Scientist vs anti-science for office

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Scientist vs anti-science for office

Postby zetreque on October 21st, 2017, 11:13 am 

When scientists fight back.

The race between Dana Rohrabacher and stem-cell researcher Hans Keirstead is a “tossup.”

Army doctor and pediatric neurologist Ralph Northam is locked in a tied Virginia governor’s race.

And Jacky Rosen is challenging one of the GOP's most vulnerable senators, Dean Heller.

source 314 Action

https://hansforca.com/home/ vs. https://rohrabacher.house.gov/

https://ralphnortham.com/ vs when I punch in Ed Gillespie I get websites against him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html

https://www.rosenfornevada.com/ vs https://www.deanheller.com/ (Dean Heller's track record is lies.)


Any others we should know about?
http://www.314action.org/endorsed-candidates/

Let's be clear here. Just because someone graduates college with a degree in some field of science doesn't mean they will be in the best interest of the people. I'm not trying to oversimplify this topic. There is plenty of disagreement in the scientific field. I guess the rational is that people who study science in academics generally have a broader knowledge and ability to think deeply about issues.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Scientist vs anti-science for office

Postby someguy1 on October 21st, 2017, 1:46 pm 

One recalls Nobel prize winner Dr. Steven Chu, who served as Obama's Secretary of Energy. In that capacity he pushed through the disastrous and fraudulent Solyndra deal. Scientists are humans and have the same politics and prejudices and blind spots as everyone else.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Scientist vs anti-science for office

Postby zetreque on October 21st, 2017, 1:55 pm 

someguy1 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:46 am wrote:One recalls Nobel prize winner Dr. Steven Chu, who served as Obama's Secretary of Energy. In that capacity he pushed through the disastrous and fraudulent Solyndra deal. Scientists are humans and have the same politics and prejudices and blind spots as everyone else.



Good example of a disagreement in what is the best technology among scientists. Does this negate the idea that an educated scientist would be better in office than someone who has no background in it to base decisions off of?
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Scientist vs anti-science for office

Postby Braininvat on October 21st, 2017, 5:25 pm 

someguy1 » October 21st, 2017, 10:46 am wrote:One recalls Nobel prize winner Dr. Steven Chu, who served as Obama's Secretary of Energy. In that capacity he pushed through the disastrous and fraudulent Solyndra deal. Scientists are humans and have the same politics and prejudices and blind spots as everyone else.


Just so we're clear, a few relevant facts:

1. President George W. Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress began the green energy loan subsidies program, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that provided the funding (loan guarantees) to Solyndra. This happened in 2006. So....um, not Obama. Not Chu.

2. The subsidy program recovered all its losses by 2014, and has since operated in the black.

3. The government retrieved 100 percent of loaned funds under Solyndra's restructuring plan.

4. The loan guarantee, widely misreported as billions, was actually about half of one percent of the loan program - around 500 million dollars. The other 99-plus percent went to solid reliable companies that have done well with the program, which is why, again, the program operates in the black.

Chu probably had a positive overall effect on the program, during his watch, given his knowledge of the energy technology field.

Just wanted to clear that up a bit.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5767
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
zetreque liked this post


Re: Scientist vs anti-science for office

Postby zetreque on October 21st, 2017, 6:29 pm 

When I looked this example up earlier, Solyndra had multiple factors involved. One key factor was the market price of silicon. If the markets hadn't have changed the competitiveness for technologies then the company might not have been scrutinized as much for what is common corruption within companies.

Which brings up the point of if people that have a background in science run for office, they must also be educated about such subjects as markets.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Scientist vs anti-science for office

Postby someguy1 on October 22nd, 2017, 1:08 am 

Braininvat » October 21st, 2017, 3:25 pm wrote:
Just wanted to clear that up a bit.


If it's ok with you I don't want to relitigate that case. I could find some links and you'd counter and it could go on for days. If you want to claim that Steven Chu was a terrific public servant who helped the country with the Solyndra deal, let's just agree to disagree on that. I think it was an outrageous scam and that if anything, Chu's technical smarts led him astray in the world of tax subsidy hustling as practiced by the Ascended Masters of Putting their Hand in your Pocket who dwell in Washington. So you know how I feel about the Solyndra deal and Steven Chu's role in it.

Here's another smart guy gone bad. Ahmed Chalabi earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago. Knot theory, very abstract stuff. He was a financial swindler and well-known influence peddler in Washington. He supplied the CIA with fraudulent information that led the US into the Iraq war. For a while he was deputy prime minister of Iraq.

Was he a wise and benevolent ruler by virtue of having studied pure math at the highest level? To the contrary. He was an evil hustler and liar who operated at the very top of the world's game for years. We are all still living with the consequences of the damage he did.

Academics in technical fields have no special claim to political smarts or moral virtue.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: 08 Nov 2013



Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests