Who should Obama pick for a VP? How bout a scientist?

[inthebrain]

I have a GREAT IDEA for a VP (I know it's unrealistic but I think you'll like it). How about we dig up a Nobel Prize winning scientist!!!!

That would really piss off the Republicans and their hokey base. Imagine, a guy who can explain to the American people how evolution works and Stem cell research is important. Not to mention that creationism is the antithesis of science and therefor shouldn't be taught along side it. Not to mention he could rub Scalia's decision to keep creationism out of the classroom just to rub it in their faces (Gould did a great job when this was brought to the supreme court. Even the righties had to concede).

He could even go so far and explain how global warming works and that science is not argued using the same methods of political debate. It's about proving you hypothesis with obervations in the natural world. It's fool proof and progressive. When it makes bad decisions or bias effects the research, other sicentists repeat the experiment and reverse the finding.

I know it's unrealistic but would certainly prove to alot of these people who are on the fence just how far down the rabbit hole these Republican ass wipes have fallen. I think a lot of people who know Bush duped them on the Iraq War would also come around and realize the games these jerk offs are playing with science.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Dig Up?

Like Einstein?

Oh wait....Not natural born.

[hughee99]

2. If you really want someone who can explain these ideas to the American people

a scientist may not be your best bet. Understanding something yourself and having the ability to explain it to others are two very different things.

[inthebrain]

4. Oh no, that would be the best choice

A big reason why evolution is not understood by a lot of people us beacause they do not undersatnd it. Furthermore, they don't understand as to how it is intertwined with the other science such as Physics, Biology and Astronomy. The debate to teach the stuff in the public schools and keep creationism sperate wasn't that long ago.

Despite a supreme court decision a lot of schools didn't comply. It wasn't until the Sputnik launch that this country decided to get their shit together and gear the educational system so that we could start pumping out scientists. The Sputnik launch proved to a lot of people that nobody owns natural laws.

A lot of older adults don't understand this stuff because they haven't been exposed to it or have it explained how it works.

A lot of people don't understand the process of science. That it's not like political debate whish is more an art than it is scientific method or a way of proving things.

There are a lot scientists that are very good at explaining how this stuff works in a way that regular folks can understand it. Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins are two that come to mind.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Oh, puhlease.

"A big reason why evolution is not understood by a lot of people us beacause they do not undersatnd it."

Evolution is a very simple that's easy to understand. The reason they don't believe it is because they don't want to believe it.

"The debate to teach the stuff in the public schools and keep creationism sperate wasn't that long ago."

Err, it hasn't change much in the last eighty years.

"It wasn't until the Sputnik launch that this country decided to get their shit together and gear the educational system so that we could start pumping out scientists. The Sputnik launch proved to a lot of people that nobody owns natural laws."

The Sputnik launch and subsequent education reforms were about red-baiting and propaganda. Not respect for science.

"A lot of people don't understand the process of science. That it's not like political debate whish is more an art than it is scientific method or a way of proving things."

Well if they don't, then a nobel laureate scientist VP isn't going to change anything.

[inthebrain]

16. If they ALL choose NOT TO understand it

Then why fight to have it kicked out of the public schools?

Simple fact is that people are capable of changing their minds. The more they are exposed to new ideas and stuff they aren't familiar with the more it happens. People are capable of evolving above the neck. And their are a ton of creationisist (Schermer, the editor of Skeptic Magazine) that do it.

I think you are confusing creatinists with red baiters. As far as the Red Baiters go, this is one area where they had to admit that the Commies got it right. Those people are not binded to any principle or idea except one; Profit. In that sense, if they have to slightly bend to the commies to save their system they will do it.

Creatinist, although having some points of agreement with the red baitors, aren't so bending on creationism and evolution. I'm talking about the real hard core creationists here. Many of the movers and shakers. THese guys, after the sputnik launch, didn't change anything about their thinking. Just their strategy. Rather than working from a top down strategy they worked from the bottom up.

They even had to adapt their terminology of the thing to Creation Science and Intelligent Design. In other words, they even had to bend their language to sound scientific in order to gain acceptance. As most scientist will tell you, scientific language does not make science.

After the Sputnik launch the creationist (I like the term Evolution Deniers) still kept the fight up to teach this stuff in science classroom.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Why teach it? Because it's the right thing to do?

"And their are a ton of creationisist (Schermer, the editor of Skeptic Magazine) that do it."

I've never actually scene a creationist change their mind.

"I think you are confusing creatinists with red baiters"

Usually, they're the same people.

"s far as the Red Baiters go, this is one area where they had to admit that the Commies got it right."

Lol, I've never seen a red baiter admit that either.

"They even had to adapt their terminology of the thing to Creation Science and Intelligent Design. In other words, they even had to bend their language to sound scientific in order to gain acceptance. As most scientist will tell you, scientific language does not make science."

Right. Creationists are dishonest punks that would rather cheat than admit they're wrong.

[inthebrain]

18. The right thing to do is not enough

You have to explain to there people why.

You could start with Scince and Religion being two different ways of thought. Religion seeks to fill gaps in the unexplained with faith. Science on the other hand uses exploration and observation in the natural world. You also further explain how all these life improving technologies and dicoveries are tooted in science and how they got their.

Take medicine and antbiotics.

Gravity.

Space exploration and Astronomy.

Archeology and Carbon 14 dating.

All these things are related to evolution.

I don't hold that all creatinists are lying scumbags. They hold to their beliefs because they think what they are doing is the right thing. The thing is that it's better to explain that you can not substitute facts with belief when it comes to science.

[IDemo]

10. Bill Nye, VP guy?

[inthebrain]

22. lol

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. It's really the 'science adviser' post

which Bush did his best to belittle: http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/the_science_adviser.php

With someone like Obama, who actually wants to know new stuff, as president, hopefully his science adviser will actually get interviewed a bit, because the administration's stance on all science won't be so dismissive any more.

[inthebrain]

6. Yeah, the right has been on a major crusade against science

for a long time now. Bush purged about 2500 scientists from the EPA when he took office. Many of them have worked there for decades unmolested by the executive branch.

[goodgd_yall]

5. Schweitzer

That's one thing I like about him---he has a science background. And that choice isn't so unrealistic.

[Solon]

7. Not as VP, necessarily, but in various different cabinet posts, that would be best...

A scientist with a good administration background, and hopefully someone who specializes in the field that they administer would be good. For example, as head of the Department of Energy, or as head of the EPA, CDC, etc. One thing I would like is a "Chief of Staff" type of organization within the executive branch of Scientists and Engineers of various fields who can help to hash out ideas on the environment, energy, transportation, etc.

[inthebrain]

9. I'm not being serious about this

For the most part these people aren't very well versed in debate (Well, Michael Schermer does better than others).

But I do think it would be funny and totally send the Republicans off the rails. They wouldn't expect it and they would do everything in their power to doyuble their efforts attacking Global Warming and Evolution. Meanwhile the Scientist VP could counter with, "You don't believe in evolution? You do take the full course of anti biotics when they are prescribed to you? don't you?"

I think it would be really funny and expose these whack jobs. In a sense I would like to see these people get more exposure nationally.

[Solon]

11. Aren't well versed in debate?

Have you ever seen a science convention before, all they do is debate, more or less, when you are dealing with science, on of the first things you must learn is how to defend your hypothesis or theory. Its friendlier, so to speak, than political debate, which can get nasty and personal, but for many scientists, there is still fierce debate.

Again, I'm not saying the Vice-President should be a scientist, but having a science advisory board, with some administrative power, would be a really good idea.

[inthebrain]

14. I meant in tersm of political debate

Scientists debate but it is VERY different than what you see in the realm of politics. It's not about painting your oponent and trying to define them before they define themselves on an issue. Now is "framing" used either because you have to leave all options on the table and elimiate them logically and scientificly.

Guns are framed in a way that "either guns keep you safe or they don't". You would have to also look at what else could reduce crime and if it works better.

[Gabi Hayes]

12. how bout a scientologist?

[tokenlib]

13. Yeah, a soil scientist!! Sounds like Schweitzer!

The guy totes a gun, has his own canine running mate and is intelligent too!!!

[demokatgurrl]

15. He'd lose in a landslide. We don't like science in the U.S.

we like RELIGION.

[ObamaIL]

19. Gore is the Man...But His Ego is Too Big

He won't do a second round of VP when he figures he probably could win this fall as President. Which is true...but he wouldn't have beaten Hillary which is why he didn't run.

[nxylas]

20. Why is it the VP's job to give science lessons?

Isn't that what teachers are supposed to do?

[inthebrain]

21. Re read the thread.

But there are a lot of science issues we are faced with today.

[Barack_America]

23. Craig Mello is a cool guy...

And completely brilliant.

Jim Watson...not so much (though he was nice to me).

Mike Brown is nice....

Oh, but Harold Varmus would be great. He used to run the NIH, so he that counts for executive experience. And he's really a nice guy. He's totally my pick.

I like your idea!