https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

I didn't know exactly where to put this, but I knew really the reason I wanted to talk about it was political reasons, so I'll leave it here.

So.. great book. It's essentially a book trying to show the significance of science in our world and Carl Sagan is trying to explain it to every day people. Short synopsis.. 95% of people are scientifically illiterate. This was written in 1995 so I assume it has gotten even worse. B/c he talks about how people want short, dumbed-down content. 30 second sound bites. And generally overly dramatic stuff.. As we know.. between fox news and cnn and msnbc, this has gotten substantially worse than when he wrote the book in 1995. But essentially the book is about how science is essential to our world and we need to critically think, examine, question, and prove everything.. none of which we do anymore in 2016.

The point he made though, and is why I posted it in the Politics forum, is that not only are 95% of people scientifically illiterate, but we haven't had a scientifically literate president since Thomas Jefferson. And it really strung a chord with me in this election.. that..yeah.. he's right. We don't need businessmen as presidential candidates.. we need scientists. We need people who can critically think, understand reality, and process said information. But here we are with Donald Trump.... who epitomizes our 30 second sound bite culture. Here we are with Hillary Clinton.. who epitomizes our sheepishly culture. And the worst part is... you and I both know this is our reality now. We're never going to accept a scientist for president. We want Donald Trumps. We want Barack Obamas. We want showmen now. Its kinda a scary/depressing reality.

I don't disagree at all, we had a short chance with Ben Carson, a scientifically trained Neuro Surgeon, but he was too calm/collected for the Rs and he was demonized by the Ds for his religious beliefs.

If I had to guess you weren't too fond of him either Zwick?

I kind of agree. I would say most successful businessmen "critically think, understand reality, and process said information" on a daily basis. Most of the time quicker than normal people because they make 100s of decisions a day, and are beholden to shareholders, so their decisions are based on what the people want (in business, profit). I agree that someone with a business degree and a science background would be a great candidate. However, I don't see how a biologist or chemist would be good whatsoever, if all they did was lab work their whole career. I would say actual intelligence is the biggest thing lacking in most candidates these days.

I'll tell you what we don't need as President: Lawyers and career politicians.

jmog;1815240 wrote:I don't disagree at all, we had a short chance with Ben Carson, a scientifically trained Neuro Surgeon, but he was too calm/collected for the Rs and he was demonized by the Ds for his religious beliefs.

If I had to guess you weren't too fond of him either Zwick?

I didn't know much about Carson other than he was pretty tough to listen to.. very boring.. very monotone.. very slow. And he had some pretty weird ideas with the pyramids.. which obviously counter what most scientists agree on... said soem weird things like Satan instructed Darwin.. he just didnt sit well with me.

iclfan2;1815244 wrote:I kind of agree. I would say most successful businessmen "critically think, understand reality, and process said information" on a daily basis. Most of the time quicker than normal people because they make 100s of decisions a day, and are beholden to shareholders, so their decisions are based on what the people want (in business, profit). I agree that someone with a business degree and a science background would be a great candidate. However, I don't see how a biologist or chemist would be good whatsoever, if all they did was lab work their whole career. I would say actual intelligence is the biggest thing lacking in most candidates these days.

I'll tell you what we don't need as President: Lawyers and career politicians.

I guess the difference would be businessmen, unlike scientists, don't use scientific methods to come to their conclusions. A lot of business comes from experience and gut reactions.. not saying there isn't a ton of metric driven decisions... but at the same time, you're not approaching the two the same way.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1815247 wrote:I guess the difference would be businessmen, unlike scientists, don't use scientific methods to come to their conclusions. A lot of business comes from experience and gut reactions.. not saying there isn't a ton of metric driven decisions... but at the same time, you're not approaching the two the same way.

I would argue that most CEO's/ CFO's (and maybe this argument is better for a CFO, which has a bachelor's of science degree) use actual data (market trends, variances, future forecasts, currency decisions) to make their informed decisions. A lot of companies make decisions based on 5/10 year plans that are continually changing with new information obtained. I think you are discounting the amount of "science" and math that goes into upper echelon business and the decisions that get made. I would say it's similar to the scientific method other than experiment it. How does the book go into that step, since you really can't?

I'd have to read the book to understand the science side as you say it, but the scientific method isn't quick, which to me wouldn't exactly work well for a president that is under pressure to make decisions in real time. Pure science just seems too theoretical to fit perfectly as a President.

I do get your point tho and fully agree that the candidates we have had for awhile are missing key characteristics that you would look for if you could come up with your "perfect" candidate.

In short we want leaders, scientists aren't leaders, they can't lead because their process requires too much time, effort, and validation. In the end the best a scientist can accomplish is a theory and theories by definition can't be proven so...not good leaders.

Ben Carson?



Hahahahahahahahahaha

iclfan2;1815249 wrote:I would argue that most CEO's/ CFO's (and maybe this argument is better for a CFO, which has a bachelor's of science degree) use actual data (market trends, variances, future forecasts, currency decisions) to make their informed decisions. A lot of companies make decisions based on 5/10 year plans that are continually changing with new information obtained. I think you are discounting the amount of "science" and math that goes into upper echelon business and the decisions that get made. I would say it's similar to the scientific method other than experiment it. How does the book go into that step, since you really can't?

I'd have to read the book to understand the science side as you say it, but the scientific method isn't quick, which to me wouldn't exactly work well for a president that is under pressure to make decisions in real time. Pure science just seems too theoretical to fit perfectly as a President.

I do get your point tho and fully agree that the candidates we have had for awhile are missing key characteristics that you would look for if you could come up with your "perfect" candidate.

well I don't think you'd have to make your decisions that lengthy.. I think it's more of the idea of how you think and process to make the better decision. I guess my problem with a businessman would be every thought would tend to be driven monetarily and that's not always the best course of action for every decision.

bases_loaded;1815253 wrote:In short we want leaders, scientists aren't leaders, they can't lead because their process requires too much time, effort, and validation. In the end the best a scientist can accomplish is a theory and theories by definition can't be proven so...not good leaders.

So, you're saying the problem is that people are too stupid be willing to wait for the smart ones to determine a valid course of action and, in essence, would rather run head first into a brick wall, as opposed to waiting for a door to be placed in said wall.

If anything explains a Hillary vs. Trump battle for the presidency, that is it.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1815263 wrote:well I don't think you'd have to make your decisions that lengthy.. I think it's more of the idea of how you think and process to make the better decision. I guess my problem with a businessman would be every thought would tend to be driven monetarily and that's not always the best course of action for every decision.

It's only monetary b/c their current jobs are to maximize shareholder profit. It is literally their job as the head of a Company, especially a publicly traded one. Their critical thinking remains the same no matter what their responsibility would be as president. I don't think there is the huge difference you do between how a scientist or a CFO processes and analyzes data to reach a decision. I also think you are naive in that scientists don't act in their own or their company's best interests before the interests of all.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1815245 wrote:I didn't know much about Carson other than he was pretty tough to listen to.. very boring.. very monotone.. very slow. And he had some pretty weird ideas with the pyramids.. which obviously counter what most scientists agree on... said soem weird things like Satan instructed Darwin.. he just didnt sit well with me.

Most scientists are "very boring/monotone" as we are very logical and non-emotional beings.

Carson's comments about the Pyramids were even in his own words "his own personal theory" basically a hunch or idea that could tie in the pyramids to the Bible. He had some reasoning but never said "you know, the scientists are WRONG!"

Here is his exact quote:

"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain,” Carson said, referring to the Old Testament. “Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, [something to store that grain] would have to be something awfully big, if you stop and think about it.”

He never said Satan instructed Darwin either. He said that "evolution is a theory that is encouraged by the adversary". A far cry from saying Satan told Darwin what to write.

We know how much MSNBC tried to write him off as a loon by twisting his words, because quite frankly he was by far the smartest man on either side of the aisle and should have won this election.

Zwick just pretty much told us that he wants a scientist but only if that scientist agrees with his political beliefs, because we had one on the R side run this year.

bases_loaded;1815253 wrote:In short we want leaders, scientists aren't leaders, they can't lead because their process requires too much time, effort, and validation. In the end the best a scientist can accomplish is a theory and theories by definition can't be proven so...not good leaders.

Actually not true, in science once Theories are proven their 'name' gets turned into Laws. The Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Law of Gravity, etc.

First of all... Zwick, I have to say that your OP was the most honest, real and unbiased post that I've ever seen. Congrats!

Secondly: Ben Carson.
I don't care what his thoughts are of friggen pyramids. And anybody who does, IMO, was just looking for some reason to invalidate him to begin with. Think about it. If he thought the pyramids were originally created to construct and breed an oinkubus, how exactly would that affect his ability to do his job, any job, in leading/uniting? Obviously it doesn't have an effect on anything. Or he wouldn't be able to, you know, successfully cut into people's brains.
Unless you're afraid that he would be able to use executive orders that commands everybody to grow beards and pray on Tuesdays. LOL

I guess my problem with a businessman would be every thought would tend to be driven monetarily and that's not always the best course of action for every decision.

But scientists are also driven by monetary gains. They often rely on grants and donations to begin work, and then dance to certain tunes to make sure that the money still flows. There is a money trail in every job.

Good topic!

Heretic;1815264 wrote:So, you're saying the problem is that people are too stupid be willing to wait for the smart ones to determine a valid course of action and, in essence, would rather run head first into a brick wall, as opposed to waiting for a door to be placed in said wall.

If anything explains a Hillary vs. Trump battle for the presidency, that is it.

Shoot first, ask questions never.

jmog;1815278 wrote:Actually not true, in science once Theories are proven their 'name' gets turned into Laws. The Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Law of Gravity, etc.

Wrong.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1815247 wrote:I guess the difference would be businessmen, unlike scientists, don't use scientific methods to come to their conclusions. A lot of business comes from experience and gut reactions.. not saying there isn't a ton of metric driven decisions... but at the same time, you're not approaching the two the same way.

Which is why scientists probably make horrible leaders because they likely struggle with making decisions with incomplete facts (which probably describes almost every choice the POTUS makes).

You can always hire the scientist to advise you....but someone has to be able to make decisions.

bases_loaded;1815302 wrote:Wrong.

Not wrong

jmog;1815354 wrote:Not wrong

Laws are observations; theories can't be proven only disproven and do not become laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jmog;1815240 wrote:I don't disagree at all, we had a short chance with Ben Carson, a scientifically trained Neuro Surgeon, but he was too calm/collected for the Rs and he was demonized by the Ds for his religious beliefs.

If I had to guess you weren't too fond of him either Zwick?

Ben Carson was a walking, talking defense of liberal arts education - a brilliant tradesman with a highly advanced skills and knowledge that simultaneously proved to be profoundly ignorant.

BoatShoes;1815827 wrote:Ben Carson was a walking, talking defense of liberal arts education - a brilliant tradesman with a highly advanced skills and knowledge that simultaneously proved to be profoundly ignorant.

Only BoatShoes would call a Brain Surgeon ignorant because he doesn't agree with his political views.

jmog;1816299 wrote:Only BoatShoes would call a Brain Surgeon ignorant because he doesn't agree with his political views.

I'm an R. But if Ben Carson wasn't ignorant, then I'm not sure what that word means.