Senators Obama and McCain on Science Issues

[Eric T Cheng]

Over 38,000 (http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=7) scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities, submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America.

The top fourteen questions were sent to the two presidential candidates.

The questions and answers, a side by side comparison (http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42).

[Tankero]

So, McCain favors tax-cuts and Obama favors education? For all the blather, that's what it seems to boil down to.

[Jon Rowe]

You know, I have always been disappointed by Barack Obama's stances on Science and Environmental issues.

If you read these, they basically have the same stance on everything. (I have just skimmed these, but thanks for posting as these are probably the most important issues for me as a voter)

[Jason McCullough]

Great answers by both, except that McCain's lying through his teeth. His campaign has signaled left and right that they're not actually going to doing any of the any environmental or climate change things they propose.

[Jon Rowe]

Yeah, McCain definitely sounds better on the issues in my book. He seems to be more clear and concise on what he is going to do to change things. He does a way better job of answering (most) of the questions than Obama.

That being said, the choice of his running-mate and his deferral to the GOP for all of his decision making will make these "Maverick" stances pretty non-existent if he comes into office.

[Eric T Cheng]

Yeah, McCain definitely sounds better on the issues in my book. He seems to be more clear and concise on what he is going to do to change things. He does a way better job of answering (most) of the questions than Obama.

It should be noted that Sen. McCain didn't send in his answers until two weeks after Sen. Obama did.

I'm wondering if Sen. McCain actually wrote those answers. Sen. Obama doesn't use speech writers (other than one who helps him edit). so I wouldn't be all that surprised if Sen. Obama personally answered the questions.

[espressojim]

It's obvious that the guy that claimed McCain invented the blackberry had a hand in these answers:

"Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park."

Sure. You invented WiFi. But you don't know how to use a computer.

[JD]

I'm wondering if Sen. McCain actually wrote those answers.
That's what you have your bunch of PR weasels and staffers for. At best, he got to take a look at and greenlight the answers. Not a knock against McCain (or Obama), it's simply quite common.

[Bahimiron]

I said it the last time someone linked to this and I'll say it again. The fact that they didn't bother to ask 'hey, do you believe in evolution?' kind of astounds me.

[Eric T Cheng]

I said it the last time someone linked to this and I'll say it again. The fact that they didn't bother to ask 'hey, do you believe in evolution?' kind of astounds me.

Sen. McCain's stance on evolution (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/no-evolution.html):

"I believe in evolution," Sen. John McCain said. "But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Sen. Obama's stance on evolution (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/04/01/obama-on-evolution/):

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.“

[bigdruid]

Yeah, McCain definitely sounds better on the issues in my book.
As you say, it's easy to sound good when you wink at your base to let them know you don't mean it.

I mean, how can you take anything McCain says seriously regarding global warming when he won't even admit that global warming is man-made? WTF? Does anyone really believe McCain is committed to capping carbon emissions when he won't admit that the problem even exists (read the text of his reply - on the surface it sounds reasonable, until you realize that he only talks about how greenhouse gasses *threaten* to alter the global climate, while Obama plainly states that global climate change *is* happening).

It's just doublespeak on McCain's part.

[salwon]

Sen. McCain's stance on evolution (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/no-evolution.html):



Sen. Obama's stance on evolution (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/04/01/obama-on-evolution/):


So basically they have the same stance on evolution. Hey, what does Palin think?

I thought the first question was the most informative: Obama wants to increase funding for new research (I assume through NSA grants), and McCain wants to eliminate earmarks to provide more money for science. Awesome.

[Lizard_King]

Here's a summary (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2U5YTJiMzhjNDNhZTcwZGYyZjcyMzQyZWNmNjJjN2E=) of why Obama is dangerous for science, from planet Derbyshire. Summary of the summary: Charles Murray '08.

[RSofaer]

Here's a summary (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2U5YTJiMzhjNDNhZTcwZGYyZjcyMzQyZWNmNjJjN2E=) of why Obama is dangerous for science, from planet Derbyshire. Summary of the summary: Charles Murray '08.

I think it's interesting that the linked author and his linked blog-pals all think that social justice is incompatible with a realistic view of the influence of inborn traits on people. Not only are some people smarter than others, it is apparently impossible for a smarter person to feel empathy for their inferior cousins.

[Lizard_King]

I think it's interesting that the linked author and his linked blog-pals all think that social justice is incompatible with a realistic view of the influence of inborn traits on people. Not only are some people smarter than others, it is apparently impossible for a smarter person to feel empathy for their inferior cousins.

You don't even have to inject crazy words like "empathy" into the equation. Simple self interest resulting from not wanting angry mobs of impoverished "lesser" people to come for you should inspire plenty of concern about how people that don't fit the mold for success are doing. It's not like there aren't historical precedents.

But what it really comes down to is that this article is what happens when people who are bad at evaluating science in a sociopolitical context try attacking others in that field. Men like Derbyshire are effective at convincing others that when people point out concerns about, say, basing theories of racial inferiority on fundamentally biased IQ tests they're trying to protect feelings in the face of Cold Hard Science. They act like they are the shining beacons of meritocracy when in fact they are the most obvious beneficiaries of something quite close to the opposite of that.

[antlers]

But what it really comes down to is that this article is what happens when people who are bad at evaluating science in a sociopolitical context try attacking others in that field. Men like Derbyshire are effective at convincing others that when people point out concerns about, say, basing theories of racial inferiority on fundamentally biased IQ tests they're trying to protect feelings in the face of Cold Hard Science. They act like they are the shining beacons of meritocracy when in fact they are the most obvious beneficiaries of something quite close to the opposite of that.

Very well put