Should Politicians Embrace Intellectualism?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of intellectualism in politics, particularly whether politicians should embrace scientific reasoning and knowledge. Participants explore the implications of having politicians with scientific backgrounds, the public's perception of such candidates, and the general state of political discourse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over the technical ignorance prevalent in political discourse, citing examples from both real-world interactions and literature.
  • Several comments reference the "Physics for Future Presidents" course, with mixed opinions on its value and implications for political education.
  • There is a suggestion that if all politicians were physicists, it could lead to fewer problems, although this is countered by the idea that being a physicist does not guarantee effective governance.
  • Participants discuss the public's willingness to vote for scientists, noting that many voters prefer candidates who seem relatable rather than those with scientific credentials.
  • Some argue that a "good politician" may not necessarily be a positive figure, raising questions about the qualities that define effective political leadership.
  • There is a call for candidates who are honest and intellectually engaged, though it is suggested that such candidates may struggle to gain office.
  • One participant critiques the political landscape, suggesting that success in politics often requires obfuscation and manipulation, contrasting this with the clarity sought in scientific reasoning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the relationship between science and politics, with no clear consensus on whether intellectualism is beneficial or whether the public is ready to support scientist candidates. Disagreement exists regarding the effectiveness of politicians with scientific backgrounds and the qualities that define a good politician.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect personal opinions and experiences rather than established facts, and there are unresolved questions about the public's perception of intellectualism in politics.

Jimmy Snyder
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
21
I thought there was a thread with a similar subject line, but I can't find it. Ms. Redd, a member of the NJ Legislature has stepped down to take the post of Mayor of Camden, NJ. There are several candidates competing to take her vacated seat in the legislature. Here is today's Camden Courier Post headline:

Redd shifts; rivals gravitate.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/section/NEWS01"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Look up "Physics for Future Presidents" on YouTube.
 
Waterstone's Gower Street, and I'm sure many others, have a section devoted to debunking-BS books like 'Voodoo Science'. I've thumbed through them, and debated science with people both in the real world and on the Internet, and the sheer technical ignorance is astounding, even outside the New Age crowd. It's depressing.
 
Char. Limit said:
Look up "Physics for Future Presidents" on YouTube.
OMG. Apparently future presidents are dumber than poets! This class -- at UC Berkeley no less -- represents a dumbing down of the already dumbed down and much maligned (and rightfully so) Physics for Poets classes.
 
Char. Limit said:
Look up "Physics for Future Presidents" on YouTube.

you mean this?


he makes a lot of sense. in politics it seems that people fight over whose opinion is better, or that people stupidly cling to ideas for no reason except that they just sound good to them. in things like math or physics it doesn't much matter what someone's opinion is, especially if it's easy to demonstrate that someone's wrong. it's sort of like the rule for entering plato's academy; the prerequisite searching for knowledge & wisdom, etc was to study math
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If all Politicians are physicists then we have a lot less problems in the world.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel

Merkel was educated in Templin and at the University of Leipzig, where she studied physics from 1973 to 1978.

After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry[8] she worked as a researcher.
 
Amanheis said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel

Merkel was educated in Templin and at the University of Leipzig, where she studied physics from 1973 to 1978.

After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry[8] she worked as a researcher.
This is the same example that's always used over and over.
The way the American education system presents science topics in general needs to be revised heavily.
 
Bright Wang said:
If all Politicians are physicists then we have a lot less problems in the world.
Not necessarily. My physics professor was a physicist, and he gave us lots of problems to do.
 
  • #10
I think politicians should need to know how to not govern like an idiot, first. Everytime I hear them talk, it makes me regret Democracy.
 
  • #11
Politicians would look for worm holes to get ahead faster, or to remove themselves from the self-created bad situations; and seek black holes to stick all of their discretions.
 
  • #12
Bright Wang said:
If all Politicians are physicists then we have a lot less problems in the world.

A Physicist would never stoop that low.
 
  • #13
But the question is of course if people are really willing to vote for a scientist?

There are a few examples of scientist going into politics with some success.
However, most people tend to vote for candidates that are "just like us", which to a large extent rules out scientists.
 
  • #14
f95toli said:
But the question is of course if people are really willing to vote for a scientist?

I would prefer a good politician than a good scientist.
 
  • #15
rootX said:
I would prefer a good politician than a good scientist.

Perhaps, but is a "good politician" really a good thing?


While this is extremely naive, I wish there existed a candidate who was honest about his opinions. IMO, an intellectual is rarely subtle about his/her sentiments. Therefore, I would like it if a candidate has had a history of "intellectualism*" and public advocacy. Of course, such a candidate will not take an office.


* By "intellectualism", it does not have to be big. Even a good blog would suffice.
 
  • #16
Pinu7 said:
Perhaps, but is a "good politician" really a good thing?


While this is extremely naive, I wish there existed a candidate who was honest about his opinions. IMO, an intellectual is rarely subtle about his/her sentiments. Therefore, I would like it if a candidate has had a history of "intellectualism*" and public advocacy. Of course, such a candidate will not take an office.


* By "intellectualism", it does not have to be big. Even a good blog would suffice.

Exactly. What makes someone succeed in politics is the ability to obfuscate, say nothing meaningful, and have a subjective notion of truth (besides the obvious ability to read and manipulae people). This is totally contrary to the gestalt of a physicist.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
69K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K