and represent the "average" American.

Considering the ignorant posts from this thread so far; there is no room to even give them a chance.

Lastly, religion.

 

[twozerosix]

Originally Posted by ThorrocksJs

Ron Paul the guy who gets backed by racist and wrote racist newsletters how about no

Ron Paul the guy who would free more blacks than the Civil War did.... seems pretty racist to me

 

[rawsheed]

does embedding on NT allow for new flash codes to work? *shrug
link on science outreach: 

 

[Nike Jordan]

Because most conservatives tend to be anti-science (unless it involves nuclear weapons).

 

[magik ink 23]

sci·ence [sahy-uhns] noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

'nuff said.

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

lol at a scientist being a good candidate.

ya'll acting liek they wouldn't have motives or interest groups in their ears.

why don't yall make a why a priest cant be the president thread next.

lol di que science.

Man is the downfall of this country. not government. not republicans. not democrats. not christians. not atheists. MAN.

 

[kramer]

Because scientists are busy doin what they do, and presidents tend to appeal to the people and when scientists have their answers they just tell the president

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Originally Posted by Scott Frost

Because they need to focus on finding a %%@%!$* cure for gonorreha. Thats why. Let Mitt Romney run this country in the ground, as long as I am not itching my junk every minute or worrying about the discharge stains in my khakis, I am good.

This guy.

 

[rashi]

John Holdren wants to continue to put sterilants in the water. Like what the Nazis and Soviets did.

 

[kickstart]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by kickstart

Most don't have the social skills outside of lab or a life.

You can tell who have never had any interaction with intelligent people with comments like this

Physicians are scientists, and they have the most unique personalities IMO out of any other profession out there, and social/communication skills are obviously a part of the core competencies of a good physician


If being laughed at for being an idiot is part of what makes the personality of conservative religious leaders great, then you're absolutely correct---these people are comedy

My initial comment wasn't all inclusive, hence the word "most" being used. And, no one is taking away from any physicians' personality, but it doesn't negate the point that the majority don't have lives outside their fields (exceptions being those in ROADS or practices that are less demanding). Ron Paul is a retired physician, no? Will you be voting for him?

 

[ebay dostres]

I would vote for Walter White and Jesse Pinkman as VP

 

[rexanglorum]

There are a  few reasons why very few scientists hold elected office in the US.

- In most democracies, they have parliaments and voters vote for a political party and after the election, voters learn who will hold what offices. In the US, personality is more important than political party. In every congressional district, a candidate has to sell himself to voters and therefore, lawyers will tend to do well in that regard. As much as Americans profess to hate lawyers, lawyers are good at taking a lot of information and making a coherent and compact argument that will persuade a judge, a jury or the voters.

- Americans have healthy skepticism of all things associated with the institutions and establishments. American voter are wary of big business, big labor, big government, the military industrial complex and we also tend to look at scientists and their corporate and/or University endowment fund backers as people who work for the establishment.

- Some scientists have discredited the application of science to politics. Remember that just 100 years ago, the scientific consensus was that race determined one's genetic propensity for criminality. The experts in the 1950's said that smoking tobacco was not dangerous. In the 1970's it was a fact that cocaine was not addictive and that the World was cooling. By the year 2000, we were in a state of global warming and now it has turned into climate change. The essence of science is self critique and constant revision but when you keep that in mind, it makes it less appealing to apply the latest research to public policy. 

- President Obama wrapped himself in the banner of science and said that his policies are based on science and not ideology. He was wrong but he besmirched science in the process. It is the same dynamic that we had where President Bush called himself an advocate of the freemarket but he picked winners and losers with as much zeal as President Obama. In the process he discredited free market economics in the eyes of the public.

- Most scientist do not have the skill set or temperament for American politics. Many scientists are slightly autistic and one has to not be tone deaf to how people feel because feelings and showmanship are crucial in politics. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by kickstart

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by kickstart

Most don't have the social skills outside of lab or a life.

You can tell who have never had any interaction with intelligent people with comments like this

Physicians are scientists, and they have the most unique personalities IMO out of any other profession out there, and social/communication skills are obviously a part of the core competencies of a good physician


If being laughed at for being an idiot is part of what makes the personality of conservative religious leaders great, then you're absolutely correct---these people are comedy

My initial comment wasn't all inclusive, hence the word "most" being used. And, no one is taking away from any physicians' personality, but it doesn't negate the point that the majority don't have lives outside their fields (exceptions being those in ROADS or practices that are less demanding). Ron Paul is a retired physician, no? Will you be voting for him?

What does not having a life outside of their practice have to do with being a good leader? "leadership skills" is actually one of the qualities admission committees look for in future doctors


I'm on the fence on Ron Paul, everything he says makes sense to me and sounds good on paper but going with my gut feeling I find something about him rather unsettling I can't put my finger on it---With politics I honestly just go with the lesser of the evils


The bottom line is, if more scientists were INTERESTED in politics I believe they would make great politicians but they would have to use some of the shameful tactics most politicians succumb to

I'm a scientists, and I'm very cynical of politics-I believe I can be of better service to humanity through my actions and contributions

 

[skateboard]

Because most scientists lack the funds needed for campaigning against their wealthier counterparts.

 

[sillyputty]

I just wish we had more candidates who passed Bio, chem, physics, and a higher level math.

Being scientifically literate really changes your perspective about the world.
We have people like Michelle Bachmann who claim to be lawyers...but she really went to a super christian lowly ranked law school that is essentially a degree-mill. I can't hold her credentials seriously.

And yes, in some extreme cases, where you get an education DOES matter. 

 

[hankmoody]

Is article in a recent issue of The New Republic presents a good example of a scientist in politics. http://www.tnr.com/articl...hu-energy-obama-solyndra

Steven Chu is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who was tapped by Obama to be the Secretary of Energy. But he couldn't succeed in the government sphere. Why? The myopic decision-making and cutthroat political calculus trumping scientific discovery and process. I think a lot of scientists believe they can accomplish a lot more through academia and in labs than politics. Maybe those that could win don't even try in the first place because of this.

A good blog on science and politics is The Intersection, run by Chris Mooney.