CB: Past advances in natural science in the U.S. have been correlated with
> U.S. politics getting dumber and dumber , no ?
>
>
> ___________________________________
This brings up a point that fascinates me: scientific progress doesn't demand a high level of intelligence or scientific acumen in the general population. We just need enough scientifically minded and capable people to do the science (which is just a small proportion of the total population). It's a strange tension: only a small proportion of the population knows how a computer or a telephone or a television actually works, but everybody uses this technology in the U. S. every day. --Most of us are more or less "freeloaders" on the ingenuity and output of a small number of scientists whose work we don't comprehend.
On my crankier days, my response to the anti-evolution goofballs is: fine, if you don't like scientific research or reasoning as used to generate and verify the theory of evolution, stop using any technology derived from scientific procedures (i.e., just about all the common technology we use in industrial societies).
Miles
^^^^ CB: Yes, what I , sadly,wanted to point to here is the "Klingon" problem: The U.S. as high tech barbarians.
I'm not really glad that the Bush admin is delaying scientific discovery. But it _is_ really a problem that a country with degenerate politics has scientific development that it misuses to build "worser and worser" W'sMD and other bad stuff, that it then uses to enforce its dumb politics on the rest of humanity.
The problem Miles refers to is probably related. Science development is not of , by and for the People, en masse. Would widespread scientific learning make U.S. politics better ? It certainly would expand atheism.