Shared publicly  - 
Come chat with me on Science Friday today at 2:10 ET / 1:10 CT about the case for a presidential science debate
Shawn Otto's profile photoBob Calder's profile photo
Listening now. (Sat.)
My opinion swings back and forth but mostly because I'm skeptical. I think there are plenty of smart people in elected government but they are reluctant to declare many things. For them it's wise to be a friend of all. For us, it's wise to elect people that share our view that things be provable or at least acknowledge there are no answers for certain things. Education reform is a great example. Over the last fifteen years, nothing has proven to be the least useful yet nobody will abandon "the best we have" simply because it's useless.
I agree. FTR, I am not interested in and do not support the idea of giving candidates pop math quizzes, as a fellow guest suggested who is not closely aligned with our initiative. A) that's politically DOA B) it has nothing to do with the grand science challenges we are facing that we want to know candidates' positions on, and C) in my view it's got little to do with what we elect candidates for in the first place, which is good judgment, the ability to base decisions on evidence over ideology, and the wisdom to know the difference.
A gentleman that briefs congresspersons said "If it doesn't scare you shitless, it should." ;-)
Add a comment...