Should this be a necessary characteristic of a president?

If so, I suspect that none of the major candidates, of either party, would qualify (though perhaps Ron Paul might, being an MD). Hillary!, Obama and Edwards are all lawyers. So are Giuliani and Thompson, and Romney has a JD and an MBA (though McCain might have picked up math and science at Annapolis). Why would they know much about science? And historically, while there have been exceptions, not that many people come to politics at all, let alone the presidency, via science.

There's a lot more to scientific literacy than understanding (and agreeing with) evolution, and being in favor of embryonic stem cell research. In fact, I don't think that Al Gore is scientifically literate (in the way I understand that phrase--a good understanding of basic scientific principles, and able to both perform and recognize good analysis, including the math, as well as a facility with logic).

Actually I think the most recent president that would fall into the category of scientifically literate would be Jimmy Carter. He had a degree in Nuclear Engineering from Annapolis.

Yes, it's the reason I voted for him. And that worked out so well.

I think he may be the argument AGAINST a scientifically literate president. Of course with with only one example you always get a correlation of 1.0. We may need a few more data points before we see a trend. :-)

Well, Hoover was an engineer, too.

Most Soviet upper-level apparatchicks had engineering degrees. Gorbachev was the first with a law background (although in "Soviet law", the ultimate oxymoron.) That didn't work out very well, either.

I forgot about Hoover being an engineer.

I know some scientifically literate people who are young Earth creationists.

Yours,
Wince

I know some scientifically literate people who...

believe in all sorts of pseudo-scientific nonsense, from ghosts to "psychic phenomena" to accupuncture to Scientology to UFOs to conspiracy hoaxes to Global Climate Warming Change™ to Socialism. Stupidity comes in a wide variety of flavors. So what's your point?

So what's your point?

Rand said this:

There's a lot more to scientific literacy than understanding (and agreeing with) evolution, and being in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

I'd say scientific literacy has nothing to do with "understanding (and agreeing with) evolution, and being in favor of embryonic stem cell research". Just like it has nothing to do with understanding (and agreeing with) anthropogenic global warming.

That's my point.

Yours,
Wince

JAH,
also never forget that Carter pronounced it NUKE-YAH-LER. The MSM skewered GWB for that. Yet Carter had a degree in nuclear engineering AND was a Navy nuke school graduate.

I don't think the President should be or can be scientifically savvy. Things change faster than a professional scientists in any given field can track. How could a career politician be expected to keep track of a single field of science, let alone all the science that could affect the country.

Isn't this what The President's Council of Advisors
on Science & Technology is supposed to do, be the experts FOR the President?

The President is also in charge of the interstate system. Which of the current crop of candidates can survey, or run a road grader, or a paver?

Can't say I am particularly worried about scientific literacy, but here is something we really don't need in a President, quoting a superb turn of phrase by Hitchens:

Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity) is the well-heeled son of a gold - plated church who wants to assume the pained look of martyrdom only when he is asked if he actually believes what he says. A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.

Heh: http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

If someone can seriously venture out and be a missionary for a religion that just a very short while ago truly believed that colored people were cursed by God, and buy into the rest of this cult that is so self-evidently made up, that person is certainly unfit to be President of the United States, no matter how scientifically literate he is.

Had he said that religion was not of consequnce to him as President, that would have been a different story. But he did. And anyone who can believe such a complete and obvious fiction should not, in my opinion be President.

Nor be Senate Majority Leader, right Offside?

As far as I know, Harry Reid doesn't need to prove, nor has he tried to prove, his Mormon beliefs as Christian to his base. Reid's base considers such questions irrelevant.

Therein is the problem for Romney. And when someone tries to do that, an examination of the core beliefs he professes is fair game. And, these core beliefs run counter to common sense, let alone scientific literacy. And, these beliefs have been, and some still are, offensive to minorities and women.

As a Mormon, and a former Mormon missionary, let me be the first to call you a bigot, Offside.

A lot of people, including many scientists and rocket engineers, are Mormons. Mormons don't believe stupid stuff, and more than the rest of you do. Mormons believe that the church is lead by Christ, but composed of humans - so mistakes are made. We are not perfect, we do not expect perfection in others, including our leaders. What is interesting is that we are taught very early on to question our beliefs, to test what others tell us. We believe that faith must be tested and proven correct.

The strange things that have been said by former church members/leaders is no stranger than the things that have been said by other organization's leaders (such as the cult of Al Gore, or Catholicism).

If the worst thing you can say about Mormons is that a hundred years ago people said some weird stuff, I'd think that a normal person would give you the benefit of a doubt.

What is your cult, Offside?

As a Southern Baptist, let me be the second to pass obesrvation on your bigotry. Typical leftist hypocritical intolerant tripe.

While there are significant doctrinal differences between my brand of Christianity and Romney's, I cannot find any significant moral conflicts beyond Baptists can enjoy the occasional caffinated beverage.

I will certainly take rank with the Mormon's before I would the intolerant, hate-filled, hypocritical left and their various cults of personality, hatred and derangements.

If only the typical leftard loved America a tenth as much as the average Mormon!

"I will certainly take rank with the Mormon's before I would the intolerant, hate-filled, hypocritical left and their various cults of personality, hatred and derangements."

To which this Southern Baptist says AMEN!

Well, this has wandered off topic a bit. (I've known plenty of Mormons I've admired. Mitt Romney happens not to be one of them -- 'nuff said.)

The discussion over at Volokh's degenerated pretty quickly into fantastically boring left-vs-right arguments. The truly relevant and immediately practical questions are: how does a given Presidential candidate feel about applied science? -- and how does a given Presidential candidate react to junk science?

If a candidate is jittery about nuclear power, or somatic-cell nuclear transfer, or thinks that space exploration takes money away from The Children, or is a self-identified antievolutionist -- or thinks there might be something to "studies" supporting an epidemic of autism from thimerosal, or an epidemic of carpal tunnel syndrome from computer keyboards, or an epidemic of cancer in Iraq from depleted-uranium ammunition, or an epidemic of [insert disease-of-the-week here] from silica-gel breast implants ... well, after all, just how serious is that candidate about the problems facing us?

What will they do to keep the economy going if they successfully promote strict curbs on carbon emissions? How are we to develop more effective medical treatments for an aging population? On what understanding will we base avian-flu vaccine development? How, in general, can we avoid choking off promising research and new product development?

I don't think they have to know that much science. They just have to know why it's important. And they should be behind applied science, and against junk science, all the way.

Scientific literacy? Good luck with that - we're having enough trouble getting economic literacy into the White House.

I think that scientific and engineering literacy are important in a politician, even if the only use for those skills is to be able to tell when his "advisers" are feeding him a line of BS for their own reasons.

However, it is going to remain rare. Why? Because scientists and engineers are very badly paid, compared with lawyers and accountants and taking into account their use to society as compared with those same lawyers and accountants. Because of this, the average scientist or engineer is likely to be far too busy making a living to make a sideline of politics - and all politicians start off with politics as a sideline. Lawyers and accountants can afford to reduce their income somewhat to spend time on politics, in other words. Engineers probably, and most scientists definitely, can't.

In addition to this, science and engineering both deal in truth, which puts their practitioners at a disadvantage in politics - what's the old saying? Ah yes - you can tell when a politician is lying because noise is coming out of his mouth.

As a counter-example regarding the effectiveness of scientists as politicians (admittedly not an American one, although she had some influence); how about Margaret Thatcher? Some may remember that she has a degree in chemistry. And I remember being told that there was a fairly popular bumper sticker in America saying "Maggie Thatcher for President".

She, of course, had to deal with (and shore up) Reagan as US President. I wonder whether she'd have been able to do anything with the current pygmy? Unfortunately, great political leaders come along only once every couple of generations. No Western country currently has one.

"Yes, it's the reason I voted for him. And that worked out so well."

Well, it at least made him the right Prez to have during Three Mile Island (he had worked on a damaged reactor himself while in service), and more resistant to panic or B.S. where the word 'nuclear' is involved, but I agree, there isn't much more that can be said...

Yeah, but then he scrapped the breeder reactor programs (over proliferation concerns - not that it stopped every other country on earth from going for them), ensuring that the US would be dependent on oil for the next few decades.

Jah, what about Thomas Jefferson?

"I will certainly take rank with the Mormon's before I would the intolerant, hate-filled, hypocritical left and their various cults of personality, hatred and derangements."

Mike, so you're more comfortable with the deranged, hypocritical, hate filled right?

It's odd. I never see hate filled, deranged centrists on this forum.

Give me time. ;^)

I say the key competence is statistics: understanding the normal distribution, confidence levels, significance tests, etc. This is a foundational subject for both science and economics. (I wish I'd taken more stats courses myself.)

I say the key competence is statistics: understanding the normal distribution, confidence levels, significance tests, etc.

It would be nice if journalists would work on that, too...