Scientists in the US are running for office to combat science-denial

[JA]

https://qz.com/889950/scientists-in-the-us-are-running-for-office-to-combat-the-science-denial-descending-on-dc/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

STEM the Divide will only be helping candidates who run for office on the Democratic ticket since they argue the Republican platform is too hostile to science.

I think this is a wonderful idea as there should be more experts and knowledgeable professionals from STEM, as well as other, backgrounds represented in our government. Perhaps then we'd have public policy that makes more sense and is founded upon empirical, rather than religious or ideological grounds.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm generally not a fan of technocracy or of the idea that those who are academically brilliant ipso facto make the best leaders, but given that the mendacious denialism and in some cases outright nihilistic malice of much of the existing American power élite (and public) has reached the level of a world-historical emergency, this is much-needed right now. Freedom PAC.

[dead0man]

If we're going to have a TV star be President I'll take Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye over Trump or Kanye.  I like science, so I'm on board.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Buncha hacks. All the US can accomplish here is a drop in the bucket, and it's never gonna happen.

[Mr. Smith]

Works for me.

[JA]

Buncha hacks. All the US can accomplish here is a drop in the bucket, and it's never gonna happen.

Well educated, intelligent, and successful professionals within the field of science are hacks, right... According to whom, exactly?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Buncha hacks. All the US can accomplish here is a drop in the bucket, and it's never gonna happen.

Well educated, intelligent, and successful professionals within the field of science are hacks, right... According to whom, exactly?

Evidently according to hacks.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Excellent.  The Democrats would be a better party if they had more scientists and less corporate hacks like Booker or B-list celebrities like Lena Dunham.

[Meclazine for Israel]

mendacious denialism

My two new words for the day.

[muon2]

It's unfortunate that the PAC thinks electing scientists can only help if they are Dems. Party leaders will listen more to those active in their party than those outside it. That's doubly true within a legislative caucus. If the goal is to combat science denial in public policy, the best course is to elect scientists who are Pubs.

[DC Al Fine]

I like the sentiment behind this, but (and this is a big but) but it looks like this initiative will fall prey to the vices of STEM, namely a tendency to pursue scientism while being ignorant of non-STEM subjects (I'm looking at you Neil DeGrasse Tyson).

[Dr. Arch]

If we're going to have a TV star be President I'll take Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye over Trump or Kanye.  I like science, so I'm on board.

[Slow Learner]

America would have been much better off if it had Richard Feynman instead of Reagan.

[JA]

It's unfortunate that the PAC thinks electing scientists can only help if they are Dems. Party leaders will listen more to those active in their party than those outside it. That's doubly true within a legislative caucus. If the goal is to combat science denial in public policy, the best course is to elect scientists who are Pubs.

I actually agree with you here. That's the one thing I dislike about this PAC. If you really want to change the way science is approached in public discourse, you need to influence the party that is most hostile to science from the inside.

[dead0man]

I had no idea they were dumb enough to only be for one party.  (should have actually read it I guess)  Even scientists can be idiots.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I had no idea they were dumb enough to only be for one party.  (should have actually read it I guess)  Even scientists can be idiots.

Yeah, their stated rationale is incredibly counterproductive even if sincere and it's probably just supercilious tribalism.

[KingSweden]

It's unfortunate that the PAC thinks electing scientists can only help if they are Dems. Party leaders will listen more to those active in their party than those outside it. That's doubly true within a legislative caucus. If the goal is to combat science denial in public policy, the best course is to elect scientists who are Pubs.

Agreed. They should expand their horizons

[muon2]

It's unfortunate that the PAC thinks electing scientists can only help if they are Dems. Party leaders will listen more to those active in their party than those outside it. That's doubly true within a legislative caucus. If the goal is to combat science denial in public policy, the best course is to elect scientists who are Pubs.

Agreed. They should expand their horizons

A similar organization, Scientists and Engineers for America (also involving Trippi), 10 years ago was bipartisan in its support for politician scientists. In their videos they had talks with elected scientists from both parties. It's unfortunate that some of the same people are taking a more limited view now.

[Goldwater]

If they only focus on Democrats, I don't see how this will change anything, considering that Democrats are likely to agree with them anyway. If anything, it could hurt their credibility by make them seem like they are just a partisan Democratic PAC.

[DC Al Fine]

I had no idea they were dumb enough to only be for one party.  (should have actually read it I guess)  Even scientists can be idiots.

Yeah, their stated rationale is incredibly counterproductive even if sincere and it's probably just supercilious tribalism.

I've no love for the NRA, but one thing that is impressive about them (so I've heard, Americans please correct me if I'm wrong), is how they focus just on their issue. If a Democrat running for State Senate is an inch more pro-gun than the Republican, they'll get the endorsement.

As Evangelicals, or blacks, or union members have learned at various times and places, you'll be much more effective in getting what you want if the party you support knows you've got one foot out the door, than if you mindlessly back one party.

[pbrower2a]

The recognition or rejection of climate change is a huge cultural divide.

Academic and research scientists are generally smart, decent people... and they might be good at offering some retorts on climate matters. Where I live, global warming might put an end to the frequent nasty blizzards -- but at the price of the corn crop. In the economically-troubled Congressional district in which I live, agriculture is essential to such strength as the local economy has.

Blizzards give cover to soil moisture necessary for growing crops and supply critical water that goes into the ground in the spring instead of flowing off to the Great Lakes. Sure, blizzards are nasty phenomena, but for people who don't like them there is a valid alternative. Let me spell it out:

F-L-O-R-I-D-A

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm generally not a fan of technocracy or of the idea that those who are academically brilliant ipso facto make the best leaders, but given that the mendacious denialism and in some cases outright nihilistic malice of much of the existing American power élite (and public) has reached the level of a world-historical emergency, this is much-needed right now. Freedom PAC.

[RFayette]

I like the sentiment behind this, but (and this is a big but) but it looks like this initiative will fall prey to the vices of STEM, namely a tendency to pursue scientism while being ignorant of non-STEM subjects (I'm looking at you Neil DeGrasse Tyson).

How do you think this would manifest itself, out of curiosity?  I don't disagree (especially since this PAC is restricting itself to Democrats only), but I am not sure how it would play out. 

[Person Man]

If we're going to have a TV star be President I'll take Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye over Trump or Kanye.  I like science, so I'm on board.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

DeGrasse Tyson's smarmy "well, actually" style of pretending to be a "nerd" to appease mainstream illiterates has never been particularly entertaining. The assumption he's made quite explicit that human society and public policy alike can be boiled down to non-value utilitarian judgments I believe was already touched on by Horkheimer after World War II.