...but not for the reason you might think.

Indeed, I'm an old meritocrat from wayback -- the smartest person for the job, I say! So you might think I'd be all over this idea. No so, and I'll explain why.

The problem is that the Renaissance is over, and there are no more soldier/statesman/scientist/artist/brewer types available to run. Not because of any generalized, non-specific dumbing down, either, but rather because each of those categories is now specialized to the degree that a lot of knowledge in any one of those areas (yes, even brewing!) tends to preclude knowledge in any other, indeed all others.

So the skills we need in the top job are actually not the skills of a scientist, but rather the much more old-fashioned skills of leadership, specifically the ability to find, pick and retain the best people to advise, direct, and handle the various portfolios of functioning government.

The most brilliant leaders in history, without exception, were not one-person shows, but rather the evidence suggests that they had an almost preternatural ability to pick winners for their "core team".

The most awful leaders in history, without exception, never knew a loser they wouldn't hire.

Any long-term successful CEO, any war-winning general, anyone who leads for a living will back this up.

Ceasar had Trajan, the most brilliant general of his age. Lincoln's cabinet included William H. Seward, by any account one of America's greatest secretaries of state ever. By contrast, Hitler and Stalin surrounded themselves with yes-men and toadies.

So let's NOT have a presidential debate on science. Having a scientist for a president would be as useful as having a "beer with" president has been. Let us, rather, grill the candidates on their job descriptions for key cabinet roles with bonus marks for actually naming names.

Behind -- no, scratch that -- in front of every great president has been an awesome cabinet.

3 more reasons to heed Farhad's call for internet on planes!

>>a decent leader absolutely must have at least a survey understanding of what is science and what isn't.

So Winston Churchill has to _understand_ how the Dambuster bombs worked? I can picture the scene now, complete with cigar being spat out, (do the voice in your head) "So these bombs _skip_ over the water?!? Nevah, in my wildest dreams of man's insanity, did I dream, that we would sink, to this depth.... application denied."

So Truman had to _understand_ how nuclear weapons worked? "So these aaatems are really smaaal, right?"

My point should be obvious. Before invention, the job that both those leaders did was to _pick the right scientists_. They didn't need a "survey understanding" -- or indeed any understanding at all -- because it should be abundantly clear that both of those technologies (and many, many others), before working prototypes, before physical demonstrations, sound exactly like science fiction.

>>Made me laugh.

Then my job here is done!

Seriously, though, I understand and accept your point about critical thinking.

And it seems you also get what I was trying to say about specialization.

My larger point, though, is that I think a "presidential debate on science" (back to the article) is just a pointless distraction from an already diffuse focus on what should be key job description items of a "president".

And not only a distraction, but one which would be buried under a silly contest to see which candidate had best absorbed the frantic briefings. Not to mention the question vetting / negotiating that would go on before any such thing ever happened.

In the two decades I was in and around the General Aviation community, I must have seen four or five articles covering the "could a 'civilian' land a big jet" story/question in all the usual magazines.

Such articles were always popular discussion starters at the Aero Club, and the issues containing them well-thumbed.

The methodology always involved simulators, and the "answer" was always the same: it could happen, if the combination of some flight experience (multiple engine experience helps a LOT) and near-ideal conditions existed.

If you took away either of those factors, the chances of success plummeted. Dramatically. Falling to absolute zero the fastest if the 'civilian' in question had no flight training at all.

A dollar is worth a dollar because of what we collectively agree a dollar is worth. That's not news.

But here's something that might be news to you:

An ounce of gold is worth whatever it's worth because of what we collectively agree an ounce of gold is worth.

There isn't a single industrial process that runs exclusively on gold. There are processes that are cheaper and more efficient with the use of gold -- but that's about all.

Likewise, saying "but people like to decorate themselves with gold -- and there's more people now than ever!" is essentially making an argument for the fashions of the last few hundred years continuing forever, and our civilization always being as energy-poor as it is now. In an energy-rich civilization, you can simply MANUFACTURE gold (and diamonds, &c. &c.).

Sure, scarcity is a powerful factor in determining what we agree things are worth. But it's not the only factor. In many situations, it's not even the dominant factor.

The killer factors that make dollars better than gold for any conceivable purpose are legion. Dollars can be transported. Dollars can easily and inexpensively exist in handy set-value denominations. Dollars aren't useful for anything besides being dollars (and, maybe, starting fires -- try that with gold!).

People who convince themselves that a "gold standard" is in any material or even conceptual way different from a "fiat standard" are simply forgetting wholesale the history of money.