2 threads done with mild interest.  Oh well still respectable and logical debate is something I'd still like although I don't think I should have to ask for it.

Now most debates are over religion and science and their coexistence.  And don't worry I might have a thread for that eventually.  However, it's not hard to see how over time they haven't necessarily coincided well.  For instance, stem cell research, global warming, abortion, wildlife reserves and nature protection, and even evolutionary theory.  Now of course I guess it's easy to see that even if I did exclude religion, they probably have a very important factor in this debate anyways. 

Let's break down one factor though... global warming.  Now of course there are numerous people that think global warming is a myth, a hoak, a conspiracy theory to control us all or whatever it is.  That is fine and you are allowed to hold that theory.  But we are not going to be talking about the polarized and "media-corrupted" form of global warming but the actual scientific evidence and backing that shows whether it be a natural or man-made rise in the Earth's temperature.  For the most part, this issue is not high among many Americans.  When it comes t 2 wars, a failing economy, and the rise of "fascist socialism" (I have to be funny every now and then) it just doesn't seem to have too much importance.  However, it could be easily stressed that the threat that this poses to our planet as a whole is not only important but maybe the most important issue. 

The problem is when it enters political discussion it is clear the issue becomes more about either a moral issue, political views, or some form of polarization.  But, does the issue ever get any form of discussion on an actual scientific discussion.  If they support the idea of global warming is occurring they don't do anything about it or if they don't they will deface it.  However, no one in politics ever asseses the issue as a whole.

Now I didn't just pick on global warming for no reason but the other issues have similar problems.  It seems for the most parts that scientific issues become more about your position rather than actually assessing the problem.  Maybe because it is viewed as of little importance or simply because they no they can help their record.  Either way science in politics has not been going so hot lately.  Now give them some credit there is a lot of things in politics that does help to coincide with science and help the country thereof but why is it we don't get that public perception of that.

So basically my question is how can science coexist with politics?  Is the problem because politicians don't assess the issues properly or because it is of so "little" importance that they don't make big deals about it?  Even further how important do you think some of these issues are in relation to politics? Finally is religious, partisan and moral contexts corrupting political debate on such issues?

the problem isnt that they cant "co-exist" its that both are corruptable as in both you can have conflicting ideas and theories.

Edit: let me see if I can elaborate a bit here, okay, both Science and Politics have issues that they aim to address, however not all these have a definitive answer, some issues in both have conflicting ideas or theories behind them, in politics an example is the different theories on how best to run an ecenomy, in science its something like gloabal warming where some scientists look at there research and say "its affected by human activity" and others say "its not", you see the point im making? this becomes in a sense "corruptable" as politicians take sides on scientific debates too which in turn affects there policy stance(s).

Well of course that is possible... with well anything except for cold hard facts.  Not really asking along those lines but more along the lines that science obviously does play a part in politics but doesn't seem to get much credibility at all... at least not publicly.  More or less trying to ask that their are big political issues that have to deal with science but a lot of these discussions turn to be more about other things than science.  So question is why is the science being taken out of politics. 

When I asked the question I'm not saying that there is a possibility of coexistence (they have too) but more of question of what is causing them not and whether or not that is justified. 

Ok I think I see more of what your saying.  Yes of course there are going to be competing theories, but for the most part with science we can see a dominated theory that is "accepted" by the scientific community.  This doens't mean it is polarization but what they see to have the most evidence behind.  Doesn't mean it is correct but they have much more confidence in that than any other. 

But aside from that yes that is what I was stating in the first post was that when it comes to the science in politics it becomes more of a polarizing mechanism.  Meaning instead of discussing the affects of pollution, outcomes of stem cell research, and the human involvement in the environment we are simply polarizing different sides of the story for outside purposes.  As you can see even with competing theories in politics there is still need of discussion to see how this will eventually affect the nation as a whole.  But instead of doing that doesn't it seem like the issues become more of a campaign on a person's moral or political views rather than the actual issue. 

Even if we don't know the answer to something 100% (which we can never know) that doesn't mean we can't discuss it or play ockham's razor and discuss thereof.  But do we ever get there in politics?  Thus I go back to the heart of my question is what is infringing this scientific discussion in politics.  Is religion still playing far too large of role... politicians more worried about position... etc. 

okay, I think I get what you mean now


Edit: read your new post

Yes. I deal with both everyday. Political science is a wonderful major. lol

what's infringing is ignorance, people dont know the science of issues and thus cant debate it, a couple of causes of this are Religion (as you mentioned) and Poor Education (or lack of Education).

the best way to address them is to remove religion from politics completley (this should be done anyway) and to make sure Education in Science is to a high standard in your country (this one can be achieved by putting more money and lesson time into Science lessons in schools)

once you address those things, ignorance levels will go down, both inside of and outside of Politics

your point of politicians worrying about there position is one of populism, my ideas should make Science more popular than Religion anyway so will address that problem too.

feel free to counter, im just giving my idea/suggestions on the matter as I understand it.

With our current political system there is absolutely no chance. The people who rise to power are those that want power. That leads to massive corruption, and a string of shady events to keep said politicians in power by design. To that end it does not matter what science says to a large extent. The trick is fitting that science properly into an agenda.

The better question in my view is whether science can ever be properly presented to the public. Given the need to sensationalize the news, and how hard it is to interpret results this really is a thorny issue. Politicians will always bow to the demands of the majority. In order for politic and science to really work together you need the public to be informed about the science. Sadly, science is hard to understand so I do not see this happening.

Politics and Science are not entirely compatiable because they have different motives. Sciences wants to understand the world around us, and it doesnt matter if that understanding sounds good or not. Politics wants to appease the population so that politicians can stay in power, and often times religion and ignorance are a better rallying force for politicians than science and knowledge.

"God is on our side" is a more pleasing motto than "you need to consume less to ease our demand on unrenewable resources and help our environment."

The problem with cold hard facts is that they need to be interpreted correctly. And with multiple conflicting agendas behind different scientists it's hard to judge who is right and who is wrong for non-experts in the field. Also even if we assume every scientist is as objective as possible this still will result in different theories that may or may not have common points.

Now with global warning at the moment it's more or less pure speculation- becouse we have reliable temprature data for 200 years ? Considering that following ice ages and glacials have taken tens of thousand of years our evidence is nothing.

With such lacking data can we really tell that increasing temperature is result of pollution and fossil fuels usage or maybe it is just natural cycle that happens every 10-20 thousand years.

When you consider that huge parts of population are ignorant to the point where they belive in astronomy it's no suprise that science will be used as political tool when it's convienient for people with power.