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

[pbrower2a]

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).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

Is this based on some mass survey of scientists, distinguishing them both by level of urbane sophistication and by how "good" they are to produce a strong correlation? A guy who works his ass off in a labor sixty hours a week to bust out of a a doctoral program in record time has little room to feel pressure to learn French or read Dostoevsky. Moreover, a number of "good scientists" may themselves come from the lower echelons of (even white) society.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

I like you pbrower, but this post is pretty rotten.  It stinks of the same self awarded purity and infectious elitism that permeates science in this day and age, which is as flawed and ideological as the "deniers" they denigrate.

 

[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).

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. 

Hopefully (for the PAC), they would find a group of motivated, near single issue voters, who could be swung with their endorsement, and would hopefully make candidates more amenable to their views. A lot of times there is also sizeable donations involved for the most pro-____ candidate.

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Massive Freedom PAC!

But also...

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.

^^

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

The problem is that the Republican Party has done its best to turn itself into an anti-science party the last few decades.  It's regrettable, but true. The foundations were laid when the Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians embraced each other since many Fundies deny evolution, geology, and astronomy since they are incompatible with YEC.  Time and again, when a issue since then has split between pro-science and anti-science, the two camps have tended to congregate into the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.

I seriously doubt that in most places an explicitly pro-science candidate would be able to win a Republican primary.

[pbrower2a]

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).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

Is this based on some mass survey of scientists, distinguishing them both by level of urbane sophistication and by how "good" they are to produce a strong correlation? A guy who works his ass off in a labor sixty hours a week to bust out of a a doctoral program in record time has little room to feel pressure to learn French or read Dostoevsky. Moreover, a number of "good scientists" may themselves come from the lower echelons of (even white) society.

Research scientists are typically drawn from the upper part of the working class. For what science demands in learning and self-discipline, it pays rather poorly. One can make money far easier as a salesperson on commission and far more in medicine. The pay is reliable, and there are not the layoffs as there are in semi-skilled labor, but the rewards are small for what one puts in.

Scientists are generally good at expressing themselves. That goes with science, as scientists must often write grant requests and make reports. Unless they have horrible voices, they can be good speakers if they apply themselves. They are the best people to contradict myth and folly.   

[Ban my account ffs!]

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).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

Is this based on some mass survey of scientists, distinguishing them both by level of urbane sophistication and by how "good" they are to produce a strong correlation? A guy who works his ass off in a labor sixty hours a week to bust out of a a doctoral program in record time has little room to feel pressure to learn French or read Dostoevsky. Moreover, a number of "good scientists" may themselves come from the lower echelons of (even white) society.

Research scientists are typically drawn from the upper part of the working class. For what science demands in learning and self-discipline, it pays rather poorly. One can make money far easier as a salesperson on commission and far more in medicine. The pay is reliable, and there are not the layoffs as there are in semi-skilled labor, but the rewards are small for what one puts in.

Scientists are generally good at expressing themselves. That goes with science, as scientists must often write grant requests and make reports. Unless they have horrible voices, they can be good speakers if they apply themselves. They are the best people to contradict myth and folly.   

This is pure fantasy and you don't even need a scientist to tell you that.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

Is this based on some mass survey of scientists, distinguishing them both by level of urbane sophistication and by how "good" they are to produce a strong correlation? A guy who works his ass off in a labor sixty hours a week to bust out of a a doctoral program in record time has little room to feel pressure to learn French or read Dostoevsky. Moreover, a number of "good scientists" may themselves come from the lower echelons of (even white) society.

Research scientists are typically drawn from the upper part of the working class. For what science demands in learning and self-discipline, it pays rather poorly. One can make money far easier as a salesperson on commission and far more in medicine. The pay is reliable, and there are not the layoffs as there are in semi-skilled labor, but the rewards are small for what one puts in.

Scientists are generally good at expressing themselves. That goes with science, as scientists must often write grant requests and make reports. Unless they have horrible voices, they can be good speakers if they apply themselves. They are the best people to contradict myth and folly.   

What are you saying?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Massive Freedom PAC!

But also...

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.

^^

They could help the Rush Holts defeat the Cory Bookers in the Democratic primaries.