Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

[gubbi]

Since 'tis the election year in US, I figured, why not! Makes for interesting reading.

Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

February 13, 2012, 10:32 PM
Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
By JOHN ALLEN PAULOS

I’ve visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.

China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.

One needn’t endorse the politics of these people or countries to feel that given the complexities of an ever more technologically sophisticated world, the United States could benefit from the participation and example of more scientists in government. This is obviously no panacea — Herbert Hoover was an engineer, after all — but more people with scientific backgrounds would be a welcome counterweight to the vast majority of legislators and other officials in this country who are lawyers.

Among the 435 members of the House, for example, there are one physicist, one chemist, one microbiologist, six engineers and nearly two dozen representatives with medical training. The case of doctors and the body politic is telling. Everyone knows roughly what doctors do, and so those with medical backgrounds escape the anti-intellectual charge of irrelevance often thrown at those in the hard sciences. Witness Senator Bill Frist, Gov. Howard Dean and even Ron Paul.

This showing is sparse even with the inclusion of the doctors, but it shouldn’t be too surprising. For complex historical reasons, Americans have long privately dismissed scientists and mathematicians as impractical and elitist, even while publicly paying lip service to them.

One reason is that an abstract, scientific approach to problems and issues often leads to conclusions that are at odds with religious and cultural beliefs and scientists are sometimes tone-deaf to the social environment in which they state their conclusions. A more politically sensitive approach to problems and issues, on the other hand, often leads to positions that simply don’t jibe with the facts, no matter how delicately phrased. Examples as diverse as stem cell research and the economic stimulus abound.

Politicians, whose job is in many ways more difficult than that of scientists, naturally try to sway their disparate constituencies, but the prevailing celebrity-infatuated, money-driven culture and their personal ambitions often lead them to employ rhetorical tricks rather than logical arguments. Both Republicans and Democrats massage statistics, use numbers to provide decoration rather than information, dismiss, or at least distort, the opinions of experts, torture the law of the excluded middle (i.e., flip-flop), equivocate, derogate and obfuscate.

Dinosaurs cavorting with humans, climate scientists cooking up the global warming “hoax,” the health establishment using vaccines to bring about socialism – it’s hard to imagine mainstream leaders in other advanced economies not laughing at such claims.

Often too interested in politics as entertainment, the media is complicit in keeping such “controversies” running. Doing so isn’t hard since vivid, just-so stories and anecdotes usually trump (or should that be Trump) dry, sometimes counterintuitive facts and statistics.

Skepticism enjoins scientists — in fact all of us — to suspend belief until strong evidence is forthcoming, but this tentativeness is no match for the certainty of ideologues and seems to suggest to many the absurd idea that all opinions are equally valid. The chimera of the fiercely independent everyman reigns. What else explains the seemingly equal weight accorded to the statements of entertainers and biological researchers on childhood vaccines? Or to pronouncements of industry lobbyists and climate scientists? Or to economic prescriptions like 9-9-9 and those of Nobel-prize winning economists?

Americans’ grandiose (to use Newt Gingrich’s malapropism) egalitarianism also helps explain why the eight or nine original Republican presidential candidates suffered little for espousing, or at least not clearly opposing, scientifically untenable positions. Jon Huntsman, the only exception, received excessive kudos for what seems a rather lukewarm acceptance of climate change.

To avoid receiving the candidates’ canned responses on these and other issues, I sometimes wish that a debate moderator would forgo a standard question about immigration or jobs and instead ask the candidates to solve a simple puzzle, make an elementary estimate, perform a basic calculation.

Of course, the other side of the “two cultures” chasm should bear some of the onus for this lack of communication between politicians and scientists. Too few scientists are willing to engage in public debates, to explain the relevance of their fields clearly and without jargon, and, in the process, to risk some jeering from a few colleagues. Nevertheless, American scientists do more on this front than those in most other countries.

Perhaps because the words rhyme, it’s sometimes said that attitude is more important than aptitude in helping to bring about innovation, economic progress and social change. The dubious corollary is that freewheeling Americans who question authority and think outside the box have an abundance of attitude that helps make up for a declining performance in science and technology.

Maybe so, but attitude can only go so far. There is certainly no requirement for a Singaporean science background, but scientifically literate government leaders who push for evidence-based policies and demonstrate a scientific outlook are needed more than glib panderers with attitude.

John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, is the author of eight books, including “Innumeracy” and “A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper.”

The author does raise some interesting points. What are your opinions?

 

[gubbi]

A very interesting opinion by a renowned scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson - the author of Death by Black Hole.

If I Were President...

The question, “If I were President I’d…” implies that if you swap out one leader, put in another, then all will be well with America—as though our leaders are the cause of all ailments.

That must be why we’ve created a tradition of rampant attacks on our politicians. Are they too conservative for you? Too liberal? Too religious? Too atheist? Too gay? Too anti-gay? Too rich? Too dumb? Too smart? Too ethnic? Too philanderous? Curious behavior, given that we elect 88% of Congress every two years.

A second tradition-in-progress is the expectation that everyone else in our culturally pluralistic land should hold exactly your own outlook, on all issues.

When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different to you. It’s a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths of the world that exist outside of whatever your belief system tells you.

One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York, Aug. 21, 2011

Again, thoughts...?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Good article.

I always thought that engineers would make the best leaders.

I don't like leaders that studied "politics". Since politics already seems to attract people who are obsessed with power in the first place.

The best leaders are the ones who don't want to leaders, the ones who do it out of a sense of responsibility, rather than out of a desire for political power.

 

[RazPaK]

We like our WASPS in the US. We got the Chinese immigrants for science. What we in the US like, are self-entitled IVY League graduates that can find ground with common man by utilizing their oratorical mistakes.

 

[gubbi]

Good article.

I always thought that engineers would make the best leaders.

I don't like leaders that studied "politics". Since politics already seems to attract people who are obsessed with power in the first place.

The best leaders are the ones who don't want to leaders, the ones who do it out of a sense of responsibility, rather than out of a desire for political power.

Its not that engineers make good leaders, but in both the above articles the authors emphasize leaders being logical and base their policies on available evidence rather than pander to the abstract and illogical beliefs of the scientifically illiterate electorate.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

We like our WASPS in the US. We got the Chinese immigrants for science. What we in the US like, are self-entitled IVY League graduates that can find ground with common man by utilizing their oratorical mistakes.

And bring everyone down to the most common minimum denominator? I hate that about the "standardized tests" and "curving" the grades!!

 

[RazPaK]

^

Basically elect leaders with rationale and critical thinking skills. lolz


Really should be a no brainer for everyone, however I noticed one of the most important factors for a political leader in the US is pure charisma

 

[gubbi]

Basically elect leaders with rationale and critical thinking skills. lolz

Easier said than done. If you have been following the Republican primaries and debates, which one do you think is rationale and a critical thinker - NOT among the bunch but compared to "normal"?

Really should be a no brainer for everyone, however I noticed one of the most important factors for a leader in the US is pure charisma

And that is the bane of politics and electing leaders. Its actually a poor reflection of the electorate than the politicians themselves.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

However I noticed one of the most important factors for a political leader in the US is pure charisma

Out of the Western leaders, the most common professions are: Lawyers, successful businessmen, and those who studied politics.

These professions naturally lend themselves to the "political game".

Imagine a scientist, competing with guys like Obama (lawyer) and Mitt Romney (rich businessman) in terms of political charisma?

 

[RazPaK]

Easier said than done. If you have been following the Republican primaries and debates, which one do you think is rationale and a critical thinker - NOT among the bunch but compared to "normal"?

And that is the bane of politics and electing leaders. Its actually a poor reflection of the electorate than the politicians themselves.

I would say the electorate in US is beyond help. Many people here are fine with whoever as long as they get to hear what they want.

Personally Ron Paul seems like he's got a good head on his shoulders because instead of being a centrist style moderate(how most Democrats and Republicans both are), he's a libertarian in the realm of conservative Republicans.


I noticed that in India, people are a few steps ahead and becoming aware of the likes of Rahul Gandhi. They are focused on Modhi, who they support for bringing actual results to the table. A good sign for India, but things are looking much bleaker in the US.

 

[gambit]

I would say the electorate in US is beyond help. Many people here are fine with whoever as long as they get to hear what they want.

And what can I say about the Pakistani electorate? What can I say about the muslims in general as an electorate considering how often they support religious extremists who gave the people what they wanted to hear. What a can of worms you opened up.

 

[RazPaK]

And what can I say about the Pakistani electorate? What can I say about the muslims in general as an electorate considering how often they support religious extremists who gave the people what they wanted to hear. What a can of worms you opened up.

You can read up on the Pakistani electorate. There are endless threads here.

 

[gambit]

Since 'tis the election year in US, I figured, why not! Makes for interesting reading.

Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?



The author does raise some interesting points. What are your opinions?

My opinion is that Paulos should stay in the sciences and leave politics alone after this piece. It is irrelevant if a person have any scientific background or not, politics is about relationships with people at the non-scientific level and unless it is coercion, politics is about persuasions it is incumbent upon the person to persuade others to elect him. Politicians have technicians, or the scientists, to help them formulate policies and then it is up to the politicians to persuade, not coerce, the people to approve his policies. A scientist with poor people skill should be in office just because of his education? Did not the Soviets tried that? Did the communist world got any better?

 

[below_freezing]

My opinion is that Paulos should stay in the sciences and leave politics alone after this piece. It is irrelevant if a person have any scientific background or not, politics is about relationships with people at the non-scientific level and unless it is coercion, politics is about persuasions it is incumbent upon the person to persuade others to elect him. Politicians have technicians, or the scientists, to help them formulate policies and then it is up to the politicians to persuade, not coerce, the people to approve his policies. A scientist with poor people skill should be in office just because of his education? Did not the Soviets tried that? Did the communist world got any better?

The Soviet Union turned a crumbling and defeated medieval monarchy into the 2nd superpower on planet earth within 30 years despite losing 20 million citizens to fascist aggression.

 

[gambit]

The Soviet Union turned a crumbling and defeated medieval monarchy into the 2nd superpower on planet earth within 30 years despite losing 20 million citizens to fascist aggression.

They did it not because they persuaded the people to elect scientists. The communists were actually against intellectuals and educated people and those communists included Chinese communists. Did you forget Lysenkoism that China adopted from the Soviets to disasters?

 

[gambit]

I read Paulos's Innumeracy and it is a good book about mathematics for the laymen. But after this commentary, Paulos further support the belief that technocrats make worst politicians and the worst dictators.

And given my postings here, no one can rightly accuse me of being 'anti-science'.