Comments for Obama on Science: Hope or Hype? at http://randi.org/site , comment 1 to 36 out of 20 comments http://randi.org/site Sun, 19 May 2013 02:56:02 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2400 It was good to hear Obama say something good about nonbelievers. Maybe atheists will become acceptable before some other groups--can you imagine the buzz that would have occurred if, instead of "nonbelievers", he had included Wiccans or Neopagans? - alofkeene Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:11:37 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2253 The new Secretary of the Department of the Interior, in his address to all employees on January 22nd, echoed President Barack Obama when he said, "My priorities are many... one of those priorities will be to lead the Interior Department with openness in decision-making, high ethical standards, and respect for scientific integrity." This garnered strong applause from his audience in Washington, and also from our audience of 300+ people strong at a remote location. As a Federal employee in the Department, I must say that I find his words and his sentiment - and that of the President - to be long overdue and quite welcome. - starparty Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:02:45 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2229 [quote]Too much religion written by grochon, January 21, 2009 Even though Obama threw out an olive branch to "non-believers", I was still extremely disappointed at the presence of Rick Warren (an infinitely arrogant being, IMHO) and the continued references to 'God' and 'Jesus' that permeated this political anointing. Was anyone else as outraged? Maybe it was just me.... [/quote] I wasn't outraged as much as disgusted. How can one put science in its proper place and still believe in an invisible sky daddy who knows and controls all? I rolled my eyes, a lot. - Steel Rat Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:46:26 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2221 (and he knows how to pronounce "nuclear") - tctheunbeliever Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:35:24 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2194 BillyJoe: "We will all die eventually..." For the record, I have no intention of ever dying. So far, so good. - Cuddy Joe Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:22:10 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2190 [quote]the best ways to reduce healthcare costs involve changing the nature of healthcare. Prevention and early detection can greatly reduce costs.[/quote] Actually, it only delays them. We will all die eventually and 90% of our life time's health care costs are consumed with the diagnosis and management of our final illness. It actually costs too much to see a doctor in America. They are all specialists who command extraordinary wages and order extraordinary number of investigations for relatively minor problems. You need a system of "gatekeepers" like the GP in Australia. Our system, though not perfect, is far superior, all inclusive, and at a fraction of the cost. - BillyJoe Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:35:51 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2183 @sibtrag: how is that a science issue? - JeffWagg Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:00:39 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2179 I disagree with your statement that "the real problems with the cost of healthcare aren't science problems". Reducing the cost of the current healthcare methods is indeed a political issue. Possibly a single-payer plan would reduce the total cost by eliminating the overhead of insurance companies. Or maybe not. But, the best ways to reduce healthcare costs involve changing the nature of healthcare. Prevention and early detection can greatly reduce costs. Consider the vast cost reduction which the polio vaccine gives us. - sibtrag Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:21:28 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2173 @Roo: The president has to work within the established framework of the government; in reality his powers are severely limited and that was the intended effect of the laws which established the offices of the federal government. As horrible as Dubbyah was in eroding civil liberties and subjecting people to torture, Dubbyah will be known in US history as one of the most influential presidents ever. Even if we assume Obama is very capable and has predominantly sensible advisers, his effectiveness can still be easily stymied by the legislative branch of government; even if the Democrat party controlled the two houses of congress there is still no guarantee that Obama would be able to achieve much. I don't know how your political system operates in the UK, but unless your prime minister had the good old Roman position of dictator, I can imagine most of his efforts being thwarted by other branches of government. - MadScientist Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:58:52 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2171 PS: For the moment I think it will work in our favour to remain totally optimistic, at least outwardly. At the first sign of an Obama cave-in, we will need to make a really big noise... BJ - BillyJoe Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:28:30 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2170 [quote]I mean what I wrote - mere words are meaningless. Whether Obama chose to mention science, warming, blahblah, or chose to avoid any mention of those words makes absolutely no difference to me...[/quote] If he didn't mention science, goodbye science. Having at least mentioned it science at least has some hope. [quote]...talk is cheap. What *would* terrify me is if he started babbling about his glorious visions from god.[/quote] So words are not meaningless. [quote]Personally I can't understand the herd mentality and Obama worship that's going on.[/quote] As Neil Young said, it's not really my scene either, but... If the populace is urging him on, it might at least make it harder for him to renege on his promises. It they showed they didn't care, how much easier would it be. - BillyJoe Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:21:36 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2169 I really hope Mr. Obama doesn't follow the same path as our Tony Blair. He was so promising to start with, open, honest and engaging. But I believe he became corrupted by power and those parasites that it attracts and ended up by lying to the nation in order to send us to war. I do think that Mr. Obama will be a good president, though. One thing is certain - he cannot be any worse than Dubya "I believe human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully" Bush. Somehow, I can't imagine Mr. Obama (with or without advisors and speech-writers) saying anything quite so daft. One of my US friends gave me a GW Bush Out-of-Office-Countdown desk diary for Christmas in 2007. It has one Bush gaffe for each day. The final page on Tuesday was from a speech Bush gave in Beaverton, Oregon in 2004. He said: "I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'." - Roo Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:13:54 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2165 Jeff Wagg wrote: [quote]Later, Obama said: We will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. I'm not sure how science can be used to lessen the nuclear threat. In fact, what does he mean by that? Science can find a way to split an atom, but deciding what to do with that is up to politicians and other decision makers. The "nuclear threat" cannot be solved by science. Things cannot be unlearned in that way. [/quote] I don't see where he stated that science would lessen the nuclear threat. President Obama, I believe, was consistent in using the term "we" to mean "everybody" (or as one might say in the south, "you'all and me"). And by the nuclear threat, presumably he refers to the number of countries with nuclear weapons (as well as the number of poorly guarded nuclear weapons in others, and the chances of non-governmental groups gaining access to nuclear weapons). One cannot expect a full explanation of all points of policy in an innaugural speech. - cullen Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:02:24 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2164 With George HW's words that an atheist can never be a patriot still ringing in my ears all these years later, I was thrilled to hear him identify non-believers as a group that really exists. I too was unnerved by the carelessness of his diction here. I don't know that it reveals lack of understanding so much as jingoism, but it worries me either way. Still, you are correct - it is nice to have [i]hope[/i] that we might finally have a president who knows what science is. - acedwards Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:55:50 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2162 I know I won't agree with everything he does, I am just hopeful that he won't start invading countries under false pretenses or issue an executive order justifying the use of torture on civilians. Maybe as a bonus he could repeal the Patriot Act, steady the economy and dedicate some serious resources to climate change research and/or real world actions. I am not looking to Obama for my scientific information, I am looking to Obama to make logical decisions based on data provided by experts in the corresponding field(s). I am hopeful he will prove to be a logical President - cwniles Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:00:23 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2161 The simple answer is that he's saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear. What I heard when he mentioned bringing science back into its rightful place is that we'll eliminate the impediments to advancement caused by religion, in the case of stem cell research, and greed, in the case of energy technology. YMMV, but those seem to me to be the areas where the previous evangelistic oilmongering administration fell down the most. - Griz Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:56:59 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2160 I don't think that everyone who voted for Obama did so because they think he's a superhero--I voted for him because he at least says what he plans to do (and I don't believe that he's lying about his basic aims) rather than just saying "My friends, trust me." If he talks about "reaching across the aisle" and "Wall Street and Main Street", he still has a few things to say that are not cliches. I won't try to say that he's not a demagogue, but I think he was clearly the better choice. - tctheunbeliever Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:32:25 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2153 @BillyJoe: I mean what I wrote - mere words are meaningless. Whether Obama chose to mention science, warming, blahblah, or chose to avoid any mention of those words makes absolutely no difference to me - talk is cheap. What *would* terrify me is if he started babbling about his glorious visions from god. Dubbyah scared me stiff when he spoke about talking to god; it's very fortunate that, contrary to what is seen in the movies, the president cannot unilaterally launch a nuclear attack (that's 'nukular' to those who attended the Dubbyah School of Inglush"). As for Obama's hat-tipping to religion in his speech, that tells me absolutely nothing about Obama or his intentions. He may be trying to 'fit in' - he may have been advised that he needs to acknowledge the belief of religious groups around the country who may feel they're owed something for getting him elected. I'm waiting for evidence, not talk. Personally I can't understand the herd mentality and Obama worship that's going on. There's nothing wrong with optimism; only sad cases see no hope, but don't try to imagine there is any substance whatsoever to a political speech unless it is an inflammatory speech. For examples of inflammatory speeches, just look at the current president of Iran. He may be just a babbling idiot and do nothing to back up his talk, but people who talk like he does usually support some horrible agenda. - MadScientist Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:38:46 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2147 Even though Obama threw out an olive branch to "non-believers", I was still extremely disappointed at the presence of Rick Warren (an infinitely arrogant being, IMHO) and the continued references to 'God' and 'Jesus' that permeated this political anointing. Was anyone else as outraged? Maybe it was just me.... Regardless, even though the color barrier to the White House has been breached, there are other significant barriers that will be as difficult to overcome, one of which will be of concern to many who visit this site: the election of a committed atheist or agnostic (or "nonbeliever, if that works for you) to the Presidency. With the ballot power of the Christian Conservatives, however, this will surely be a long and arduous struggle. But, as witnessed yesterday, there is always hope..... - grochon Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:59:20 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/399-obama-on-science-hope-or-hype.html#comment-2145 Kuroyume: There is still a lot of prejudice against atheists, which is regrettable in this day and age. That Obama mentioned nonbelievers is a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go before we are accepted at the higher levels of our government, at least openly. We just elected a black president, and a qualified woman would be welcome in the future. But I don't think we're going to see an openly atheistic politician run for president any time soon. :( - TDjazz Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:44:44 +0100