Althouse: "Here Are The ‘Science’ Questions Reporters Should Ask Politicians."

February 13, 2015

"Here Are The ‘Science’ Questions Reporters Should Ask Politicians."

David Harsanyi has some questions that liberal politicians ought to have to answer.

52 comments:

Saint Croix said...: awesome article; 2/13/15, 7:47 PM
Saint Croix said...: I'm really kinda impressed with The Federalist.; 2/13/15, 7:48 PM
Jaq said...: Protocol demands that Republicans be attacked abroad by hack lefty journalists.; 2/13/15, 7:56 PM
Levi Starks said...: Yes, they should.......; 2/13/15, 8:13 PM
m stone said...: A budding candidate ought to brush up on some of these stats and polls and foil the silly questions.; 2/13/15, 8:17 PM
traditionalguy said...: Walker wins again by standing his ground. Science is never settled yet anyway.

Scientific orthodoxy has denied every new discovery of truth by a brilliant young scientist through known history.

The famous three steps of reaction to new truths by the Orthodox Science Authorities are: 1) it is not true, 2)even if it's true, it doesn't matter, and 3) the Authority gives credit for the discovery to the wrong scientists...usually a friend.; 2/13/15, 8:19 PM
Drago said...: Hey, remember when leftists internationally believed they could create their own versions of the "new Soviet Man"?

Good times.; 2/13/15, 8:25 PM
Michael K said...: I especially liked the question about sex chromosomes.; 2/13/15, 8:32 PM
averagejoe said...: How about: "Do you think that science can explain why democrat party members habitually lie and deceive in their public and private lives?"; 2/13/15, 8:57 PM
iowan2 said...: They are all good questions. I do like the question, 'is a 20 week fetus human? Thats simple yes or no. (It will never be asked of any leftist pol.)

Also relevant today. Do Chromosomes have any role in determining the sex of an individual?; 2/13/15, 8:58 PM
Fernandinande said...: David Harsanyi has some questions that liberal politicians ought to have to answer.

They sounded suitable for junior-high school students. And journalists.

"Tell us, @morningmoneyben, why an infinite number of universes must be posited to make the probability of random gradualism non-zero? — Sean Davis"

I'm guessing that Sean Davis is a creationist.; 2/13/15, 9:14 PM
Hagar said...: If I were asked any of these questions, I would have to come back and ask exactly what the interrogator meant by the question, or give one of those un-ending wishy-washy answers that could be picked apart and edited seven ways from Sunday; a big no-no for politicians. So, "Stay away, Joe!"; 2/13/15, 9:15 PM
The Godfather said...: This is a lot of fun -- it's always fun to show up smart ass liberals. But the broader point is that the question to Walker was political and Walker's answer to the question was political. A lot of Christians think that evolution is anti-Christian. They believe that because a anti-Christians have used evolution -- or better "evolutionism" -- as a cudgel to beat up on Christianity. Walker wants those people to vote for him, so he doesn't want to appear to side with the people who've been beating them up.

The "questions for liberals" work differently: They tend to show that liberals aren't as smart as they think they are. But we already knew that.; 2/13/15, 9:24 PM
Mark Caplan said...: The intelligent moral and legal question is does a fertilized egg become a PERSON (not a human being) at conception. Of course it's a biological human organism at conception. Of course it's not a person at conception.

For person the definition is a self-conscious being; a personality. Need I point out that a single-cell organism lacks a mind or brain and therefore lacks consciousness?; 2/13/15, 9:30 PM
Marc in Eugene said...: I hope, Mark Caplan, that you are getting paid a proper royalty each time sometime uses your word 'person'.; 2/13/15, 9:46 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/13/15, 9:46 PM
n.n said...: The principles of evolution describe a chaotic physical process in recurring semi-stable states. The question of origin, whether a product of evolutionary or divine creation is an article of faith. Only through inference and assumptions of long-term uniformity, and liberally ignoring glaring discontinuities, can this be answered. Not only is it outside of the scientific domain, but it is also outside of the philosophical domain.

A human life, which is at minimum a physical process and character, evolves from conception to a natural, accidental, or premeditated death. It is not the product of spontaneous conception. It does not change its character without intervention. It is, following enlightened conventions of morality, not a commodity. A human life is neither disposable nor interchangeable.

The Earth is largely unpopulated and underutilized. The natural pressures of exceeding resource availability and accessibility have not yet been breached. With technological advances, and rational and reasonable exploitation of natural resources, the natural limit is not forthcoming.

With over 400 civil reactors operating worldwide, and an undisclosed number operated by the military reactors, the general safety of nuclear technology is indisputable. With around 80% of France's and around 50% of America's electricity generated by nuclear power plants, the potential effectiveness and safety is a matter of record.

I'm not convinced about the safety of all forms and methods of GMOs. It will remain for clinical and production trials to decide the risk profile of each experimental change in a population.

Vaccines are part of risk management protocol, selectively administered.

I thought there was a consensus that the so-called "sex chromosomes" were causal factors of gender, but perhaps not sex orientation or choice.

The average global temperature is a meaningless statistic without an overwhelming global driver. The prediction of a parameter in a system comprised of chaotic processes (i.e. uncharacterized and unwieldy) is outside of the scientific domain, and the forecast accuracy is inversely proportionate to the product of time and space (or perhaps just motion) offsets from the an established reference.

The scientific method was designed to constrain wild speculation; but, like all human prescriptions (e.g. Constitution, morality), it can only direct but never guarantee an outcome or conformance.

Question the orthodoxy when it is selective. Question the orthodoxy when it does not conform with established constraints. Question the orthodoxy when it obfuscates or denies its own violations of standards and protocols. Question the orthodoxy when it demonstrates narcissistic delusions.; 2/13/15, 9:50 PM
William said...: I saw last week's Bill Maher show. In the opening segment, the guest said that the risks of heroin addiction were wildly exaggerated. He got Maher's approval and applause from the audience. Later on in the show, Maher pointed out the grave risks we run by depending on genetically modified foods. He got applause for that as well.........Who will mock the mockers?; 2/13/15, 10:11 PM
mccullough said...: Thoughtful questions.

But the XX/XY chromosome pairing does not describe every human.; 2/13/15, 10:25 PM
Michael K said...: "the guest said that the risks of heroin addiction were wildly exaggerated. He got Maher's approval and applause from the audience."

Actually, aside from the legal issues and constipation, heroin addiction is probably relatively benign. It does make people passive and stupid but so does the Democratic Party.

GMO foods, of course, are harmless.; 2/13/15, 10:55 PM
rcommal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/13/15, 11:46 PM
rcommal said...: The "jumping-out" thing:

"Sometimes subtly, sometimes explicitly, we talk about people like* parasites."

Well, there sure as hell is enough of that to go around, isn't there?

*[Ed's. note: like = "as if they are nothing more than"]; 2/13/15, 11:49 PM
averagejoe said...: Michael K said...
"Actually, aside from the legal issues and constipation, heroin addiction is probably relatively benign"

Relative to what? From what I've seen and heard, it makes a person like a zombie, nodding off and out of it; it makes their bodies weak and sick, it's excruciating to stop taking it once your hooked, and it can kill you... Geez it is like the democrat party.; 2/14/15, 12:53 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Do you believe carbon dioxide is detrimental to human existence?

I think that anyone who answers this as unequivocally "yes" should go back and take middle school science, where you learn the cycle of life. It is absolutely essential for plant life, and plant life is essential for animal life. CO2 and water are combined using photosynthesis to construct sugars, and release oxygen. The sugars are the energy that we use to operate, and the oxygen is used for respiration (converting the sugar and O2 back to H2o and Co2, releasing the energy captured by the photosynthesis):
6CO2 + 6H2O ------> C6H12O6 + 6O2; 2/14/15, 1:14 AM
rcommal said...: @Bruce Hayden: I think that anyone who answers this as unequivocally "no" should go back and take middle school science, where you learn (or at least ought to learn) that the cycle of life is far more complex than so many of us went on to be taught in high school, even decades ago.

In other words, I agree with you and also I do not agree with you.

; /; 2/14/15, 1:38 AM
richard mcenroe said...: Tim in Vermont. You'd think they'd have noticed what happened when they got their wish the last two elections...; 2/14/15, 1:56 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Mark Caplan wrote:
"For person the definition is a self-conscious being; a personality."
That is one definition, there are others.
It is clearly an inadequate definition to describe the totality of personhood; according to this partial definition, a person who is sleeping or unconscious ceases to be a person. and 'personality' simply refers back to 'person'.; 2/14/15, 1:58 AM
rcommal said...: What is it about people that people are so able to split their thinking about people in such a way that their own way of thinking of people is all that matters? And, not only that, all of that, but also that how other people think about people matters not at all.; 2/14/15, 2:44 AM
tds said...: Bonus question from me: Have you ever tried to stop natural selection from happening?(e.g., through food stamps, welfare programs, mandatory helmets, etc); 2/14/15, 5:21 AM
Bob R said...: The use of the word "person" as a term of legal jargon is a great argument for forcing lawyers to debate in Latin. It's been the source of countless pointless arguments with two parties arguing past each other about completely different definitions.; 2/14/15, 6:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Seeing how so many states are passing laws dealing with creation and evolution being taught in the public schools, why shouldn't politicians be asked their opinions on that issue?; 2/14/15, 6:47 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: I have to presume that Mr. Harsanyi is smart enough to know the difference between being smart and being a smart-ass.

His essay was disappointing.; 2/14/15, 6:56 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Madisonfella, why would you assume that a politician would want his personal beliefs forced on schoolchildren? Not everyone is like you, you know.; 2/14/15, 7:06 AM
Bobber Fleck said...: traditionalguy said:

Science is never settled yet anyway.

I'm so old I remember when scientific theories and models were subject to a never ending process of rigorous factual verification. Now we just take a survey (of anyone who chooses to answer) using vague questions to reach "settled science".

My question for the press/politicians is "please explain the role of the oceans in atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming."; 2/14/15, 7:12 AM
Francisco D said...: @Bobber,

I was trained as a research psychologist, back in the 80's. The whole point of scientific research is to challenge existing theories in order to either disprove them or establish their boundary conditions.

In most fields (perhaps, excepting mathematics) you cannot prove a theory to be true. If it survives a gauntlet of rigorous challenges, it becomes accepted wisdom ... and a bigger target for clever researchers.; 2/14/15, 7:32 AM
Mark Caplan said...: @Marc Pucket, @Terry - I consulted Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (the British "Merriam Websters") for the given definition of person as a self-conscious being.

"Person" comes from the word for a character in a play and, even earlier, an actor's mask. So the idea of a person as a thinking, reasoning, communicative, expressive, mindful creature has always been intrinsic to its meaning.; 2/14/15, 7:36 AM
Charles said...: What's so infantile (and revealing) about these questions is the lack of definition of "evolution."

Young-earth creationism, based on the literal reading of the Bible, is one thing. Believing in both a creator God and evolution is common and entirely consistent, but our "betters" in the world of journalism can't seem to figure that out. It's black or white for them.

Best example: Their shocked reaction to the Pope talking about evolution last year. The Pope and Catholics (and most Christians... and most Americans) believe in both creation and evolution - that God created the universe and had a unknowable and undefined role in the entirely legitimate process of evolution.

"Do you believe in evolution?" reveals the ignorance of the questioner.; 2/14/15, 7:43 AM
Fernandinande said...: Link from Harsanyi: "In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins"

Then the article says it's actually 85%.

Caution: Journalists at work!

Does human life begin at conception?

No, because life is continuous. A new organism is created from living sperm and egg cells.

A lot of Christians think that evolution is anti-Christian.

It is. Darwinian evolution is completely inconsistent with any religion which posits a god or gods who differentiate between humans and other animals, or even between humans and rock formations.

Mark Caplan: For person the definition is a self-conscious being;

Making up new definitions for common words is fun for children of all ages.

I said: I'm guessing that Sean Davis is a creationist.

Verified. Funny that David Harsanyi would say "My colleague Sean Davis has already exposed how some of the pundits who unconditionally 'believe in evolution' know very little about it" when Sean Davis doesn't understand or 'believe in evolution' himself.

A bunch of ignorant scribblers picking on each other. A regular clown show.; 2/14/15, 7:50 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Mark Caplan-
Here is the def for "person" I got from Chambers (online version):

person noun (persons or in sense 1 also people) 1 an individual human being. 2 the body, often including clothes • A knife was found hidden on his person. 3 grammar each of the three classes into which pronouns and verb forms fall, first person denoting the speaker (or the speaker and others, eg I and we), second person the person addressed (with or without others, eg you) and third person the person(s) or thing(s) spoken of (eg she, he, it or they). 4 (Person) Christianity any of the three forms or manifestations of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that together form the Trinity (sense 2). 5 in compounds used instead of -man, -woman, etc, to denote a specified activity or office, avoiding illegal or unnecessary discrimination on grounds of sex, eg in job advertisements • chairperson • spokesperson. Compare chairman, chairwoman, etc. be no respecter of persons to make no allowances for rank or status. in person 1 actually present oneself • was there in person. 2 doing something oneself, not asking or allowing others to do it for one.
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask.

http://www.chambers.co.uk/search.php?query=person&title=21st

The first def of person is "an individual human being", which could arguably apply to human beings in the state of fetal development.
It would not be improper to refer to an puppy, before its birth, as a dog in the state of fetal development.; 2/14/15, 7:55 AM
Fernandinande said...: Mark Caplan said...
@Marc Pucket, @Terry - I consulted Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (the British "Merriam Websters") for the given definition of person as a self-conscious being.

No you didn't.
Here it is: http://www.chambers.co.uk/search.php?query=person&title=21st
No mention of consciousness.; 2/14/15, 7:57 AM
Rusty said...: Michael K said...
"the guest said that the risks of heroin addiction were wildly exaggerated. He got Maher's approval and applause from the audience."

Having known several heroin addicts I can attest that this is not true. While only a very few die of overdose,most die from activity connected with acquiring heroin to feed their addiction. They were murdered.One or two kicked in prison, but were soon back to using again.I never met anyone who could be moderate with it. It was all in all the time.; 2/14/15, 8:03 AM
JAORE said...: Republicans are the unscientific party. The Tea Party is composed of radicals and racists. President Obama is a brilliant Constitutional Scholar and Professor. Global warming is a greater threat than anything we have ever faced as a human race.

All you have to do is listen to the news.; 2/14/15, 8:13 AM
Fernandinande said...: Charles said...
What's so infantile (and revealing) about these questions is the lack of definition of "evolution."

Not really. When scientists say "evolution" they mean Darwinian evolution with genes and mutations, etc. (even though Darwin didn't know about genes).

Believing in both a creator God and evolution is common and entirely consistent, but our "betters" in the world of journalism can't seem to figure that out.

That's apparently the "evolution" David Harsanyi is referring to since he picked a creationist - Sean Davis - as an expert. Perhaps that's why he never clarified what he meant by "evolution".

It's also fairly common for people to think the sun goes around the earth.

Then, because some people are ignorant, saying "solar system" would require having to explain that you mean the system in which the sun and planets rotate about their center of mass, not the system with the Earth at the center and everything else rotating around it; every time you use the term "solar system".; 2/14/15, 8:28 AM
Fernandinande said...: Eric the Fruit Bat said...
His essay was disappointing.

Agreed. But it is interesting that politicians apparently never get asked certain "sciency" questions, and meanwhile there's an minor furor over Walker and evolution when 85% of the general population doesn't like the concept of evolution.; 2/14/15, 8:37 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Mark Caplan's definition of the word "person" helped me to put my finger on something that always bothered me about pro-choice people and many libertarians. That is the idea that people are somehow more human, or are a better human, when they are conscious, autonomous beings, running around doing things or just thinking. Or when they are happy. Especially when they are happy.
We are no less human beings when we are asleep, or so sick that we cannot function, or so young or old that we literally can not feed or care for ourselves. We would never say that a young, healthy fox is more of a fox than an old, toothless fox that can't hunt anymore. They are both equally foxes. Why do some people make this distinction with human beings?; 2/14/15, 8:41 AM
JAORE said...: They are both equally foxes. Why do some people make this distinction with human beings?

Because to do otherwise would be.... inconvenient.; 2/14/15, 8:44 AM
Marc in Eugene said...: As Terry pointed out at 0841, the smelly lady I served at work the other day, who I suspect last read a book, and it was about Dick and Jane and Spot, in sixth grade, and whose idea of polite entertainment is sharing a bottle of Everclear at tonight's illicit cockfight with her last ex's cousin's ex, is as much a human person as I am, or as Mark Caplan is-- this datum is what underlies much of the intelligentsia's readiness to entertain the moral and civic liceity of procured abortion and euthanasia, I think.; 2/14/15, 11:55 AM
Mark Caplan said...: @Ferdinande - For the definition of person, I used the hardcover, 1,651-page print edition of the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, not the free online version.

Most people would say a dead human corpse was still a human, but no longer a person. Why? Because a corpse lacks consciousness.

New parents will sometimes remark that for the first time their generic infant is starting to become a real person. Why? Because it is starting to show individuality and self-awareness.

Word meanings are a social convention. Nothing I've said can be proven rigorously. Some people will disagree.; 2/14/15, 7:05 PM
Cynicus said...: Do you believe in eugenics?
Do you believe we can breed certain traits in humans like we do horses and dogs?
Do you believe that all humans are born with a soul and free will?
Do you believe people have the right to make stupid choices about their health, their sex life, and their safety?
Do you believe we should work towards excellence or equality?
Do you believe that science is only settled if it is based on a hypothesis that can be tested and proved verifiably false?
Do you think the government should spend money on scientific research involving animals?; 2/14/15, 7:41 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Mark Caplan-
I read somewhere that the Medieval Christians needed a definition of 'person' that fit supernatural beings (like God and the devil). What they came up with is that to be a person, a being had to have reason, emotion, and will. That meant that it had to use its mind and emotions to determine a goal, and then be able to work to make that goal a reality.; 2/14/15, 8:43 PM
Mark Caplan said...: @Terry wrote: "Medieval Christians needed a definition of 'person' that fit supernatural beings (like God and the devil)."

Today we'd say that people gave God and the devil human qualities, such as the three you mentioned: reason, emotion and will.

I gather you're agreeing that since the Middle Ages consciousness has been bound up with the meaning of person.; 2/15/15, 6:55 AM
Moneyrunner said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/15/15, 4:04 PM