In my experience, folks who say things like that as an accusation, are are usually either ignoramuses with a veneer of education untouched by deep thought or are well educated but malevolent.

Really I was just having with with sense of rhythm as a one of the multiple intelligence. There's been some discussion on this [1,2] and it would be interesting if some people — and some groups of people — are genetically predisposed to have better rhythm than others.

My question was rhetorical, and asked wheter a group with (statistically) a better sense of rhythm would be less valuable than a group with (statistically) a better sense of writing. My answer is no. All humans are created equally valuable. This is not a factual question. This is a moral certainty.

(Thanks for catching this. I reworded that section in the original paper.)

As for science…

Sociobiologists and Evolutionary Psychologists, who argue for a genetic basis for the psychic unity of man, have been called reactionaries, Nazis, and the like by the Left. [3] They argued that there was only a universal human race (sometimes called “homo sapiens sapiens”) with a universal human nature, and they were called racists! The Left jumped the shark a long time ago.

“can science effectively mitigate popular morality in it's own best interest?”

In what ways are you thinking?

[1] http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/11/kuffar-vs-muslim-rappers.php
[2] http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2006/07/group-differences-in-cognitive-profile.html
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/06/17/leftist-censorship-and-the-nature-of-modularity.html

I'm a bit lost on the term “rythmatic intelligence.” Cognitive trial and error? Would you define?

Further:

As science increasingly explores genetic diversity among humans (I should think this is a big part of understanding human kind in both the genetic and behavioral sense) will it come under further fire from a “moral outrage” and can science effectively mitigate popular morality in it's own best interest?

This is off the cuff, but:

A stronger and more direct political presence. Domestic politics has essentially devolved into a quagmire of strict idealism. I think Americans would welcome leaders whose proclivities run a lot less poli and a little more sci. Imagine the late Carl Sagan as a senator.

That's a start, anyway.

“I think Americans would welcome leaders whose proclivities run a lot less poli and a little more sci.”

Americans would welcome pretty much any leader who was a little less poli. [1] So I'm sure people would welcome the idea of a technocratic government. The problem with that perspective is that politicians are quiet good at getting themselves elected. After all, it's what they do.

[1] http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000935.html

Relatedly, a notable research (I won't say who, but here's his paper [1]) mentioned to me a while ago, “Outside of academia, America has liberals but no leftists, conservatives but no rightists. This how American politics differs from European politics. This is why American's can't understand Europe, and Europeans can't understand America.”

I thought it was a pretty clever thought.

[1] http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/politicalsciencehendricks/4/

Certainly we need more politicians who have real world careers and experience who go into politics for a temporary period of time and then return to the real world, including scientists. But any idea that scientists by virtue of being scientists have any special competence to make political decisions is ridiculous.

In regards to your context I agree. But the context I provide wasn't to somehow validate scientists as more competent in political practice or decision making. Further, I'm not advocating a technocracy by any means.
The matter at hand was “”can science effectively mitigate popular morality in it's own best interest?” To which Dan offered “In what ways are you thinking?”

My position isn't that scientists should dominate our govenment rather that the presence of more scientific minds (as opposed to lawyers) within our govenment might mitigate some of the more negative public rhetoric regarding certain scientific exploration.

Oops, I misunderstood what you were saying, my mistake. I agree with you that true science should prevail over political rhetoric in relevant issues. Unfortunately that won't happen as long as long as it is generally accepted that government can regulate anything. Modern civilization is characterized by the establishment of boundaries. Boundaries drawn among religion, politics, science; between government and civil society, and so on. Like the jungle reclaiming cities and cultivated land, the breaking down of boundaries is the dissolution of civilization. In order to mitigate the political rhetoric with regard scientific issues there needs to be a clear understanding of and support for the boundary between politics and science.

1. Would it be better if congressmen were skilled in the subject matters they deal with, and
2. Would it be better if congressmen were term limited, and thus forced to have serious outside careers

I don't know, but considering how congress is a power-brokering and not welfare-maximizing agency, it might be best to keep them away from technical competence. (China's government of engineers works, I imagine, because they do not have the same sort of public accountability as Congress does.)

I think congressional term limits would be an admiable goal.