First I'll settle for one who's literate, at all...

  Not scientists, exactly, but having an informed person's understanding of what science is.  An open mind and a willingness to learn are all that is required because the president will be making decisions with regard to issues such as climate change, energy, stem cell research, and nuclear proliferation, to name a few.  His decisions will have worldwide implications.  Being scientifically literate will give him/her a better understanding of the issues, no..?

  Bush, for instance, is clearly uncomfortable with science, presumably because of his religious background.  Carter was quite visionary when it came to issues dealing with science, especially energy, but I'd  be surprised to find unnaminous agreement about Carter's track record groove ;) on...

It would be nice if presidential candidates had to have strict educational and experience requirements for eligibility, but the fact that people are willing to support some of the idiots that run would seem to be more condemning of our electorate than of even the candidates themselves....

Maybe there should be educational requirements for the right to vote....

It would be nice if presidential candidates had to have strict educational and experience requirements for eligibility, but the fact that people are willing to support some of the idiots that run would seem to be more condemning of our electorate than of even the candidates themselves....

Maybe there should be educational requirements for the right to vote....


They tried that down south in an effort to keep African Americans from voting.  Until the educational system is equally fair than there is too much wiggle room for abuse.  It would also be a chore to decided what constitutes the correct educational requirements for eligibility to be President. Whatever they are,  Lincoln with his grammar school probably would not have passed, but bush with his bought and paid for degrees, would.  It is a dilemma.

Maybe there should be educational requirements for the right to vote....


If you could find a way to do it in a fair manner, I think requiring every citizen to pass a literacy test to be eligible to vote would be a good idea.

I completely agree with the idea that a leader should be able to judge the merit of "scientific" argument, as a huge amount is riding on any president making the right decisions.  Sure, a president's going to have advisors, but a first-hand understanding is way more useful than being filtered through someone else's agenda.

I'd also say the same about anybody reporting on science, too... but that hope's just a little pie-in-the-sky.

As far as voting requirements go, some knowledge about what the candidate's platform is would be a start: I remember a poll from 2004 which showed >70% of Republican voters thought that Bush's position on various topics matched their own, when in practice his manifesto was different.

Jimmy Carter is the first US president I can remember - I can also remember being fairly incredulous and asking my parents: "He can't *really* believe that, can he?", though I can't offhand remember what that was all these years later.

It would be nice if presidential candidates had to have strict educational and experience requirements for eligibility, but the fact that people are willing to support some of the idiots that run would seem to be more condemning of our electorate than of even the candidates themselves....

Maybe there should be educational requirements for the right to vote....

Danoota's right, you don't want to go down that road!  And I most certainly don't want to hear such a suggestion from anybody who has supported the post-Gingrich Republican Party (I don't mean you, Mac).  Nothing...nothing...they do is in the interests of fairness or justice.  Of course, back in the day when they had those literacy tests it was the Democrats running the show in Dixie.  The problem was if a black person passed the test, they'd make him take another one, something like: List all the presidents in chronological order or name every U.S. senator from every state.  Meanwhile, Joe White could just sign X on his registration form and go right through! 

BTW, the voter ID scheme is yet another way to block the young and the poor from voting.  I moved around quite a bit after college and my street address often did not match the one on my driver's license.  The people the Republican want as voters are established property owners.  If they could, they would just return the land owner qualification. 

Should presidents be scientifically literate?  I think a better requirement is presidents should not favor their own religious views above scientific principles in regards to policy-making.  But are we talking literacy or conformity? One of the global warming deniers I know personally is a physician.  He passed med school with flying colors.  Who's going to call him scientifically illiterate.  Not I.  He is far more scientifically disciplined than I will ever be.  However, I still believe he is wrong on the issue. 

But are we talking literacy or conformity? One of the global warming deniers I know personally is a physician.  He passed med school with flying colors.  Who's going to call him scientifically illiterate.  Not I.  He is far more scientifically disciplined than I will ever be.  However, I still believe he is wrong on the issue. 

We should definitely be talking literacy rather than conformity.. he says, as someone who's been described as a "global warming denier", even though I'm not... what I have done is taken exception to some of the incredibly poor science on both sides of the debate, and argued that concentrating so overwhelmingly on CO2 emissions is excruciatingly bad science.  But... the sorts of things proposed (e.g. increased efficiency, reduced pollution) are such blindingly sensible ideas that doing the right things for the wrong reasons may still be a very good idea.

I can't see how anyone can deny that mankind-induced global warming has happened, though: after all, we've been churning out huge amounts of heat over the past century or two.  It hasn't all just radiated into space... Effects, future effects and scale are still arguable, though.  As is whether any scale of lifestyle change will have any noticeable effect whatsoever.

Thing is, especially where global warming is concerned, there isn't a simple description, nor a simple fix - my problem with Bush and his cronies is that they don't understand the problem, and have no clue what kind of fix should work: it would be so much more reassuring if there were in power who was truly capable of understanding the science behind it, and make informed decisions on that basis, rather than having to have things broken down into soundbites.

We should definitely be talking literacy rather than conformity.. he says, as someone who's been described as a "global warming denier", even though I'm not... what I have done is taken exception to some of the incredibly poor science on both sides of the debate, and argued that concentrating so overwhelmingly on CO2 emissions is excruciatingly bad science.  But... the sorts of things proposed (e.g. increased efficiency, reduced pollution) are such blindingly sensible ideas that doing the right things for the wrong reasons may still be a very good idea.

I can't see how anyone can deny that mankind-induced global warming has happened, though: after all, we've been churning out huge amounts of heat over the past century or two.  It hasn't all just radiated into space... Effects, future effects and scale are still arguable, though.  As is whether any scale of lifestyle change will have any noticeable effect whatsoever.

Thing is, especially where global warming is concerned, there isn't a simple description, nor a simple fix - my problem with Bush and his cronies is that they don't understand the problem, and have no clue what kind of fix should work: it would be so much more reassuring if there were in power who was truly capable of understanding the science behind it, and make informed decisions on that basis, rather than having to have things broken down into soundbites.



Absolutely.  People want simple solutions to complex problems; they want resolution without sacrifice.  That's why pie-in-the-sky Ronald Reagan bested let's-face-reality Jimmy Carter.

Hey, if you don't want it to be true, then it doesn't have to be true, right?
::)

They tried that down south in an effort to keep African Americans from voting.  Until the educational system is equally fair than there is too much wiggle room for abuse.  It would also be a chore to decided what constitutes the correct educational requirements for eligibility to be President. Whatever they are,  Lincoln with his grammar school probably would not have passed, but bush with his bought and paid for degrees, would.  It is a dilemma.


How about education + IQ for eligibility for office?  For the record, I think both Bush and Lincoln were bad, but Bush is obviously worse.

How about education + IQ for eligibility for office?  For the record, I think both Bush and Lincoln were bad, but Bush is obviously worse.



No, I don't think that would work either.  The education part is open to too much abuse and manipulation, IQ doesn't signify at all, the manipulation of those numbers are also suspect, and most people don't know their IQ, and don't really care, it is how the have been conducting themselves and performing that counts.

An IQ score signifies a lot less than is popularly believed.  It is only meaningful as part of a whole battery of psychological tests.  It is not like the SAT.

If I had to guess Lincoln's IQ, I'd say it was around 160, considering how far he went with a sixth grade education.  He wrote his own speeches, including the Gettysburg, which presidents don't do anymore.  Presidential speeches are now written by professional speech writers under the advisement of partisan pollsters--and none of them are nearly as great as the Gettysburg Address.

I agree with Max: IQ is close to meaningless as a suitability for leadership criterion.  Part of me says "what about a baseline below which a candidate is excluded?", but even that is pretty pointless: you can be taught how to take these tests, after a while they become little more than complex pattern-matching.

However, a few dozen three-hour exams on a whole range of subjects... there is a minimum I would hope that a leader knows: history, geography, science, technology.. throw in some ethics and a little philosophy and you might have, not a pass/fail system but something on which to make a decision for whom to vote: do you vote for the guy who knows a lot about science, but sod all about history?  What about the keen historian that still doesn't know that Afghanistan isn't an island?

It would be great to have an objective assessment of the people who wield power over us *before* they're given that power...

The whole idea of testing is somewhat abhorrent to me.  Do you seriously believe that someone like the bushs wouldn't have access to the questions and answers.  The police and firefighters get away with it.  Crikey, we could have tests computerized by Diebold.

Should presidents be scientifically literate?  I think a better requirement is presidents should not favor their own religious views above scientific principles in regards to policymaking.  But are we talking literacy or conformity? One of the global warming deniers I know personally is a physician.  He passed med school with flying colors.  Who's going to call him scientifically illiterate.  Not I.  He is far more scientifically disciplined than I will ever be.  However, I still believe he is wrong on the issue. 



  No man can be scientifically literate in every sphere of the sciences and, even if he is literate in one or two disciplines it does not mean that his vision and manifesto would be of any good use to the world if he lacks the criteria I set out previously, namely: wisdom, astuteness, strength of purpose and a world encompassing vision for the betterment of all...

  A world leader needs to be fully aware of most things in a general sense with the capacity to judge and act accordingly.  Being excellent in one narrow sphere whether it be science, business, art or whatever should not be a prerequisite for having the criteria I mentioned, but neither should it be detrimental if the person does possess any specialised knowledge...


We should definitely be talking literacy rather than conformity.. he says, as someone who's been described as a "global warming denier", even though I'm not... what I have done is taken exception to some of the incredibly poor science on both sides of the debate, and argued that concentrating so overwhelmingly on CO2 emissions is excruciatingly bad science.  But... the sorts of things proposed (e.g. increased efficiency, reduced pollution) are such blindingly sensible ideas that doing the right things for the wrong reasons may still be a very good idea.

I can't see how anyone can deny that mankind-induced global warming has happened, though: after all, we've been churning out huge amounts of heat over the past century or two.  It hasn't all just radiated into space... Effects, future effects and scale are still arguable, though.  As is whether any scale of lifestyle change will have any noticeable effect whatsoever.

Thing is, especially where global warming is concerned, there isn't a simple description, nor a simple fix - my problem with Bush and his cronies is that they don't understand the problem, and have no clue what kind of fix should work: it would be so much more reassuring if there were in power who was truly capable of understanding the science behind it, and make informed decisions on that basis, rather than having to have things broken down into soundbites.




  Yes.  I find that haggling over the value of climate-change models is being used as a reason for doing nothing...

  Modelling the climate is notoriously difficult but it is the only way in which we are likely to get some idea of the longterm effects of global warming.  A scientifically literate president would be aware of the difficulties without dismissing modelling entirely.  There are facts that Bush and Co. are choosing to ignore...

  The temperature of the earth is rising year to year.  The polar ice caps are retreating at an alarming rate.  If this continues we are looking at the possibility of another ice age because of the effect on ocean currents.  Whatever the reasons for these changes, only a fool would deny that we are contributing to the problem groove ;) on...

  No man can be scientifically literate in every sphere of the sciences and, even if he is literate in one or two disciplines it does not mean that his vision and manifesto would be of any good use to the world if he lacks the criteria I set out previously, namely: wisdom, astuteness, strength of purpose and a world encompassing vision for the betterment of all...

You don't need to be an expert in, or even have knowledge of every sphere of the sciences to be scientifically literate: knowing what science is would be a help.. being able to tell the difference between peer-reviewed, verified data and quackery would be a start

   No man can be scientifically literate in every sphere of the sciences and, even if he is literate in one or two disciplines it does not mean that his vision and manifesto would be of any good use to the world if he lacks the criteria I set out previously, namely: wisdom, astuteness, strength of purpose and a world encompassing vision for the betterment of all...
Exactly the point I made to one of our receptionists about Dr. H.  She was talking about "An Inconvenient Truth," and said "Dr. H. liked the movie, but he doesn't believe in global warming and he knows because he's a scientist."  I suppose he could call himself a "scientist" since medical school would have given him a strong background in biology, chemistry, sociology, math, physics, statistics, and application of scientific methodology; however, the study of medcine does not include climatology.  What would he think of a climatologist telling him what's what in the field of electromyography?  I certainly don't question his competence as a physician, but his rigorous allegiance to Dubya and the GOP demonstrates a man of great naivete in his political worldview.  

   A world leader needs to be fully aware of most things in a general sense with the capacity to judge and act accordingly.  Being excellent in one narrow sphere whether it be science, business, art or whatever should not be a prerequisite for having the criteria I mentioned, but neither should it be detrimental if the person does possess any specialised knowledge...
Well said indeed.  I would not vote for a global warming denier for national office (maybe for the selectboard of my town).  The preponderance of evidence supports human activity-influenced global warming.  I would not vote for a candidate who does not believe in theory of evolution, not even for local office where his ideology might inform school curriculum.  That is not to say anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is a lunatic, but merely that the theory of evolution comports with scientific principles as applied in other disciplines tought in our schools.  Intelligent design does not.  


You don't need to be an expert in, or even have knowledge of every sphere of the sciences to be scientifically literate: knowing what science is would be a help.. being able to tell the difference between peer-reviewed, verified data and quackery would be a start


Per my previous statements, that's what always baffles me about the Intelligent Design crowd.  They say there are holes in the theory of evolution.  OK.  I have never heard scientists say the theory was perfect or provided all the answers.  It's a work in progress, like all science.  If there are holes in the theory of evolution, then demonstrate them in accordance with scientific principles and perhaps make a scientific hypothesis as to what the answers are.  Don't just say therefore it must be God.  If we did that all along, we would be stuck back in the 13th century.  Scientists, not Baptist pastors, are the ones who discovered just how much more complex the inner workings of a cell are than we previously thought.  The Intelligent Design cranks want me to believe something so incredibly complex could not have formed without an intelligent creator.  They're asking me, therefore, to draw a conclusion based on an assumption.  If an intelligent creator was behind it all, gather the data and demonstrate it in a hypothesis.  Until you do that, it is not science; it is faith.  Nothing wrong with faith, IMO.  I don't knock faith, but I don't call it science either.

Perhaps there are creatures on a planet on the other side of the galaxy whose intelligence is a billion times that of man.  They could look at the same cell and say, "Oh yeah, my kids build those for fun."
8)

Per my previous statements, that's what always baffles me about the Intelligent Design crowd.  They say there are holes in the theory of evolution.
I rather like my Swiss cheese analogy: there are holes in Emmental, but that doesn't mean the cheese isn't there.

:)

No, I don't think that would work either.  The education part is open to too much abuse and manipulation, IQ doesn't signify at all, the manipulation of those numbers are also suspect, and most people don't know their IQ, and don't really care, it is how the have been conducting themselves and performing that counts.


Good points...  I usually judge candidates by their actions more than anything else.