Our President is an Astro-Physicist

Great Debates
1

What an interesting Notion. Imagine if our president (U.S.A.) was an astro-physicist, or quantum-physicist, or a world renowned scientist? This is not limited to the U.S.A, any nation for that matter. Imagine if all of the UN, were brilliant scientists, authors, mathematicians, instead of politicians. I am not eluding that the heads of nations are inept. I am merely saying “what if”.

Lets say Einstein or any great scientific thinkers were to be in office. The dynamics of the world itself, the global economy may very well change. Speaking as an American, imagine an oval office not wrought with deception, or a congress not infected with the sickness of greed or infidelity. A governess without corruption. I am not saying that scientists or mathematicians or physicists or the like are immune to the lusts and greeds that anyone else is subject to. What I am saying is there are scientists, physicists,etc.etc… that are only concerned with the aquisition of truth, and knowledge. [I don’t think our senators/congressman/president has truth as their highest priority]

Look at Clinton/Condit “I didn’t have sex, I did have sex” give me a frigg’in break. National offices are run on a certain amount of corruption. It is just the way it is.

However, if the Gov’t was run by a scientist etc.etc…we may be more concerned with keeping a nation in truth and new discovery than building a missle defense system. Or concerned with being hit by an asteroid and a defense for that. Or perfecting intra-stellar travel… the list could go on and on.

I understand global commerse and defense and national economy are extremely important. Of utmost importance even, but imagine if those issues were dealt with a scientific way/method? What would change? Would we be terra-forming planets surrounding Alpha-Centauri sooner, or would we be visiting planets light years away?

More importantly, would we be acting as a global entity, not our defensive singular nations.

2

I’m guessing you haven’t spent a lot of time hanging around scientists. They can be as petty, narrow-minded, and power-hungry as anybody else. Not to mention incompetent, lustful, greedy, and corrupt.

Oh yeah, thanks for the gratuitous Clinton slam. Anybody know what the statute of limitations is on pointless Clinton bashing?

3

Are you suggesting Scientists are immune from deceit, greed, and ambition? Then why do we sometimes read about researchers fudging their data to achieve a desired result? What about the Piltdown man? Granted, those who choose politics as a career seem to be more imbued with the big 3 than scientists, or the rest of us. But, Utopia aside, “All Power corrupts.”

4

Practically perfect in every way:

Poppins/von Trapp in 2004!

5

I do not in any way think all power corrupts, as a matter of fact personalities I beleive can be bent to a certain degree and then corrupted. This is not the debate, I am asking if a fundamentally “good” non corrupted scientist etc… would do a better job than our current political deck of cards.

6

How can you say they’re only concerned with aquiring truth and knowledge, but are not immune to lust and greed? I can’t say I only post on straight dope, but I post on I Hate Jen Haven too. “Only” is a very limiting term.

I agree though, scientists are * not * immune to greed. If they were, our prescription drugs wouldn’t cost consumers 100s of times the manufacturing and developing costs. Unless you don’t consider these people to be scientists?

7

“… the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility.” --Heinlein (Major Reid in Starship Troopers, I believe.)

Scientists may be trained to be a bit more rational than your average joe, but they have all the weakenesses of character that any human being suffers from. A scientist is just as likely to take a bribe or to boff an intern or lie on the stand as anyone else. Scientists cook their data and schtoop their grad students. . . it just doesn’t hit the national press the way any controversy story about a politician does.

Aside from that, science takes a completely different subset of skills from governing.

The scientist must not draw conclusions when there is not enough data to support them. A leader, on the other hand, must make a decision, and make it now–no time to commission a five-year study which may or may not yield the answer to the question. And let’s not forget the questions for which there is no possible scientific answer–a scientist has no advantage over a layman when deciding whether abortion should be legal, if homosexuality is immoral, or if the US should involve itself in conflicts on the other side of the world.

And, let’s be honest, scientists, in general, are rotten in the realm of social interaction. They know how to convince other scientists about things, but they crash and burn when it comes to the general public. Otherwise, pseudoscience wouldn’t be so rampant. Even the most successful scientists in the public eye are regarded as lovable geeks, but geeks nonetheless, e.g. Einstein, Sagan, Hawking.

Scientists think differently. They have different priorities. Politeness is less important than accuracy. Appearance. . . what does appearance matter? Scientists get frustrated when people don’t think rationally and don’t catch on quick enough. Scientists often have a superior attitude (fostered, certainly, by attitudes like those expressed in the OP) which grates on people.

If a scientist were, by some miracle, elected, he’d probably go down in history the least popular President ever. Look at Jimmy Carter, who had a BS from the Naval Academy, and studied graduate-level nuclear physics.

Ah, but how the NSF budget would swell. . .

8

Carter was a Nuclear Engineer.

9

IIRC, Francois Mitterand was a mathematician. Might want to look into his record.

I’m reminded of a couple ideas I’ve heard passed around:[ul][li] No one who wants to be president is qualified to be president (paraphrase of Douglas Adams, who said it better).[/li] “Power does not corrupt; power attracts the corruptible. Better men are attracted to better things.” – Gore Vidal, I believe.[/ul]

10

Engineers are not scientists.

Scientists are not superior to engineers. Their training and temperment is just different.

11

And, perhaps, their grammar are worse.

12

Well, there are at least some scientists in Congress. Vernon Ehlders (R-MI) and Rush Holt (D-NJ) are both physicists, for example. (Holt also was a 5 time Jeopardy winner, btw) I don’t know if they’re any more or any less competant than other members of congress. As for scientists being more ethical or more honest than other people, I’d say that there are honest and ethical people in every profession, even in Congress, and there are dishonest and unethical people in every profession. As for specific issues, scientists, like other groups, are spread across the political spectrum. It’s also important to remember that scientists can be just as bigoted, illogical and prejudiced as non-scientists. Getting a Ph.D. in Chemistry doesn’t inherantly make you honest, or ethical, or wise.

13

I would be surprised if the scientists who perform pharmaceutical R&D had any significant input into the market price of the drugs developed. That kind of decision-making comes from the boardroom.

Anyway, everything Podkayne said. The ability to govern effectively and the ability to be corrupted are both independent of vocation.

14

I think I should clear a couple of things up, because from reading the above, I noticed I may not have been clear, or possibly expressed a wrong sentiment.

I do not think Scientists at large are immune to anything a politician is. However, certain ‘strains’ of science if you will, have produced individuals who show remarkable gifts reflected in their intellect and candor. Some who have shown unreservedness, honesty, and sincerety in their work as evidenced in their personal lives. I should have said: What if our great nation, and other great nations had more scientifically minded, unreserved, honest, and sincere leaders, whose goal it was to make a more global, central minded society, not bent on narcissistic volitile beleifs, but more accurate, realistic morals to bring together a common good…

Sorry, I did not mean to deify scientists as better across the board, I should have been more sharp, and to the point.

15

So you just want to know what the world would be like if we were led by people who were good and smart?

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ultrafilter *
**[li] No one who wants to be president is qualified to be president (paraphrase of Douglas Adams, who said it better **[/li][/QUOTE]

The actual quote is from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe and reads “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Philosophr *
**[li] I should have said: What if our great nation, and other great nations had more scientifically minded, unreserved, honest, and sincere leaders, whose goal it was to make a more global, central minded society, not bent on narcissistic volitile beleifs, but more accurate, realistic morals to bring together a common good… **[/li][/QUOTE]

You seem to be describing Plato’s ideal of the philosopher King. He never found one and I doubt we will either. There are just far too few Jesuses and Budhas to go around. When one of these perfect individuals does come along, they tend to go into fields where they can truly help people (i.e. they avoid politics like the plague)

I am not trying to answer this thread with a “It’ll never happen” because I know you meant it as a “what if?” so the question becomes “would perfect leaders bring a perfect society, or would society remain flawed?”

My guess? The world would be a better place, but evil would still exist and may even find a way to thrive.

-Beeblebrox

“Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much… the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.”

17

Just to back up Podkayne:

Jimmy Carter

Herbert Hoover

Yassir Arafat

All engineers.

18

How does that make scientists any different from:
clergymen (or clergywomen); coal miners; janitors; educators; human rights activists; or database administrators?

If anything, I think the next president should be a database administrator (preferably with an interest in human rights), because those are typically the best and the brightest.

19

Well Beeblebrox, it sounds as if we may be on the same wavelength. Yes this does sound like Plato’s Ideal King. Some of the Posts, deal in very sharp pointed arguments as to why scientists could never lead. This may in fact be true, but Philosophizing on the perfect leader, can lead to insight into what changes may need to take place to attain a common good.

20

So Arnold, its being the brightest, most uncorruptable that makes one great?

The reason for not having clergymen/women? they would be horrible at leading!

Just kidding, just kidding. Seriously though, I was using scientists as a good referance, thats all. I do think certain people are predisposed to being a natural leader, and one would need a certain amount of intellect and acumen to be truly great.