Is scientific knowledge necessary to vote?

[GAspnes]

Asimov's Corollary: "If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the general public, there is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy is emotionally supported by the general public, it is almost certainly wrong."

In this same article: "It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong....It is those who support ideas for emotional reasons only who can't change."

(from 1977 essay "Asimov's Corollary," reprinted in Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright, 1977)

In 'scientific knowledge', I include an understanding of the scientific method, hypothesis and falsifiability, and mathematics. I don't think everyone has to know everything, but I believe Asimov was right -- that when it comes to public policy, we have to think, not feel our way through the problems.

It seems the crucial national issues now circle around energy, ecology and the environment, genetics, medicine and health care, space exploration, even economics (if that can be called a 'science'). Yet we have people deciding public policy issues on emotional bases, deciding that forests "look nice, so keep them," or "are a renewable resource, so cut them down." Both sides of even simple issues become emotional quagmires, where debate becomes "I'm right," instead of "this is right."

So, the question is asked. How can we either include everyone in the political process by raising the level of scientific knowledge to 100% of the populace, or limit participation to people who are seriously scientific?

[Maple]

1. Scientific literacy

is mandatory today.

[soothsayer]

2. god, don't leave scientists in charge

They are too f*ing close minded. What a slow, stubborn lot, though eventually they do come around to acknowledging the existence and efficacy of things lik, say, vitamins. But it's like pulling teeth to get them to consider things outside their comfy paradigms.

[GAspnes]

3. isn't that the point?

that we should only do what we *know* works?

[quaker bill]

4. Scientists deal in uncertainty

A good scientist is not rigid or dogmatic. The good ones do have informed opinions.

There certainly are rigid and dogmatic scientists (but they aren't the good ones).

A knowledge of empirical processes would be useful in the voting public and even more so in the Whitehouse. For instance, an empirical approach would suggest that when a policy fails, you don't do more of it (war, tax cuts), you try something else.

On the other hand, most scientists are a tad too dispassionate to be good leaders. You probably don't want them running things (with noted exceptions like NIH, EPA, DOE, USFWS, FDA, CDC, NOAA...)

[Paschall]

5. Limit participation in the political process??

... NEXT!...

(Using literacy tests to determine the right to vote is unconstitutional. Or didn't you know?)

[GAspnes]

6. Yes, I know people believe that

Perhaps it is time to consider another approach.

You'll notice I offered an alternative: educate each citizen to a minimum level in scientific methodology and fact. This would probably require a national science curriculum, national testing and the elimination of all school boards to accomplish, but at least it's constitutional.

[pmbryant]

7. Absolutely not!

I am a huge proponent of science and the scientific method, but I find the question posed here extremely distasteful. This is the kind of thing that gives many people a bad impression of scientifically-minded people.

:scared:

--Peter