Laurence Krauss, a noted physicist at Case Western Reserve University, argues in today's WSJ that the next President must be scientifically literate, a standard some candidates could not meet.
Almost all of the major challenges we will face as a nation in this new century, from the environment, national security and economic competitiveness to energy strategies, have a scientific or technological basis. Can a president who is not comfortable thinking about science hope to lead instead of follow? Earlier Republican debates underscored this problem. In May, when candidates were asked if they believed in the theory of evolution, three candidates said no. In the next debate Mike Huckabee explained that he was running for president of the U.S., not writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book, and therefore the issue was unimportant.Krauss has joined with a group of prominent scientists calling for a presidential debate focused on science and technology issues, ScienceDebate2008.Apparently many Americans agreed with him, according to polls taken shortly after the debate. But lack of interest in the scientific literacy of our next president does not mean that the issue is irrelevant. Popular ambivalence may rather reflect the fact that most Americans are scientifically illiterate. A 2006 National Science Foundation survey found that 25% of Americans did not know the earth goes around the sun.
Our president will thus have to act in part as an "educator in chief" as well as commander in chief. Someone who is not scientifically literate will find it difficult to fill this role. . . .
Even if the American public is not currently focused on these concerns, decisions made by the next U.S. president on issues such as climate change, energy research, stem cells and nuclear proliferation will have a global impact. We owe it to the next generation to take ownership of these issues now. In spite of the ambivalence reflected in some polls, there is a popular understanding that science and technology will be essential to meet the challenges we face as a society. When reports began to surface warning that the avian flu might become a threat to humans, for example, everyone from the president down called for studies to determine how quickly the virus might mutate from birds to human beings. No one suggested that "intelligent design," for example, could provide answers.
Krauss' article does not make the erroneous claim that science "answers" pressing policy questions, a mistake others make (see here and here). Rather, he is arguing that scientific literacy is necessary to understand certain policy challenges, evaluate options, and develop solutions. A scientifically literate and technologically capable workforce is also important for American competitiveness. Whether a science-focused debate is necessary, the next administration should be comfortable consulting scientific expertise and recognizing the valuable role science can play in the development of public policy.
I guess in part because of my own scientific illiteracy, and the inability to guess what parts of "science" will be most relevant in the coming decade (though there are some frontrunners) I am not sure what I'd look for in a scientifically literate candidate.
And speaking of statistics, color me skeptical about that NSF survey. I'm sure I could write a poll question that gets half of respondents agreeing that the Earth is bigger than the Sun, which by itself wouldn't make a statement like "Half of all Americans don't know that the Sun is bigger than the Earth" accurate. 25% is awfully high for a trope that is repeated constantly throughout popular culture as a signal of the intelligence of a given character. The number of Galileo references (I'm sure the Simpsons has done one) also argues against the idea that a quarter of all American adults believe this. At best, I'd say that poll invited people to respond obnoxiously. I'd be tempted, with a dumb question like "does the Sun revolve around the Earth or the other way around," to answer incorrectly just out of spite.
Anyway, this isn't like being the President of General Motors. There is no one area of science that you need to be sufficiently literate in to successfully run the country -- general education level, intelligence, and emotional intelligence will serve the President better than a degree in Biology.
I would love to see the actual format of that question.
I don't really buy this whole proposition. You could make equal arguments that the president "has" to be literate in any number of fields, but the truth is that he doesn't, because that's what advisers are for. I would argue that a president only has to be AWARE of his own shortcomings enough in any field to realize that he isn't qualified to make decisions on his own based on them.
(I think we're using scientifically literate as a shorthand way of saying not evangelical.)
See also The Science Charade in Toxic Risk Regulation
Wendy E. Wagner
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 7. (Nov., 1995), pp. 1613-1723.
Yes, it is good to have a President who knows the Constitution (oath and all).
Yes, it is good to have a President who knows some economics (which, by the tenor of your comment, presupposes economics is not science, but most of us... excepting Posner... knew that already).
None of this is mutually exclusive with having a President who has some understanding of science. In the today's age, many policy issues have some science 'issue' involved. While the President should have those who can help him/her understand the issue, the President should still be able to bring some level of independent critical thinking to the issue to analyze the opinions they've been given.
1. Appreciation that federally funded R&D works best on long time scales, and thus drastic changes in funding priorities should be made only with long term committments (for example, see Bush energy R&D policy and the "hydrogen economy").
2. Appreciation that people are scientifically illiterate because of poor science education in primary and secondary schools. A good candidate will support (perhaps not through federal mandates or any federal direction at all, but at least in some vague sense) educational reforms, which hopefully make it easier for engineers and scientists to become educators.
3. The ability to weigh various and disparate threats to national security (e.g. Al Qaida, hurricanes, avian flu) rationally and focus limited federal resources effectively.
4. An recognition that technology-neutral policies are essential for unencumbered science and technology progress. Example: subsidization of ethanol is highly market-distorting, making it unattractive to produce many higher-value products, such as fine chemicals, from corn.
***
In general, I'm always glad to read Prof. Adler's posts and hear about Lawrence Kraus's latest work. As a CWRU alumn, it's the only good news I get from CWRU. Five new presidents in nine years...an engineering alumni association and upper-level administration that feud both publicly and in mailers to alumni... it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
So, kudos to the competent, like Adler and Kraus, and keep up the good work.
An overbroad skepticism to conclusions and an ability to find and recognize when the skepticism should yield to what are good results, and thus the right course of action, serve a POTUS much better than any particular degree.
Although if were going to pick a degree, I think an undergraduate liberal arts and sciences degree will likely be the best background rather than a speciality in a Core Science.
The more I think about it, the more I want the next president to be:
-economically literate (foolishness is not an asset)
-scientifically literate (evidence of method and of curiosity)
-theologically literate (materialist atheists miss what matters most to most Americans)
-linguistically literate (enough Bushisms, frankly we could do with a well-spoken President for a change).
Like just this morning I heard Steven Hadley going on about how because Iran was enriching uranium and had capable ballistic missiles they were a threat to quickly start up their nuclear weapons program again and mount a nuclear device on a missile (or at least that was the implication). Now I would hope that the National Security Advisor would know that a uranium device is just too damn bulky and large to ever fit on a ballistic missile. To design a workable warhead small enough to fit on a missile (as opposed to a bomb), you need plutonium, which all the uranium enrichment in the world is not going to create.
No, it's shorthand for being willing to honestly answer a handful of very specific questions to which an honest answer would antagonize evangelical supporters.
Krauss: "theologically literate (materialist atheists miss what matters most to most Americans) "
What, as opposed to the non-materialistic atheists? I think any president can be an atheist and still understand that many Americans are religious. And I'm not sure that theology "matters most" to Americans either.
And this pretty much illustrates the point. Someone with a genuine interest in science might distinguish between judgment calls in bioethics and scientific fact. But most of this professed concern over the importance of Science! in politics seems to come from people who don't make the slightest distinction between party line ideology and whether or not the earth goes around the sun.
As for economic literacy, good luck defining what that means in an age where "tax cuts increase government revenues" has become the Republican orthodoxy.
Gack!
Admittedly it's a big improvement over "emother-in-chief", but still...
L. Krauss
It is clearly time to scrap our entire K-12 educational system and start over from scratch.
Maybe that's because tax cuts DO increase government revenues.
"Even if the American public is not currently focused on these concerns, decisions made by the next U.S. president on issues such as climate change, energy research, stem cells and nuclear proliferation will have a global impact."
Unless the President is going to actually do the research listed, it would seem that Mr. Krauss wants the next President elected not for scientific credentials so much as party-line talking points. Science says nothing about what we should do about any of those things (especially nuclear proliferation). We may determine how or why something has happened, but science says nothing of whether it is good or bad. If the weather models were actually accurate about global warming, (which they aren't) 50 ft sea level rise would only prove a model. Science doesn't care about humanity! The "people suck" mentality of the political left are trying to hijack the name of science to prove their side but science for the sake of science doesn't draw distinctions about whether people live or die or if the Earth is 5 degrees or 100. Mr. Krauss would probably not like a president with a scientific background if he/she totally disagreed with him politically. After all, science doesn't determine whether you go to war or not.
I've been frustrated with biologists And politicians who have allowed the Creationists to shake their epistemological moorings. Evolution as we undertsand it now is NOT "a fact." Neither is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Both are theories. Evolution explains our current biology better than any other *scientific* theory.
For a long time Newton's Law explained the tendency of things to fall down better than any other theory. But it doesn't hold up when we look at the cosmological scale. Black holes or galaxies that pass through each other. For that, we need Einstein, dark matter, the bending of space, and all the weird stuff that keeps you up at night.
But while I'd like to have a scientifically literate POTUS in this sense, It's far more important to have a scientifically literate SCOTUS. It's hard to know what our constitutional jusrisprudence says about something when you haven't a clue how that thing works, or what it means.
BUT . . . Newton could show you via application of calculus to his theory how to /explain/ and /predict/ the movements of heavenly bodies (insert Kate Beckinsale joke in the space provided: ). THIS is what I want a president to understand: Science explains thing and seeks to predict things based upon the best explanation that scientists have AT THE TIME. We can't try to force science into the bianary right/wrong of theologies or ideologies. A good model may be replaced by a better model at some point. This is what we WANT to see happen. And it doesn't mean research based on the previous model was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
Sounds apocryphal, although I did once meet a college student who claimed to neither know nor care when the First and Second World Wars happened, or in what order (!).
As it's presently constituted, the Presidency is an impossible job, regardless of what skills a candidate brings to it. What we really need is someone who'll reduce the scope of the job to where it's doable. Rotsa ruck!
Jonathan, you're right of course that science can't directly answer policy questions, but I don't think it's an error to assert that if the public had a generally better understanding of the state of scientific knowledge in a number of areas, at least some of the policy disagreements that currently exist would evaporate.
And how many people realize that, for all practicable purposes, the sun does go around the earth? Given that there is no absolute reference point in space, one could easily define the earth going around the sun, the sun going around the earth, both going around the moon, the moon going around jupiter, or whatever you want. It all depends upon what your 'zero' point is when writing your mathematical models.
For that matter, the most reasonable zero point would not suggest that the earth goes around the sun; rather it would suggest that both go around a reference point somewhere between the earth and the sun (the gravity that causes the 'earth to orbit the sun' also causes the 'sun to orbit the earth'- that reference point will depend upon the relative mass of the earth and the relative mass of the sun, which would place it very close to, or even under the outer surface of, the sun).
Think of it this way; if you spin a dumbell, it is not the case that one end orbits the other. Rather, they both orbit the center of mass of the whole dumbell.
So what is scientific literacy? The belief that the sun orbits the earth? The knowledge that this is not the case, but the replacement with an equally simplific 'the earth orbits the sun'? The knowledge that both are oversimplifications of the actual case (that both the earth and sun orbit the same center of gravity)? Or the fact that such observations depend upon one's initial reference point, which is arbitrary?
I get the impression the 'whatever embarrasses evangelicals' is the true right answer.
Sk
Well, pretty much the opposite of my point.
But, again, this goes against reason: "Science" itself has a history. And what, say, Galen told us about anatomical reality is not what Johns Hopkins Med School tells us now about reality.
Science IS discrete, because it has its own methodology. That methodology is good for developing theories about the natural world. But it's lousy for trying to undertstand, e.g., political history or the writing of poetry, which also form part of reality.
Science studies the natural world. But it does not ENCOMPASS that world, anymore than History encompasses the Past. It's just a means by which we seek to comprehend and explain a part of reality.
So Tyson's the sort of scientist I was bitchin' about in my first post. Now I have another name to add to my S-list . . .
But the Hub of the Milky Way contains a MASSIVE black hole, so I don't think any of this is going to matter in the long run.
(OK. I'm done now. Sorry for using up so many ones and zeroes, Prof. Adler. We may be running low these days.)
I'd just like to say that I've treasured my copy of "The Physics of Star Trek" for years.
-A Big Fan.
Evangelical does not equal creationist. I am an evangelical Christian who has no problem thinking that evolution is the best theory out there and there are plenty of other evangelicals out there who think the same. Please work on your theological literacy.
All other thing being equal in candidates I would prefer the candidate that said he believed in evolution, but since that has almost nothing to do with the biggest decisions presidents are faced with (who to appoint to positions, how to use the military, how to spend our money, etc.) it is very low on my list of priorities when deciding who to vote for.
Some candidates may be scientifically literate yet spiritually ignorant. Would this concern Dr. Krauss as well?
I didn't see our points as inconsistent at all; to the contrary, it seems to me that we're saying more or less the same thing from slightly different perspectives. I hardly think that Dr. Tyson meant to suggest that science has anything to say about politics or poetry, and while I don't think that he (and certainly not I) would deny the distinction between Reality (existence qua existence) and humankind's historical efforts to comprehend it (which obviously has a specific history and will never be more than a theoretical approximation of the natural world), I think a more charitable reading of his point would convey the idea, with which I agree, that the empirical methodology that scientists apply to their investigations of the natural world is one that should be understood and appreciated by any serious-minded person, and that laypeople leave the methods and content of science to the "professionals" at their peril. An understanding of that methodology would certainly entail an appreciation for the fact that the history of science is one of sequential models of the natural world that come (we hope) progressively closer to approximating reality in all its complexity. I'm can't imagine that Dr. Tyson would deny that, and I don't really see why you think his statemet is inconsistent with that idea.
You are mistaken. There is no serious support for the proposition that "tax cuts raise government revenues."
But you illustrate my point quite well, which is that we will never agree on a common definition of "economic literacy" in the present political climate.
First, one can take the claim 25% of Americans don't understand/believe/are aware of the heliocentric view of the solar system--which I agree seems apocryphal--and say, "Well, I guess that means we DON'T have to know science, as our society seems to have become quite prosperous without everyone knowing this.
As to the President, the only reason the President is now seen as having to be an expert on all manner of subjects, including science, is that the government has invaded all aspects of life/choice/social existence in our society. This is an argument for shrinking government's size and responsibility, not for futilely searching for über-men who can handle the current job.
If this was what he said, then I retract my criticism of him, and take him of my list. But there are plenty of scientists who don't understand that fundamental point. Having a means to access reality is not the same as having reality; like having Rachel Weisz's phone number is not the same as having Rachel Weisz.
As to the other point: I sincerely HOPE that you are right about the asymptotic approach to reality. I part company with the po-mos on the radicalism of their espistemology. The reality that science describes is too predictable and consistent to be no more than a 'construct.' Even on the quantum level. Po-mo colleagues want to use Heisenberg to show that science is NOT predictable and regular. But that's NOT what Heisenberg was saying. In fact, he could predict aggregate results perfectly fine. He just could not predict the path of any /specific/ particle.
Compared to the predictive capacities of social 'sciences,' I think this puts physics in a completly different boat. (Regardless of whether Schroedinger's cat is alive when it ain't.)
I believe that the record indicates that since at least the Kennedy Administration, every occassion where income tax rates were reduced, the net effect was an increase in the revenues generated by the federal income tax.
Of course, I may be wrong but anyone who appreciates the "science" of economics would certainly be expected to look at the actual data...
I think if taken in this light, instead of advocating for, say, a natural sciences background, it is a very reasonable qualification. After all, this would cross over to everything from economics to abortion debates.
Now, while I think this is a great approach to most issues, I do have one reservation. A president needs to understand that not everything is academic, and not everyone is altruistic. In other words, they need to understand that some things, some people, and some beliefs, are simply evil. Moral scrutiny (often religiously-derived, though not necessarily so) is just as important as critical scientific analysis, in this chemist's humble opinion.
It does seem to work out that way, doesn't it.
Able to think scientifically.
I want someome who Makes judgments based on the evidence - as opposed to someone who (re?)interprets the evidence to support a pre-determined judgment.
Another part of thinking scientifically is accepting that if new evidence shows that the intial hypothesis was wrong, then one ought to incorporate the new evidence and change one's mind.
Bymetov,
As a side note cutting taxes CAN raise revenue - if one is on the right side of the Laffer curve. The argument comes because it is hard to tell where on the Laffer curve a particular society falls. We get in trouble on this precisely because we have politicans who don't think scientifically. If we raise taxes and then the economy slows, resulting in lower tax receipts, then we ought to realize that cutting the taxes might be a better choice. If we cut taxes and don't see a rebound in receipts due to the economic stimulation, then we ought to be honest and admit that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve.
Please don't read the previous paragraph as an endorsement of a government maximizing tax revenues - we are talking economic theory and explaining how taxes influence the overall economy. I think we should purposefully stay on the left side of the curve - taxes should be correlated by what government needs to spend instead of wringing the maximum in tax revenue out of the economy and then deciding how to spend it.
Steve: unless your credentials in economics are as good as Professor Laffers, I will give that assertion the appropriate in attention it deserves. Read carefully please: Nowhere did I make any assertion that "tax cuts raise government revenues." That is your strawman (or perhaps someone else's). It is most certainly not mine nor is it professor Laffers. In fact, that assertion is laughable. The correct argument, that your caricature overlooks is that tax cuts MAY HAVE an effect on the amount consumer discretionary income which may in turn affect government tax revenues downstream based upon the effect those expenditures have on the overall economy. Depends on the prevailing tax rates--No credible supply side economist that I am aware of has ever said that cutting taxes will always raise government revenue. Depends, inter alia, on what the prevailing tax rates are.
You want someone with a good grounding in the hard sciences? I've got a BS in Aerospace &Ocean Engineering. A good grounding in foreign and defense policy? I'm a Naval War College graduate.
There!
The problem is that we look to lawyers for our leaders...and our judges. The Constutition is too valuable to be left entirely to the lawyers.
That's what I took him to mean, at least; I'll confess that I don't clearly recall the context of the conversation in which his statement was made, but my characterization above is basically what I took away from his comment.
As to the question of epistemology, I suppose I take Hume's view: it may be the case that the process of inductive reasoning underlying scientific methodology can't be justified on any non-circular basis, but I am still psychologically incapable of resisting the temptation to believe that the future will resemble the past, so I'm going to continue doing that and reap whatever benefits, however rationally ill-deserved, befall me. I suspect that, in any context that matters, even the most radically skeptical postmodernist is equally incapable of resisting that view. I suppose we could test that by asking one to stick his hand into a fire.
(As an aside, I recently finished reading Robert Fogelin's pretty good Walking the Tightrope of Reason: The Precarious Life of a Rational Animal, which addresses this and other challenges to rationalism. I doubt you'd learn much from it, but it's a pretty good survey of the classic literature.).
Prof. Krause can best decide what he means.
I would like to see a scientifically literate president meaning:
An understanding of descripteve and basic inferential statistics.
A basic understanding of logical inference.
Some minimal academic background quantitative science-- having done experiments, solved chemistry or physicas problems at an elementary level, so he has some idea of how scientists approach the material world. A good HS course in physicas or chemistry would provide this.
Basic knowledge of microeconomics.
And all of this should allow a president to choose appropriate advisors, read their reports, and enable him to ask the right questions.
Some of the commentators ahve been confusing moral judgment with scientific inference.
A president should want to know, and be able to reasonably ascertain:
Whether a given intervention will reduce carbon or ward off enemy missiles, a
With what probability,
At what cost,
And with what opportunity costs.
The background I suggested is necessary, but not sufficient, for a person to do this.
One wonders what capable chief executives such as Angela Merkel (physicisst) or Hu Jin Tao (engineer) will think if we elect someone like Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama, neither of whome seems to have any background or interest in science orthe scientific process.
BUT being an fundamentalist who says that evolution is "just a theory" or a fundamentalist who tries to call Creationism a science (intelligent design/intelligent origin theory - make the acronym yourself) reveals that the person is either woefully ignorant of what science is or prone to wishful fantasy thinking or intellectually dishonest and pandering.
I have no problem with a Christian who says "I believe the literal Biblical version of Genesis. This is my faith and the evidence is not relevent to my belief." But Christians who clutter the world with anti-evolutionary apologia that make ridiculous, refuted claims about "irreducible complexity," "random odds of assembling a 747 with a tornado," etc., make Christians as a whole look bad. Whenever the church goes head to head with science, it will lose - think pi, heliocentrism, genetics, etc. It will lose because science is able to generate new, testable hypotheses as new evidence becomes available. It will lose becuase those (just!) theories end up providing technologies that make our lives better.
In short, Huckabee ought not to be elected because his creationist statement either reveals poor critical analysis skills or dishonesty or demagoguery.
If you need to vote for a Christian, vote for one who isn't divorced from reality.
Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method and what scientists of all types do. One creates theories from observations then attempts to disprove the theories.
A president doesn't necessarily need to be able to explain scientific facts (although that would be a useful skill) but few things bother me more than hearing accounts of people doing the oppisite of the scientific method. They choose a theory and only accept evidence that supports it.
Science governs the physical world... there's no harm in letting faith govern the metaphysical.
To be fair to Judge Posner, I believe he has written (in Econ. Analysis of Law) that economics "aspires" to be scientific, which is about accurate. Would that our public figures had similar aspirations. Also, re the comment along the lines of "scientifically literate" is code for "not evangelical" . . . I think that is only a fair remark if the evangelist in question generally rejects the conclusions and methods of science to the extent they conflict with his religious beliefs. If the evangelical is intellectually mature enough to question and reevaluate his beliefs (whether rooted in reason or faith) in the case of such conflict, or to keep his deeply held faith a matter of private belief and speak the discourse of reason in matters public, that's okay with me. It's only the blind, reflexive, rejection of uncomfortable things that might nonetheless be true that I find . . . unpresidential.
The analogy to the commander-in-chief role just makes it worse. It suggests that the president should head up some kind of national education force, just as he heads up the military.
Oops, typo time: that's supposed to be
emoter-in-chief
Heh, I actually liked your original version better.
Why?
Presidents have not made, to my knowledge, and seem unlikely ever to make any important decisions that in any way hinge on their beliefs about the truth of evolution.
As far as the "end times", does that restrict only to purely theological end times, or would it include the more hysterical forms of global warming or overpopulation hysteria? The latter seem, from experience, far more likely to produce ill-advised <I>actions</i> from politicians - note that Ronald Reagan, while as far as I know believing in "the end times" as a matter of theology, managed to face down the Soviet Union without any of the caricatures of such a belief being enacted (such as starting a nuclear war to bring Jebus - a belief I've heard proposed only by opponents of eschatological religious beliefs, oddly.)
(I don't even care if someone doesn't believe in evolution - because it doesn't actually matter for anything else.
Yes, it's stupid to be a Young Earth Creationist or an ID Ideologue.
But you'll find that such people are typically quite capable of dealing with "science" in pretty much every other context, especially those most relevant to being President. Hell, some IDers are even engineers - because they don't reject "science" as a method or as a body of knowledge <I>in general</i>, easy and fun as it might be to pretend they do.)
Full disclosure: I'm an atheist.
<blockquote>
Dataset: General Social Surveys, 1972-2006 [Cumulative File]
Variable EARTHSUN : SCI KNOWLEDGE:THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN
PreQuestion Text
Now, I would like to ask you a few short questions like those you might see on a television game show. For each statement that I read, please tell me if it is true or false. If you don’t know or aren’t sure, just tell me so, and we will skip to the next question. Remember true, false, or don’t know.
Literal Question
J. Now, does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?
Values Categories N NW
1 EARTH AROUND SUN1372 1395
2 SUN AROUND EARTH342 329
0 NAP 49156 49165
8 DONT KNOW 149 131
9 NO ANSWER 1 1
</blockquote>
I could not get a direct link but here is the source:
http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/ Browse+GSS+Variables/Subject+Index/
which I found from here
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showsrvy.cfm
srvy_CatID=6&srvy_Seri=17#top
I am a bit bothered by how they went on about how this is a teue/false/don't know question and then ask an either/or question.
Also since technically the sun and earth both rotate around a center mass that happens to lie withen the sun a picky respondent would might say neither and be more scientifically literate then the questioner.
Of course, I may be wrong but anyone who appreciates the "science" of economics would certainly be expected to look at the actual data...
They also go up after tax increases. Tax revenues show an upward trend due to economic growth, inflation, and population growth. Any sensible analysis tries to take these other factors into account. Those that do indicate that tax cuts just do not pay for themselves. For a summary of one recent study see this or look at the recent Treasury study itself. The Treasury study, while not explicitly estimating revenue effects, speaks repeatedly of the need to finance the Bush cuts.
No credible supply side economist that I am aware of has ever said that cutting taxes will always raise government revenue. Depends, inter alia, on what the prevailing tax rates are.
The issue is not economists but politicians. GOP politicians routinely make this claim, or something very close. This despite the fact that people like Mankiw and Hubbard, both recent Bush advisors, have written that it is nonsense.
Also, I think a basic understanding of Statistics should be expected as so much of our understanding of the world is based on them. Not to mention they are perhaps the most influential kind of lie ;).
The French seem just as bad if not worse. A contestant on the French version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" didn’t know whether it's the Sun, or the Moon that rotates around the earth. Watch it (with English subtitles) here. Note that approximately half the studio audience couldn’t answer the question either.
Back in the late 1980s a large fraction of Harvard’s graduating seniors could not explain the cause of the seasons.
L. Krauss
In my law school class at UT Austin, for example, only 5 of 140 students had majored in a hard science, and that's only if you include engineering among the sciences. Lawyers are worse then innumerate.
Here's how the Supremes fail to stack up:
Roberts: History
Roberts graduated first in his high school class of 1973 from La Lumiere School, a Catholic boarding school in LaPorte, Indiana. He received a bachelor's degree summa cum laude [in History?] from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1979.
Stevens: English Literature
Elementary and preparatory schools: University of Chicago Laboratory School. Following his graduation from High School, he continued his studies at the University of Chicago, earning an A.B. in English Literature 1941, joining the Psi Upsilon fraternity and graduating Phi Beta Kappa. For law school, Stevens attended Northwestern University, graduating, magna cum laude, the first in class in 1947. He received the highest grades in the law school's history and distinguished himself by becoming editor in chief of the Illinois Law Review, a member of the Order of the Coif and a member of Phi Delta Phi.
O’Connor: Economics
Sandra attended the Radford School, from kindergarten until 12th grade in El Paso; she graduated with good marks. Following graduation from the private academy in Texas, she continued her studies at Stanford University, where she earned a B.A. in Economics in 1950, graduating magna cum laude. Subsequently, she attended Stanford Law School earning her LL.B. 1952, graduating third in her class in only two years (as opposed to the customary three years most require). Along the way, she served on Board of Editors for the Stanford Law Review and was a member of the prestigious Order of the Coif Legal society.
Scalia: History
Scalia attended St. Francis Xavier, a military prep school in Manhattan, where he graduated first in his class. He then continued his studies at Georgetown University, studying abroad at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland); he graduated with an A.B. summa cum laude in history. He was also the Valedictorian in 1957. Scalia continued on to Harvard Law school graduating magna cum laude in 1960; he distinguished himself further as note editor for the Harvard Law Review. After graduation, he traveled to Europe for a year as a Sheldon fellow from Harvard University.
Kennedy: Economics
Kennedy attended local public institutions and upon graduation from high school, attended Stanford University from 1954-57. For one year, he studied abroad at the London School of Economics from 1957-58 and graduated from Stanford U. with a A.B., earning a Phi Beta Kappa key in 1958. After Stanford, Kennedy continued his studies at Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude with his LL.B. in 1961.
Souter: Philosophy
Souter attended a local public school where he excelled and later attended Concord High School, where his classmates voted him, upon graduation, the "most sophisticated" and "most likely to succeed." He continued his studies at Harvard University, graduating magna cum laude with an A.B [in Philosophy?]. 1961 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He was selected as a Rhodes Scholar and spent the next two years to earn another bachelors and masters degree at Magdalen College, Oxford, 1963, receiving an A.B. and Masters in Jurisprudence in 1989. At Harvard Law School, he received his LL.B. in 1966.
Thomas: English
St. John Vianney Minor Conception Seminary, 1967-1968: At Holy Cross College, he graduated ninth in his class with an A.B. in English, cum laude in 1971. He was a member of Alpha Sigma Nu and the Purple Key Society. At Yale Law School, he received his J.D. in 1974.
Ginsburg: Government
Ginsburg received a B.A. with high honors in Government, distinction in all subjects, from Cornell University, where she was also the College of Arts and Sciences Class Marshall and a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi. She attended Harvard Law School (1956-58) as one of only nine women in her class and earned a position with the Harvard Law Review, but later transferred to Columbia Law School where she received her LL.B. (J.D.), was a member of the Columbia Law Review, and was a Kent Scholar. She graduated at the top of her class.
Breyer: Economics
Breyer attended public elementary and high school (Lowell High School) in San Francisco. When he was in high school, he accumulated several math, science and debate awards and was not surprisingly voted "most likely to succeed" by his classmates. After high school, Breyer continued on to Stanford University to earn an A.B. in 1959, graduating with honors. He then attended Oxford University, and studied economics at Magdalen College as a Marshall Scholar, where he earned a B.A. and graduated First Class Honors in 1961. Later, Breyer studied law at Harvard Law School and received a L.L.B., magna cum laude in 1964. He distinguished himself as the articles editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Alito: Public and International Affairs
Alito attended Steinert High School in Hamilton Township, New Jersey and subsequently graduated from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs with a Bachelor of Arts in 1972. He earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1975 where he served as editor on the Yale Law Journal.
Is there any question in ANYONE'S mind that a person who believed that the Earth was created less than 50,000 (or whatever lesser number) years ago is ipso facto not qualified to be President?
What is the effective difference between believing "The Earth is less than 50,000 years old" and believing "The theory of evolution is unwarranted"?
How a President reasons and evaluates evidence (and what kind of person will he seek advice from) is crucial in so many contexts.
how does one graduate with the highest GPA in school history and still only get a "magna cum laude"?
Hillary Clinton, B.A., Political Science, 1969, Wellesley College, with departmental honors
Barak Obama, B.A. Political Science, Columbia University, 1983
John Edwards, B.S. Textile Technology, North Carolina State University, 1974, with honors
Joe Biden, B.A. History and Political Science, University of Delaware, 1965
Christopher Dodd, B.A. English Literature, Providence College, 1966
Dennis Kucinich, B.A. and MA in Speech and Communication, Case Western Reserve University, 1973
Bill Richardson, B.A. French and Political Science, Tufts University, 1970; M.A., International Relations, Tufts University, 1971
Mike Gravel, B.S., Economics, Columbia University, 1956
Newt Gingrich, B.A., History, Emory University, 1965, M.S., PhD, History, Tulane, 1968
Chuck Hagel, B.A., History, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 1971
Rudolph Giuliani, College Board scores of 569 verbal and 504 math
John McCain, [At Annapolis] McCain's grades were good in the subjects he enjoyed, such as literature and history. [Roomate] Gamboa said McCain would rather read a history book than do his math homework. He did just enough to pass the classes he didn't find stimulating. "He stood low in his class," Gamboa said. "But that was by choice, not design."
Mitt Romney, Brigham Young University, B.A. English, 1971, first in his class with a 3.97 GPA.
Ron Paul, Gettysburg College, B.A., 1957, M.D. Duke University, 1961
Fred Dalton Thompson, Memphis State University, B.A. Philosophy and Political Science, 1964
Tommy Thompson, B.A. Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tom Tancredo, BA, Political Science, University of Northern Colorado, 1968
Sam Brownback, B.S., Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, 1979, with honors
James S.Gilmore III, B.A., Foreign Affairs, University of Virginia, 1971
Mike Huckabee, B.A., Religion, Ouachita Baptist University, 1976
Duncan Hunter, B.S., Law, Western State University, 1968
Tom Vilsack, B.A., History, Hamilton College, 1972
What disastrous consequences would those be? Specifically attributable to 'this administration'? I know of none.
Hoover was scientifically literate and FDR probably was barely passable in that department. Who did better?
It came down to judging the quality of the advisers, not the quality of the advice.
As Will Rogers said, we're all ignorant, only on different subjects.
Since you put "anyone" in bold .... There is a small, but not insignificant, population of the United States who not only think that, but who go much, much further: a person who denies the literal truth of the bible in general, and the Genesis creation story in particular, is ipso facto unqualified to be President the United States. I take it that most people reading this blog would agree with you, but it's silly to think that there aren't people who would strongly disagree. After all, this wouldn't be an issue if everyone agreed, would it?
Not to be overly geeky here, but "The Physics of Star Trek" was an awesome book - highly recommended. It's also nice to see a science book do well in the marketplace.
That's correct. I'm glad you agree with me that there are not two sides to this particular issue.
But as to whether it's a ludicrous strawman that no one believes, I'll defer to supply-side guru Bruce Bartlett:
It's amazing to watch otherwise rational conservatives pretend that statements like these don't exist, and that Republican orthodoxy on economic matters should be divined solely by looking at what conservative economists write as opposed to what conservative politicians campaign on.
In fact, your suggestion that "tax cuts raise government revenues" is a mere strawman is belied by another statement made in this very thread! ("I believe that the record indicates that since at least the Kennedy Administration, every occassion where income tax rates were reduced, the net effect was an increase in the revenues generated by the federal income tax.")
Believe me, I'd be very happy to see the Republican Party return to running candidates who are both conservative and rational on matters of economics, as opposed to spreading this pablum that tax cuts inevitably get you something for nothing.
"The earth was created 10,000 years ago."
"The earth was created millions of years ago."
"I am required to kneel on the floor and face Mecca five times a day."
"I am required to light 7 candles in December, and wear yamlukes (sp) during appropriate times."
All (except the 3rd) matters of faith. All (except the 3rd) scientifically indefensible.
Which ones disqualify a potential president?
Its pretty clear that 'belief' in matters of faith is different from 'belief' in terms of scientific knowledge. Believing that I'll light Hannukkah candles is similar to belief that the earth was made 10,000 years ago. One could believe either, and still drive cars, use the telephone, and enjoy the wonders of modern medicine. Anyone who claims to be a believing Christian 'believes' that a human being came back from the dead (are all believing Christians not qualified to be president, or scientist, and so on?). This is just a little rhetorical trap to push evangelicals with (one wonders, if Inherit the Wind were never written, what cute trap the Krauss's of the world would be using).
I know where he is coming from, though. I would be disturbed if a religious person rejected a scientific conclusion in some area where it really matters (If a candidate rejected modern medicine for religious purposes, and had a close relative die as a result, I would have serious questions as to that candidate's fitness for office). But matters of faith with no impact on the world? (when was the earth formed; 10,000 years ago, or 3 billion years ago? Should I celebrate Christmas, or Hannukkah, or Ramadan?). Not an issue.
Sk
1. He must have a working knowledge of what the scientific method entails. For example, when pressed on the question of evolution vs, intelligent design, our President OUGHT to know enough to point out that intelligent design is simply not science, because any explanation for the genesis of life or the origin of multiple species which relies upon devine intervention is inherently untestable and unprovable. This does NOT mean that the devine intervention explanation is necessarily false or wrong - it may well have occurred. It's just that we will never be able to either prove or disprove that explanation. Since science, and the scientific method, require that any explanation for natural phenomena be testable and subject to support through evidence and/or experimental testing.
2. The President ought to be sufficently knowledgeable about physics to have a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, the atomic model of mass and chemical substances, Einstein's general and special theory of relativity, as well as the basic tenets which follow from those (i.e., mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light; mass and energy are interchangeable, with the destruction of a very tiny bit of mass resulting in a high amount of energy; gravity is the result of mass distorting the fabric of space); and the basics of nuclear fusion and fission. This does not mean that the President needs to be able to pass a quiz on Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Boyle's gas laws, or String Theory, but he needs to knoe enough to actually understand what his Science advivers are telling him, rather than drift off to sleep during any discussion of whether or not Irag is building up a nuclear program based upon the types of alunimum tubes they are importing.
3. The President ought to know enough Chemistry to know what the Periodic Table of Elements is and what it shows, the basics of how elements can combine to form compounds, how compounds can react in reactions such as oxidation and combustion. I expect him to know enough to spot the crazies on both sides of the questions such as global warming and environmentalism. For example, when Penn &Teller got over 60% of the participants at an Earth Day event to sign a petition to ban the creation and emission of "dihydrogen oxide" on the basis that it was a powerful solvent (quite true) and deadly to humans in high concentration (again, quite true), our President OUGHT to be sufficiently knowledgeable about chemistry to know that any group backing a ban on the production and emission of water (that's what "dihydrogen oxide" is!) is just not to be taken seriously.
4. Our President ought to be suffiently literate in Biology to know the basics of cell structure, cell division, sexual and asexual reproduction, cell differentiation in multicell organisms, DNA (and, maybe, the difference between nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA). He should also know that nearly ANY substance, including those absolutely vital to life such as salt, water and oxygen, can be toxic in sufficiently high concentrations.
5. On issues like statistics, he ought to be familiar with the logical falacies, such as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, most often involved in the misuse of statistics, as well as the important difference between correlation and causation.
6. In mathematics, he doesn't need to be able to do calculus, but he ought to know what it is for; the same for trigonometry. If he can't do basic calculations in his head, understand fractions and ratios and percentages and Euclidean geometry, he's incompetent to run our budget -- he should get a job behind the counter at McDonalds.
Just to be clear, he needn't have a college degree in one of the hard sciences, but he ought to have a degree from an insitution that requires REAL science classes as a prerequisite to any degree. I remember well, I started out at Michigan State University in Political Science, and the required Science credits could be fulfilled by mickey-mouse classes that could have been passed by a bright Fourth-Grader -- the questions on my final for Astronomy for Non-Science Majors included the following: (1) Our Sun is: (a) a planet; (b) an asteroid; (c) a star; or (d) a moon. When I transferred to a small private Liberal Arts college, it refused to accept those credits, and insisted that I take some REAL science classes, like chemistry &physics. I'm very glad that it did, as I found that, even as an Economics major, I really enjoyed the logic and wonder of hard sciences and math.
No. It is not "equally wrong," and of course Democratic politicians do not uniformly and always want tax increases. It is also the case that there are circumstances where a tax cut is justified on other grounds, despite the revenue loss.
Even if you can identify some case where a tax increase does not raise revenues, remember that the orthodox GOP position is that cuts always do. A statement that is wrong 1% of the time is not "equally wrong" as one that is wrong 99% of the time. As for contradicting "supply-side theory," so what?
Everything else is icing; and too much icing can ruin a cake.
Isn't taking ownership of these issues now just another form of intelligent design? Why not let nature and natural selection take its course? This is little more than priestcraft cloaked as science.
Further, basic science tells us that this project is a good investment. Every time a new "type" of telescope has been invented (radio, X-ray, etc.) we have learned tremendous new things. Each time, we have had to revisit our idea of what type of place the universe it. LIGO is likely to have similar effects.
It's worth noting that 34% of Europeans thought the Sun went around the Earth.
These figures are approximations, since I didn't have time to look them up. But then I'm a lawyer so I must be scientifically illiterate.
While the earth orbits 93,000,000 from the sun, the orbit is 186,000,000 miles across. The sun's diameter is about 1/200th of this size, not 1/100th. My conclusion remains valid, but I wanted to point out my error before someone else does.
*In the 1920s Scientific American formed a committee to investigate spiritualism. Various mediums were able to fool the scientists on the committee, but Harry Houdini unmasked them all.
*In the 1970s I attended a packed IEEE lecture on the bit rate associated with mental telepathy. Speaker after speaker accepted the existence of telepathy.
*Stanford Research Institute carried out hundreds of experiments on remote viewing between 1972 and 1986. The scientists were easily fooled.
*While most of the scientific community rejected the idea of a missile defense in the 1980s, a sizeable number believed it was feasible. This includes the nuclear-explosion-driven X-Ray laser.
*Continued support by many scientists for the feasibility of inertial confinement fusion (laser fusion).
*Uncritical acceptance by most scientists of anthropogenic greenhouse gas global warming.
Has he been proven wrong?
I'd also like to know what we are supposed to say about people who accept the mechanics of evolution, but refuse to accept its /implications/. Are they also "scientifically illiterate"?
If so, then most of my colleagues on the faculty at this lovley university fall into the category of left-ish scientific illiterates.
Item on Evolution: Comparative primatology teaches us that baby primates adjust poorly if not in near-constant contact with Mom. Our closest kin, the great apes, have societies structured in such a way that mom never puts the baby down. See, that's eveolution: babies held by mom are more likely to live to an age where they can reproduce, and thus pass on some of mom's genetics to the grand-apes. Over eons, this selects for babies who have an inborn expectation that mom's face will be there when something seems threatening.
Four million years of homonid evolution produced rather similar results, until recently, and then overwhelmingly in the rich West. But I would not want to be the one applying for a grant to research the impact of all-day daycare on the children of college faculty. A friend of mine here is an evolutionary anthropologist. I mentioned this research issue to him. He said that he has no question that it is a very suggestive problem. But he doesn't want to ruin his reputation by raising it.
One of a number of issues that the academic/intellectual left has with Mr. Darwin. Whereas conservatives like me accept the theory of evolution /and/ the implications of the theory of evolution. So I suppose Dr. Krauss may be looking for a candidate whom I can endorse(?). If so, he knows where to reach me.
Hoosier,
Semi-Evolved Simian
Big Empty State
USA
[paraphrase]
Trelawny: But Harry, Divination is the most important subject for you to know!
Slughorn: Oh Sybil, we all think our subject is the most important!
I think Slughorn has this exactly right. The scientist sees the world through their particular version of a scientific lens, and has trouble comprehending how someone could not do
otherwise. An economist would do similarly, etc. For a President it seems being a generalist is absolutely necessary. It doesn't matter what they know; it just matters how quickly they can grasp something and see the big picture to decide what needs to be done.
rarango,
I do not think the claim that tax cuts are self-financing is wrong because Republicans support it. I think it is wrong on the evidence and, I admit, because even prominent Republican economists are disdainful of the idea. Notice that even the Treasury report, as I pointed out above, recognizes the need to make up for the revenue loss associated with the Bush tax cuts. I think Republicans are wrong because they support it, while Democrats generally do not. I am not aware of any serious support for the proposition outside of perhaps some special cases.
Of course this illustrates a problem. While we would like our Presidents to avoid foolish ideas, these sorts of things often appeal to some number of voters, and so the temptation is great. I think it would extremely difficult for a Republican candidate who explicitly rejected this silliness to get the nomination