Was this an effort mirroring other knowledge domains (such as education, medicine, economics, etc.)? Or were there aspects you believed were pretty unique to gaining feedback on science related positions?
Did you, or would you have, promoted a presidential debate (or debates for other political contests) focused exclusively on this area. Or perhaps the adversarial nature of debates would not have been helpful?
The goal was always a public forum. Science touches every challenges of the 21st century, so questions would focus on science issues as they relate to the economy, health, innovation and the future.
Wow, your role in Science Debate and what it's done for political conversation is really incredible Sheril! I'm looking forward to your ideas, especially since now I often feel that the debate isn't about an issue informed by science, but rather about science itself--about ways of knowing. How can good science, which at the outset admits it does not know everything and will constantly be under review and change, be separated from the science that claims to KNOW absolutely, which is what many people look for, and sometimes pay for, to support specific policies? Thanks for these thought provoking posts!
Thanks Sarah! You’ve touched on such an important aspect of this - ways of knowing & varied perceptions of what science means and is. A series of “facts” vs a process of constant learning and change.
Great effort. Our representatives should know and express their ideas on subjects like Science and Technologies as they will be expected to represent public opinion in policy making. Kudos for the great effort in making our future policymakers aware.
Sheril,
Was this an effort mirroring other knowledge domains (such as education, medicine, economics, etc.)? Or were there aspects you believed were pretty unique to gaining feedback on science related positions?
Did you, or would you have, promoted a presidential debate (or debates for other political contests) focused exclusively on this area. Or perhaps the adversarial nature of debates would not have been helpful?
The goal was always a public forum. Science touches every challenges of the 21st century, so questions would focus on science issues as they relate to the economy, health, innovation and the future.
Welcome Sheril.👍❤️👏🌹🙏
Always appreciated your work, and that of others, in the Science Debate effort. I look forward to what’s next. Thank you!!
Thanks Brian, We’ve always appreciated your support!
So proud of your continuing efforts to inform, enlighten and help us all understand and want to participate in science making a better world.
Thank you!
Wow, your role in Science Debate and what it's done for political conversation is really incredible Sheril! I'm looking forward to your ideas, especially since now I often feel that the debate isn't about an issue informed by science, but rather about science itself--about ways of knowing. How can good science, which at the outset admits it does not know everything and will constantly be under review and change, be separated from the science that claims to KNOW absolutely, which is what many people look for, and sometimes pay for, to support specific policies? Thanks for these thought provoking posts!
Thanks Sarah! You’ve touched on such an important aspect of this - ways of knowing & varied perceptions of what science means and is. A series of “facts” vs a process of constant learning and change.
Great effort. Our representatives should know and express their ideas on subjects like Science and Technologies as they will be expected to represent public opinion in policy making. Kudos for the great effort in making our future policymakers aware.
Thanks.
Thank you Sudhir!