You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #43: Or a President who listens to (capable, nonideological) Science Advisor? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
43. Or a President who listens to (capable, nonideological) Science Advisor?
Edited on Sat Feb-11-06 09:58 PM by eppur_se_muova
Eisenhower was actually described as "adoring his scientists". He was probably about the best President we could have had when Sputnik was launched and caused such a panicked reaction. JFK, Nixon, and Carter were also good about facing the reality that advances in science were profoundly changing the world.

We certainly need someone who can *deal* with science better than Ray-gun and Bush**. Of course Gore would have been great -- I saw him interacting with a panel on ozone depletion and his questions would not have been out of place at a university colloquium (and I attended a colloquium by Mario Molino, who shared a Nobel Prize for work on the atmospheric chemistry of CFC-induced ozone depletion).

I agree with the other posters above that a scientist would not necessarily make a good President. Scientists are to used to dealing with facts, and not motivations. Remember "Nature does not lie" and "God is subtle, but He is never malicious" (Einstein). Politicians have to deal with lying and malice all the time, and need to be skilled at identifying one or the other, with little room for error. I remember pseudo-science debunker James Randy ("the Amazing Randi") stated that scientists are some of the easiest witnesses to fool, because they are expecting logically consistent results, not clever deception.

Bear in mind I'm a scientist myself, and would like to see scientific issues dealt with better in gov't. I don't think that requires a scientist as president.

(FWIW, Sadi Carnot, a chemist, was once President of France. I believe Paderewski, the pianist, became PM of Poland.)

on edit: LBJ had a degree in education from Southwest Texas State Teachers' College. He served as a school principal for a year, and also taught debate and (IIRC) elocution. He took his high school debate team from nowhere to the state finals in one school year. He got into politics by serving as secretary to a Texas representative, and virtually taking over his office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC