2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumShould HRC Bring Science Into the Debate and the Campaign
'Bad Astronomer' Phil Plait thinks so: To Beat Trump, Clinton Needs to Bring Science to the Debates:
Normally, these topics barely get a head nod from the hopefuls. But this year is very very different. Donald Trump, who barely can make two coherent sentences in a row on any topic, has released a torrent of anti-science nonsense. Most notably hes called climate change a hoax, picked a global warming denier (and creationist) as his vice president, and hired a denier as his energy adviser. Hes anti-vaccination, thinks the California drought doesnt exist, and has said NASA makes America look like a third world nation.
...............//snip
The answers to those 20 questions may be found on the Science Debate website.
Any chance of having a debate moderated by a real scientist?
Probably not, but we can dream, can't we?
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)The current, lazy-thinking trend is to treat science as just another belief. HRC should be fighting that tooth and nail. Why? Because it's part of the larger trend that makes any statement, no matter how ridiculous and false, acceptable because it's someone's "sincere belief." We can not afford governance based on whateverthefuckIbelieveistrue. That means we can't afford to let that rule our politics. Until lies are called out as lies, and until facts are laid out and supported, there is no hope for sane governance.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)If science was injected into the campaign in order to give a better understanding of issues such as climate change...but republican have a very effective and demonstrated strategy to combat any hint of intellect. So it would have to be deployed in a very delicate way. Enough to give a better understanding of issues but not so much as to give republicans the opportunity to reanimate the taking points used by McCain/Palin.