Should the wilfully scientific illiterate decide on the validity of scientific issues

[Michaelangelica]

Why do we tolerate our politicians deciding on critical *scientific* issues without even seeking appropriate, objective advice from scientific experts.

EG

The leader of the opposition in Australia the right-wing Abbott, Rhodes Scholar and obviously highly intelligent man, says AGW is crap while admitting he hasn't looked at the evidence put forward by science.

[lemit]

Over here we've been doing things that way since the days of Andrew Jackson. I think we are distrustful of representative democracy and somewhere deep inside would prefer "Idiocracy." Does that explain our voting trends for the last 170 or so years?

 

Michaelangelica, do you suppose, on a thread started by you and seconded by me, we could have expected a certain response if I had left out this question? Do you think we'll get that response anyway?

 

--lemit

[jedaisoul]

Why do we tolerate our politicians deciding on critical *scientific* issues without even seeking appropriate, objective advice from scientific experts.

EG

The leader of the opposition in Australia the right-wing Abbott, Rhodes Scholar and obviously highly intelligent man, says AGW is crap while admitting he hasn't looked at the evidence put forward by science.

I agree in principle that our politicians should not decide on scientific issues without seeking, and respecting, appropriate advice. The same applies to any lay person opining on ID, relativity etc...

 

However, in the case of AGW there is an argument that it is not a scientific issue. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, many knowledgeable independent advisers have grave concerns over how much science can authoritatively say about AGW. The time scale over which reliable data is available is woefully short. The predictions are based on computer models that are significantly flawed. For example, they do not factor in the effect of atmospheric water vapour.

 

The only thing that science can authoritatively tell us is that mean global temperatures have risen in the recent past. So there is a case for us to prepare for further rises in the future. Whether action on global emissions of CO₂ is a necessary, or effective, part of that preparation is far from certain. Is the willful destruction of the rain forests more or less important environmentally? The political question is, where is it most effective to spend our money?

[Kriminal99]

Because politicians are supposed to weigh the costs to society of addressing the issue, versus the costs to society of not addressing the issue. Politicians are supposed to be more qualified to do this than scientists are, and they are supposed to use scientists to provide the info to make this decision.

 

I think one problem is that there is no way to ensure the quality of person that really ends up in politics. We hear/read about them on the news, in papers etc. but there is no real way to verify any of this information. It's widely known that half the time the people who wind up in office are just well connected rich people who get those media outlets to say what they want about themselves.

 

The only times I feel like we can really believe anything that happens is when we see two opposing parties live going at each other like in the debates or when a candidate is blindsided by questions that make him uncomfortable.

 

I agree with lemit about our voting trends.

[BrianG]

...Michaelangelica, do you suppose, on a thread started by you and seconded by me, we could have expected a certain response if I had left out this question? Do you think we'll get that response anyway?

--lemit

 

Are you looking for my response?

[Pyrotex]

Well, the bottom line is, politicians have to get re-elected.

They have to pander to their constituancy.

If Beaureguarde Ledbetter got voted in by the state's fishing industry, then there ain't no decline in fish populations. (That would be bad for business.)

If he got voted in by the carbon burning cartel, then there ain't no problem with global warming.

You got to dance with them what brung you to the ball.

[BrianG]

I choose not to let government make decisions about my climate.

[lemit]

Are you looking for my response?

 

Yes. Sorry. That was very childish.

[REASON]

I choose not to let government make decisions about my climate.

 

How 'bout your food?

[BrianG]

Nope, I decide what I eat, the government can stuff it.

[Moontanman]

100 years ago being scientifically illiterate didn't mean a lot. No one really knew or cared about much of what we see as far reaching problems now. The general population was relatively unaware of what science was up to and what science said meant very little to anyone.

 

Now days our entire society is far more driven by science and technology than it ever has been. Not believing what science has to say is no longer meaningless in the greater picture. Science has been correct over and over, we see all sorts of predictions coming true and fixes proposed by science working quite well.

 

The problem is that science is no longer simply a how can we do but has become a why we shouldn't do. many people don't like that idea much, they don't like their tiny world views being upset by something beyond their understanding or even worse that is totally contrary to what they think is common wisdom.

 

Politicians use that to get votes, getting the votes is far more important than anything that might happen in the future. it's sad but it's how the system operates.

[paigetheoracle]

In the UK, the chief advisor to the government on drugs was sacked for voicing the evidence that alcohol was worse than drugs because it went against popular fears about cannabis. If it wasn't for governments wanting votes, would they still plump for popularity over sense I wonder? (Well yes they would because they only seem interested in idealism rather than realism i.e. practicality and wisdom take a back seat, while idiocy drives like a madman).

[jedaisoul]

In the UK, the chief advisor to the government on drugs was sacked for voicing the evidence that alcohol was worse than drugs because it went against popular fears about cannabis.

I'm not even sure that it went against popular fears about cannabis. It seems to me that the facts went against the whim of the politician. Guess which won???