Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists? (NY Times OpEd)

[FedUp_Queer]

21. Dude, really.

I did no such thing. The piece did no such thing. It lamented the lack of scientists in office. I didn't say, nor did I read, that no scientists meant lack of brains. The piece lamented no scientists as lacking a certain thought process and knowledge that scientists bring. Neither I, nor the piece, said no scientists mean no brains. Frankly, we could do with more scientists because we need more people who can think analytically and empirically, rather than merely analytically and philosophically. I'm not a scientist. I'm a lawyer. However, there are too many damn lawyers in government. There are too many "business people" in government. There are not enough scientists, doctors, physicists or engineers etc. That fact means we have lawyers, business people, etc. making policy regarding science (i.e. climate change, energy policy, etc.) that scientists would be better doing. Regarding things like climate change or nuclear power plants, for instance, I'd much rather have scientists discussing the dangers of nuclear contamination from uranium 235, 238 or whatever isotope leaks out and climate change than debate and discuss the problems and how to fix them rather than non-science people having conversations about these subjects that boil down to one side accusing the other of some silly global, socialist conspiracy to take down capitalism as some do regarding climate change. There is something to be said for applying the scientific method of inquiry to some problems and seeing where the facts come out with a minimal amount of ideology.