Re: [Phys-l] frizzi

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

While the president has little effect, he does set the tone, and this
encourages states to defy current court precedents.  They they engage in
sometimes fruitless lawsuits.  Meanwhile the children are often taught
things that are not scientific.  Teachers are then reluctant to teach
evolution for fear of community censure.  Should a religiously based school
have certification to teach science if their policy to to teach creationism
instead of evolution to biology students?  They would fail certification if
they taught that pi=3.0.

As to feeling uncomfortable, why haven't the intelligent conservatives
spoken up to point out that people like Perry are wrong on science?

There are many issues which are actually separate political talking points:
Issue	---------------- Relevant to, status
Abortion        Religious, social, not settled (majority favors, temporarily
settled in courts)
Evolution       Scientific,  settled  (but wrongly debated, majority favors)
Economics       Social, not settled
Global Warming  Scientific, fairly settled (but spurious evidence debated)
Gay marriage    Religious, social, being settled (unopposed by most younger
people)
Emigration      Social, not settled
Education       Religious, social ??

These are all separate issues, with sub issues which are also separable.  At
present the conservatives with the possible exception of radical
libertarians agree to negative views on each of these and a balanced budget
now approach to economics.  Now some of this is political posturing, but
many seem to have the view that they are absolutely right.  That is where
the real danger comes in.  Absolute rightness means they are likely to make
decisions without considering evidence, or to ignore the evidence they don't
like.  This tendency is huge cognitive disability.

For example, if they think that global warming is hoax they will want to cut
off research funds for it.  Indeed within this group there are many who do
things like support Israel because they are looking forward to the end time
which means the Jewish people have to go back to Israel.  The publicly
stated disbelief in evolution encourages ignorance in our population.  Maybe
it is just a reflection of how our educational system has failed to teach
science, but public scoffing does not help.  Ok, if they want to do away
with federal educational mandates, that might be reasonable, but do continue
to provide support for progams that work in early education and also
research based programs such as Modeling...  NSF has supported lots of good
research, and that needs to continue.  The president and Congress can starve
good educational research.

I fear anyone who has such an absolutist mentality that they might
arrogantly do some really stupid things.  I saw my brother turn from an
intelligent atheist into a single minded young Earth fundamentalist.  He now
says that the schools need to teach the "truth".  He can't seem to
understand that he means his "truth", and that the schools may not do that.
I have seen how that reasoning works and how it is a cognitive deficit.

> From what I can see linking these and other issues as a single conservative
package is a sign of low thinking skills.  Politicians who do this are
either not very bright, or are just pandering to others who are not very
bright.

If the political pendulum is to swing to the other side, we need someone who
is a realist and not someone who has such completely fixed ideas that they
are unwilling to listen to good reasoned advice based on evidence.  For
example if they pushed to do away with the EPA or just prevented it from
doing its job, we would all be poorer.  I can remember how Houston had many
days of stinky severe polution, and now with controls it is much better.
Support for environmental quality used to be non-partisan, but now has
become anathema to most conservatives.  Again  this is not an issue which
has to be linked to other issues.  Government is there to support society
and has always resticted or condoned specific practices.  Even the Puritans
of New England came over for freedom, but threw people out of colony when
they preached ideas deemed heretical.

So speak out against the unreasoning scientific positions that are taken by
some politicians.  Oh and watch your back because some of these people are
ready to "reform" universities which may affect academic freedom.  If you
don't believe me look at the news in TX.  I will not claim that any one
contender for high position is likely to do a better job, but I do contend
that anyone who is absolutist or strongly unscientific is likely to be
worse.  And they do have some effect on research and education.  At present
the cutting mania is likely to do away with funds for things like Modeling
which will impact on science education.

Look at for some information on things that work other than whipping
teachers:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/08/teacher-coaching_boosts_s
cores.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

As to the economy most mainstream economists think that the current fiscal
policy dictated by the conservatives is likely to make the economy worse,
and the FED really now has practically no room to maneuver.  Actually, we
may now be at the mercy of European economics, with very little control over
what happens next.  If the next president does extreme immediate belt
tightening and it pushes us into a depression would he be able to consider
reversing courses?  That is what Roosevelt had to do when we went into the
second dip in the great depression.  Actually most economic policies only
nudge the economy.  The important thing is to put in place controls to
prevent disasters such as the housing financing crisis.  Indeed the
important thing right now is to avoid any shocks that can push us in the
wrong direction.  We don't have complete control there.  The economy has
come up some, but it is not clear that it is possible to ignite higher
expansion.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> As a conservative, the positions of the top three on these science  
> issues do bother me. Teaching creationism in the classroom is nuts,  
> and I cringe at Perry's ignorance on the issue, not knowing that  
> creationism isn't science. I would feel comfortable with 
> skepticism on  
> AGW, but not a statement that it's all phony. However, these are  
> issues on which the president has little effect. It's like abortion.  
> You can have a pro-life president or pro-abortion president and  
> neither will have any significant effect on the issue. It's pretty  
> much up to the courts. What happens in the classroom is also 
> something  
> pretty much out of the hands of the president. He or she can make  
> recommendations, and the Dept. of education can make 
> recommendations,  
> but as it stands the states completely control what's in their  
> curricula. And with AGW, the president doesn't hire and fire members  
> of NSF, the people controlling a large share of the research funds.
>
> So, while you might have concerns about the president's views 
> on these  
> subjects, he or she has little effect on them. Better to 
> focus on the  
> economy and foreign policy.