For+the+Democracy+of+Science

For the Democracy of Science

 * Instructions**

After reading the article I would like you to post your thoughts and comments to it here for us to read and discuss. I would like you to address the following items in your comments:

1. What is your general reaction to this article? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have questions or comments. Essentially, just react to the article.

Place your comments in the space below in __**alphabetical order (last name first)**__ following the format shown with my example. Feel free to comment on other people's comments but just be sure to use a different color font and sign your name after your comment(s).

Christopher, Zach 1. I agree with the article, I believe that science and the government should remain mostly separated. In some cases, the government relies on science such as medical needs for its citizens, war tactics, etc. However, the governments job is more to control the economy, politics, society, and retains with other countries. Science has the job of giving our country an edge over other countries in terms of medicines, engineering, technology, etc. but shouldn't be relied on to maintain our own country. I agree with Otto that science is a major part of our life and is becoming even greater especially since topics such as this are occurring where science is related to government.

DiBartolo, Nick

1. 1) This article brings up many good points that incorporate politics with science. I tend to agree with the main points of using science within the government, but there needs to be a boundary so that our government doesn't rely too heavily on science. I feel as though if anything can be proven through science that can help develop our nation, then there is no reason not to use a particular scientific discovery in politics.

Godnik, Olivia

1. I mostly agree with this article. Otto talked about how when people don’t know the science behind certain ideas/beliefs, it is hard to defend and make decisions regarding them. Although, I don’t think that science and politics should be mixed to the extent Otto is suggesting. I don’t think that all political decisions should involve science. If science can help prove certain ideas successful, or help solve problems, I think that it should be incorporated. I also agree that Americans should be more educated on scientific topics. Although I agree with that, I don’t think that science debates would create enough of an impact on the public. Most people would not understand or even try to understand the topics debated.

Han, Harriet

1. I agree with this article to a certain extent--science and government should remain separate for the most part. In dealing with situations such as the nuclear crisis, science should be incorporated into the political stance. Our government should not rely heavily on science in dealing with issues because the government exists to protect the citizens. How will the study of science help in matters such as making new laws? There are many decisions that are made in the government and most of the decisions do not require a scientific reasoning. However, I do agree with Otto in the sense that the public needs to be more educated about science because there are times like the Global Warming which requires scientific knowledge.

Hensel, Daniel

1. I agree with this article in the abstract. Ideally, science should be a center topic of debate in Washington. The Scientific Method does go hand in hand with democracy. Historically, each were developed in a modern style at about the same time, when a push for freedom of action, religion, and thought was prevalent. Refusing to engage in science in politics inhibits successful discussion. Things like Global Warming, stem cell research, etc. are at the core of debate right now across the country, and ignoring science forces us to forget these important issues. I think Otto's goal fails, though, unfortunately. Its success is premised off of the situation that everybody expresses a desire to be educated on all subjects and be an informed voter, etc. Unfortunately, ideologies cannot be changed with the snap of a finger, or in this case the reading of an article on the subject. 9 times out of 10, people will just become more into their belief when they face opposition.

Hirshman, Rachel

1. I think this article brings up a very true and good argument about America’s current political situation. Personally, I agree with Otto that our country is not very educated in sciences and we tend to follow the norm and assume rather than research for ourselves and make our own decisions. Similar to politicians just believing what they hear, I believe we as citizens tend to believe what the politicians claim but in some circumstances they do not follow through. This supports Otto’s claims and I think that science should become a discussion topic in political debates. America as a whole needs to become more individualized in terms of not believing everything we hear and making our own decisions not just following what everyone else believes is right. However, I disagree with Otto in that all aspects of our politics relates back to science and being better educated in science is an ultimate cure.

Kim, Yery 1. I agree with this article for the most part. I agree that the government and science should not mix. If you think about it, there are some roles science may have in the government, but I do not believe it is necessary to run a country. Instead of worrying about science, the government should be more focused important things like the economy of our country, the education our younger generations receive, and so forth. I also agree with the fact that we are not as educated in science as we should be. I feel like if we would be able to do much more if we were more educated in that aspect.

Lee, Becky

1. I agree with what a lot of people have been writing, that we need to actually evaluate the underlying meaning of something, not just accepting it at face value when someone tells it to you, however, sadly, that's not always the case in our current world. Instead of trying to be informed about why things are, we just continue to believe we are right, without any sort of evidence to back us up. I don't really understand what the author means when she says that science should be more incorporated into our government and politics- what parts of science? The scientific method? The article didn't do a good enough job of explaining why it's necessary, or what "it" even is. the article talks a lot of the "science behind things" but personally, I don't know what the "science" even is, which might support her argument that no one really knows the reason behind things. Although the article mentions some good reasons why the science is important, the harsh truth is that most people don't care, and the probably never will. There are too many other things that also influence government agendas, that are more of an imperative for the nation, rather than discussing the logistics of our actions, which probably doesn't do anything to solve the immediate problems in our society.

Nediyakalayil, Shane

1.) I think this articles brings up some very good points. I agree that the government and the people of our country don't know that much about science. This is because people are too afraid to learn. Religion also plays a big role because it affects so many. The theory of life in science is totally different that what religious people believe of how they were made. Because of this, many debates and arguments arise. However, there is a limit on how far science should run our country. Both of them could help each other out, which would benefit us, but we shouldn't combine them, for they are very different. Politicians and scientists are 2 different things, and that is for a reason.

**Pozin, Jake**
 * 1) After reading this article, I can agree that the government should do more to incorporate itself more with sciences. That being said, it shouldn't spend too much time on science because there are other more important issues that need to be solved such as our debt crisis. Some of our issues can be tied with science such as the health care debate, which if cheaper more efficient technology was used it could cost a lot less for healthcare. Going back to the article, I agree with the idea of trying to place science in political discussions of policies that affect the public which "'allows them to become familiar with science and knowledge-based argumentation'". This means that both the public and the politicians can understand more about the science's importance in life.

Qiao, Victor

1) I agree with Otto that most of the country isn't well educated about science. However, his pushes to have people educated is futile. Some Americans are not capable of taking in such knowledge, and that should be something that we need to accept. If there is such a desire to raise awareness of scientific knowledge, then have the curriculum focus on that subject more, and encourage kids to study science outside of school. And as to the idea that politics and science being merged, I think the idea is horrible. I think it's best that they be kept separate, simply because the two are discord with each other, like the way quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity are. Politicians suck at science usually, and no scientist gets involved in politics. There's a reason for this, and that's because the two subjects are entirely different. Therefore, science and politics need to be kept as separate entities.

Ruben, Ali 1. I definitely agreed with most of the arguments in this article. It was interesting how he brought up the gap between government and science and how the gap continues to grow. I also found it interesting how he said the reasons for peoples' lack of knowledge is because of the atomic age and natural disasters occurring. I liked his solution paragraph and his ideas of a scientific debate.

Tashma, Josh

1. I agree with the author's claims about how the country is not very educated in terms of scientific knowledge. However, with modern day politics, I do not think that the alternative he presents to today's system is viable at all. If I were running for President, I would love to make everyone in the country geniuses -- however, even if I came up with an idea some sort of proposal that would improve the intellectual capabilities of everyone in the country, I would obviously never reach office. Why? Because the population in general is accustomed to the current political system and does not want radical change (even the most liberal democrats couldn't imagine a way that somehow politics would change and everyone would be educated). This argument is proven by the lack of success of postmodernist political movements, which the author references. While a political system where scientific education is certainly desirable, I disagree with Otto because his vision is beyond utopian and not viable in today's "set in stone" political system.

Shapiro, Daniel

1. This article, and Otto's book, highlight really well America's dismal intellectual situation. Have you ever seen those youtube videos where someone goes around colleges and asks people about... stuff? "Do you know about HAMAS?" "Hummus? Oh I love that!" "No, HAMAS..." "Never heard of it...". There are even internet memes about American's being not the brightest or most knowledgeable (think "blonde" jokes replaced with "American" jokes). Admittedly, I have not heard many complaints about Americans not being well educated in the sciences, but I'm sure that is mixed in with the rest. As for Otto's idea of "Science Debates" as part of political campaigns, I think that this idea is not a good one at all. I believe that science and politics should be kept separate at all costs. Bringing science into political debates wouldn't make the viewers smarter; if they don't have any idea about science from the start, why would Otto think that they could suddenly absorb information from politicians? Adding science into already confusing political debates would only serve to make these same debates even more confusing! Scientists never pretend to be politicians for the general public, so why should politicians, lacking any sort of higher scientific education, pretend to be scientists? If Otto and others want the general public to be more learned in the sciences, then they should do it through mass media and also improve the science curriculum so that many more people will understand science.

Spitz, Jacob 1. I agree with the article in the sense that Americans are not very well educated about sciences. Then again, not everyone in a country will completely understand everything relating to sciences. To tie this back to Otto’s argument that politics should be mixed with sciences, I disagree with that point. I disagree because sciences do not relate to all problems facing a politician. How can sciences help a politician with bettering the economy? Sciences can only help with a limited amount of solutions. Politics will not lead to everyone understanding science just because politicians are talking about science. People studying sciences by cracking open textbooks and taking out some calculators to collect data will be the only help for a person to learn science and someday understand it.

Stoehr, Ben 1. I agree with this article on its idea that the public does not know much about science. However, I think there are degrees of the knowledge of science. For example, I don't expect every american to fully understand our current view of quantum mechanics and every thing about biology. On basic scientific principles, I expect people to know, but how can we create a set division when some people don't even have the resources to study science. In the article, it talks about if the presidential candidates had to speak about current science issues, would the public understand? This might be just me but I dont understand all of they talk about during their debates sometimes because I know that they don't know it either. Although science is important to our everyday lives and the survival of mankind, mixing it with politics can't solve everything. I think our current efforts between science and government have worked fairly well such as the nuke and traveling to the Moon! We should merge science with government when we need something, not just for the fun of it.

Volpyansky, Andrew 1.) I only agree with part of Otto's beliefs. Yes, the American public is not extremely knowledgeable in the area of science, but any political knowledge they need for decisions can be found on the internet, even if the person searching has no knowledge of the scientific background. And, if truth be told, the public doesn't really need to know as much science as Otto proposes. He attempts to bind science and government but things like environmental disasters don't actually require the people in the government to be scientists. The people who hold office can just call in actual scientists. And if science and government is merged, then scientists will be more involved in politics and less caring about science. The same thing happened with the Catholic Church when it became involved in politics.