4 ms·

I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into politics! Maybe I'm painting the world with an overly broad brush here, but politics

I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into politics! Maybe I'm painting the world with an overly broad brush here, but politics and science approach the truth in exactly opposite ways. I'm not going to say that politics is a game of lies, because it's not, but politicians essentially invent the truth as they go along. It's similar in some ways to law or the humanities, where the truth is very much a matter of interpretation, there's a case to be made for each side, and no one is ever objectively "wrong". Right and wrong are entirely a matter of personal opinion. On the other hand, science is, in the limit, entirely objective. A physical theory can be objectively shown to be incorrect. Scientists can defend their theories, but fundamentally have to accept it if their theory is disproved, or else they become irrelevant. There was a great link earlier today on HN that talked about how the smartest people are the ones who are most skeptical of their own ideas. That's great in science, but if you don't believe yourself totally in politics, no one else will. This means that scientists, who presumably study under and work with other scientists for decades, think in this scientific mindset. This makes them totally unsuited for the world of politics (and of course, vice versa). Politicians can't admit they were wrong, because that means that they'll probably be wrong again, and no one will vote for someone who's wrong. Case in point: Mitt Romney and universal healthcare. I'll also make another point that a lot of people miss: Being a politician is roughly as difficult as being a scientist. If we expect our best politicians to get an advanced degree in something like business or law (things related to the process of running a nation) or to spend a long time working in politics or on social issues, why do we think that scientists with no such training will make good politicians? We certainly don't expect most law school grads to do much more than wash bottles in the lab.

saulrh 15y ago
I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into politics! Pretty much my guess. A lot of people I know say that, if they were mysteriously elected president, their first words would be "I quit!".
- Intermernet 15y ago
  Yeah, I've noticed this in Australia... Politics is full of failed ad execs and dis-barred lawyers. The really intelligent people now go into the private sector because politics has lost any semblance of being a respectable or intellectual career. What happens when you have policy dictated by reactionary idiots? What happens when this continues for more than a generation? Very scary.
peteretep 15y ago
Plenty of other countries have had memorable scientist leaders. The article itself opens with a picture of Merkel, and then of course, there's Thatcher... And most of the Chinese Communist Party Glitterati are engineers.
- pranjalv123 15y ago
  Angela Merkel was a physicist before she entered politics, but you have to take into account two things: 1) She was heavily involved in politics while a student and researcher. 2) Even more importantly, she came into politics right after the fall of the Berlin Wall - right after they threw away all the old career politicians. At this point, she abandoned her scientific career to fill this enormous vacuum. Thatcher got a bachelor's degree in Chemistry, but within three years of graduating college she was in politics and another three years later she had a law degree, I don't think I'd call her a "scientist leader". I'll admit my ignorance about the Chinese Communist party. But that whole system is very different, especially because the leaders don't need to get elected, so it's a much more technocratic system in general. In the US, there's a difference between people who come up with new policies and the politicians who get them implemented, I suspect this is less true in China.
  - barry-cotter 15y ago
    Wasn't Merkel a chemist, not a physicist? The upper levels of the CCP are full of engineers, not scientists. Don't know about the next or nextnext leadership generations/cadres.
eftpotrm 15y ago
Why don't they want to enter politics though? If we drew up a hypothetical list of attributes for a scientist, how many could cross over into politics? Significant intellect and a desire to exercise that in significant work? Yes. Deep interest in a field and a wish to explore that further? Yes. (In the sense that many such people seem capable of maintaining multiple such interests.) Interest in complex work and ability to hold large datasets in mind? Yes. Drive to rise above others and push for achievement? Yes. The more I look, the more it seems that a major factor working against scientist partiicpation in public debate generally and politics more specifically is a strong pervading trend of anti-intellectuallism. In science they can know that, by and large, if they back up their assertions with rigorous testing and data, their viewpoint will at the very least be taken seriously and very likely accepted. Whereas, by current trends at least, in politics their assertion would be rubbished as elitist and talked down with an incoherent anecdote. Where, in that system, is the motivation for the genuinely capable and informed to use their abilities for the public good?
- larrydag 15y ago
  One of the most failed "experiments" of science and politics was Robert McNamara as U.S. Secretary of Defense under JFK. He used a lot of scientific methods to evaluate his political decisions with war and intervention. All of his evaluations pointed out that the U.S. should intervene in Vietnam and look how that turned out. In politics there are too many variables at play. Perhaps politics is good for the "intellectual" but not for the scientist. As an aside I think its a little bit dangerous to put intellectual and scientist in the same category.
  - dhume 15y ago
    How many tests did he run? What confidence interval did he establish? What factors did he control for and how?
    - larrydag 15y ago
      Good questions of which I do not know the specifics. McNamara's background was with helping turn Ford around by using his statistical and analytical expertise. Later he got involved using those same techniques with the Defense Dept.
kokey 15y ago
I agee. It's also more important that scientists don't involve themselves in politics, especially when politicians are looking to use science as a basis for what essentially is a political decision. When the two get muddled it gets messy. Science can tell us that smoking over the long term can have negative consequences on our health, politics is how we decide what we want to do about it and how. When it comes to the details of 'how', science can provide more insights. However, it's essential that we keep the two separate, just like the separation of church and state. Science does not dictate policy, and it shouldn't.
geebee 15y ago
That may be true. But I also think that our system for selecting scientists may filter out those who would like to go into politics. A lot of people go to law school who don't really want to be lawyers. They claim they're going to law school to "learn to think". Elite law schools are easy enough that people who aren't completely devoted to the law can still graduate in fine standing in three years with a few hours a day of study - so the system can still work for people with a more diverse set of interests and goals. PhD programs in STEM fields programs are very different. They are all consuming, and you need to be capable of focusing deeply on narrow research interest for years. Another thing to keep in mind is that a very high percentage of STEM PhDs in the US are international students, which may lower the interest in entering politics somewhat. There are other approaches that could work - maybe MS degrees, or a more professional degree approach to science doctorates. Lastly, there just seems to be a cultural notion - humanities and law are considered "broad, well rounded" educations, whereas science and math is considered narrow and technical. This is completely wrong, but it's a sticky notion.

saulrh 15y ago

I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into politics! Pretty much my guess. A lot of people I know say that, if they were mysteriously elected president, their first words would be "I quit!".

Intermernet 15y ago
Yeah, I've noticed this in Australia... Politics is full of failed ad execs and dis-barred lawyers. The really intelligent people now go into the private sector because politics has lost any semblance of being a respectable or intellectual career. What happens when you have policy dictated by reactionary idiots? What happens when this continues for more than a generation? Very scary.

peteretep 15y ago

Plenty of other countries have had memorable scientist leaders. The article itself opens with a picture of Merkel, and then of course, there's Thatcher... And most of the Chinese Communist Party Glitterati are engineers.

pranjalv123 15y ago
Angela Merkel was a physicist before she entered politics, but you have to take into account two things: 1) She was heavily involved in politics while a student and researcher. 2) Even more importantly, she came into politics right after the fall of the Berlin Wall - right after they threw away all the old career politicians. At this point, she abandoned her scientific career to fill this enormous vacuum. Thatcher got a bachelor's degree in Chemistry, but within three years of graduating college she was in politics and another three years later she had a law degree, I don't think I'd call her a "scientist leader". I'll admit my ignorance about the Chinese Communist party. But that whole system is very different, especially because the leaders don't need to get elected, so it's a much more technocratic system in general. In the US, there's a difference between people who come up with new policies and the politicians who get them implemented, I suspect this is less true in China.
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  Wasn't Merkel a chemist, not a physicist? The upper levels of the CCP are full of engineers, not scientists. Don't know about the next or nextnext leadership generations/cadres.

eftpotrm 15y ago

Why don't they want to enter politics though? If we drew up a hypothetical list of attributes for a scientist, how many could cross over into politics? Significant intellect and a desire to exercise that in significant work? Yes. Deep interest in a field and a wish to explore that further? Yes. (In the sense that many such people seem capable of maintaining multiple such interests.) Interest in complex work and ability to hold large datasets in mind? Yes. Drive to rise above others and push for achievement? Yes. The more I look, the more it seems that a major factor working against scientist partiicpation in public debate generally and politics more specifically is a strong pervading trend of anti-intellectuallism. In science they can know that, by and large, if they back up their assertions with rigorous testing and data, their viewpoint will at the very least be taken seriously and very likely accepted. Whereas, by current trends at least, in politics their assertion would be rubbished as elitist and talked down with an incoherent anecdote. Where, in that system, is the motivation for the genuinely capable and informed to use their abilities for the public good?

larrydag 15y ago
One of the most failed "experiments" of science and politics was Robert McNamara as U.S. Secretary of Defense under JFK. He used a lot of scientific methods to evaluate his political decisions with war and intervention. All of his evaluations pointed out that the U.S. should intervene in Vietnam and look how that turned out. In politics there are too many variables at play. Perhaps politics is good for the "intellectual" but not for the scientist. As an aside I think its a little bit dangerous to put intellectual and scientist in the same category.
- dhume 15y ago
  How many tests did he run? What confidence interval did he establish? What factors did he control for and how?
  - larrydag 15y ago
    Good questions of which I do not know the specifics. McNamara's background was with helping turn Ford around by using his statistical and analytical expertise. Later he got involved using those same techniques with the Defense Dept.

kokey 15y ago

I agee. It's also more important that scientists don't involve themselves in politics, especially when politicians are looking to use science as a basis for what essentially is a political decision. When the two get muddled it gets messy. Science can tell us that smoking over the long term can have negative consequences on our health, politics is how we decide what we want to do about it and how. When it comes to the details of 'how', science can provide more insights. However, it's essential that we keep the two separate, just like the separation of church and state. Science does not dictate policy, and it shouldn't.

geebee 15y ago

That may be true. But I also think that our system for selecting scientists may filter out those who would like to go into politics. A lot of people go to law school who don't really want to be lawyers. They claim they're going to law school to "learn to think". Elite law schools are easy enough that people who aren't completely devoted to the law can still graduate in fine standing in three years with a few hours a day of study - so the system can still work for people with a more diverse set of interests and goals. PhD programs in STEM fields programs are very different. They are all consuming, and you need to be capable of focusing deeply on narrow research interest for years. Another thing to keep in mind is that a very high percentage of STEM PhDs in the US are international students, which may lower the interest in entering politics somewhat. There are other approaches that could work - maybe MS degrees, or a more professional degree approach to science doctorates. Lastly, there just seems to be a cultural notion - humanities and law are considered "broad, well rounded" educations, whereas science and math is considered narrow and technical. This is completely wrong, but it's a sticky notion.