Why Republican presidential candidates are anti-science

• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-05 09:18
  I came across a pretty good article that I thought some would find interesting. Only pasting a bit of it, you should read the full thing here if you are curious:
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/why-we-care-what-politicians-think-about-science.ars
  
  

  ...
  With the exception of Huntsman, the candidates don't know science, haven't bothered to ask someone who does, and, in several cases, don't even know anything about the settled policy issues (judicial precedent and investigation of claims about fraud). Why would we want these traits in a president?
  
  Actually, some people do
  
  However, the fact is that Huntsman is barely registering in most polls, and the leading candidates in the Republican party are successful in part precisely because they are voicing an opinion that runs counter to expertise. For many in the US, expertise has taken on a negative cultural value; experts are part of an elite that thinks it knows better than the average citizen. (This is accurate, for what it's worth.) Very few object to that sort of expertise when it comes time to, say, put the space shuttle into orbit, but expertise can become a problem when the experts have reached a consensus that runs against cultural values.
  
  And, for many in our society, scientific expertise has done just that. Abstinence-only sex education has been largely ineffective. Carbon emissions are creating a risk of climate change. Humanity originated via an evolutionary process. All of these findings have threatened various aspects of people's cultural identity. By rejecting both the science and the expertise behind it, candidates can essentially send a signal that says, "I'm one of you, and I'm with you where it counts."
  
  This is not some purely partisan phenomenon. On other issues, rejection of scientific information tends to be associated with the political left—the need for animal research and the safety of genetically modified foods spring to mind. These positions, however, are anything but mainstream within the Democratic Party, so candidates have not felt compelled to pander to (or even discuss) them, in most cases. That's created an awkward asymmetry, one where a single party has a monopoly on public rejection of scientific information and certain kinds expertise.
  ...
  

  
  
  Does this affect who you would vote for?
• Hiccup wrote on 2011-09-05 09:20
  Yes, because it shows the intellectual level of the individual, whether its a ploy or not. I would not vote for em.
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-09-05 15:50
  I want to vote for a president who knows their history, knows their information, is not a complete idiot, and can actually get this country on the right track.
  
  However, when the masses vote, you get crappy presidents. Most of the American masses are complete idiots >.>
• Chiyuri wrote on 2011-09-05 18:43
  Democracy: You vote to the less worst of the group.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-09-06 06:04
  This kind of also speaks volume at the science (and math) education of an "average" American...
• Cynic wrote on 2011-09-06 06:11

  Quote from Hiccup;578860:

  Yes, because it shows the intellectual level of the individual, whether its a ploy or not. I would not vote for em.

  
  
  ^^
• Lolicon wrote on 2011-09-06 07:38
  I wouldn't vote for these guys. Really, thats a terrible reason for anti-science.
  I'm still a Chinese citizen so I'm not part of the American masses :lol: