Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Wants Screenplays From Scientists
Aix writes "According to the New York Times, the Pentagon is funding classes in screenplay writing for 15 scientists. The idea is to encourage kids to go into science and engineering through mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster long-term US national security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers involved, and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book. Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
"Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
In a word, YES.
we should all know by now that kids will immitate anything the movies (or tv) show them. just look at how many injuries were blamed on Beavis & Butthead!
lol, what?
I would love to see more science and engineering being taught and endorsed by the federal government, but it does not help that our POTUS is endorsing the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as a science rather than the religiously biased belief system that it is. I don't have a problem with ID being taught as long as it can be taught along with other philosophy and religious curricula.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Perhaps the Pentagon should pay a visit to President Bush and explain why the advocating of empty pseudo-scientific rhetoric designed to get Creationism past the Constitution may play some part in harming science in the US.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...will they produce something more interesting than what Hollywood makes? ..wouldn't be hard, really..
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
The astro-physicists would all be wearing low-cut gowns.
Does anybody really think there is any shortage of glamorous mathematicians or two-fisted archaeologists in Hollywood? Not to mention they are frequently written as the Voice of Reason, Saving the Day, Etc. The era of scientists being depicted as whining and dreary eggheads who cowardly scamper about in the shadow of the macho leading man left vogue with Doctor Zarkov.
Oh, and not for nothing, you can teach science, but you cannot teach creativity. The government would be better served rounding up a couple dozen young but semi-established script-writers and giving them a crash course in astronomy. Of course, commissioning some Haiku from a bunch of Quantum Physicists would be pretty cool, in a Mondo 2000 kind of way...
I can see the new show SDD-51. Science Development Department - Area 51....
Panic now, beat the rush!
We already have those!!! Haven't you seen "The Day After Tomorrow"? It's like the most scientifically accurate movie ever.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Because I saw this glamorous,compelling drama, and I wanted to be just like the protagonist. ^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
... this guy, who summarizes life as a scientist (well, a young scientist) pretty darn well.
I don't think it will work. The Discovery channel and others tried this through shows like Junkyard Wars. But it always seemed that they started losing their audience and so they hired hosts that knew nothing about science. You could argue the point that the Discovery channel has shows about engineering, but only geeky kids watch them.
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
... we need MacGyver!
While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers involved, and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
Pot. Kettle. Fragment.
"than what Hollywood NORMALLY makes" Wouldn't want confusion, these gyus are working in Hollywood too.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
POTUS? You mean president?
Well, the first 30 minutes of Stargate were pretty cool, but linguistics is more of a soft science, not even close to engineering science. How about a screenplay based on The Gadget Maker? It's a fascinating tale about an aerospace engineer, with explosions, rockets and missile design.
I demand equal time for the teaching of scripts for both science.... and Scifi.
Just like the president said we should. OK kids.... 1 for science, one for ID, one for science...
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Of course, they'll never allow anything fun like The Manhattan Project or Real Genius. Good movies about kids and science end up making the kids look like mini-terrorists.
No.
People are perhaps making too much of the slide of the US's ability to produce science and technology graduates.
The problem will basically fix itself. A reduced number of tech grads will drag the economy down, which will lower the standard of living, which will make people look for more financially sound jobs, which will lead students back to sci/tech.
The intervening drop in living standards has probably already begun, and is likely unavoidable.
I thought this was a good movie to introduce kids to science. Wasn't really technical or anything, but learning about rockets is always fun.
"If you mess with us, we're going to take you on, even to our utter destruction, whatever occurs." - Ralph Yarro (SCO)
President of the United States. It's an acronym.
In any case, Bush isn't teaching this. He was pressured into giving his opinion, and he gave it. That's all.
And it's only an opinion of one man; I don't think he means to legislate it or any such thing. He recognizes, as should everybody, that its not his jurisdiction, if you will.
Speaking as someone who went to college for screenwriting in LA and considers it a full time job, I find it annoying that that these NASA people are getting all this exclusive training. Who knows if they even care or will use it,... and they are getting a lot more than many people who work their asses off. They probably didn't even know who Syd Field was...
I wish I had government funding.
Worked for me.
My goal at the end of highschool was to "work on something cool".
So I became an engineer, unfortunately only I find my work cool.
POTUS
I don't think it is an A leads to B thing- Movies won't make kids automatically interested in science, however I think a lot of people were inspired by the cold war to get into science, and movies that made the Russians look bad got American kids into science, and vice versa.
Whatever your opinion of the administration- Imagine if W had a conference, said that we are going to get rid of our need for foreign oil w/in 10 years, and got scientists etc. going with the support they deserve and need- it could be like JFK's moon challenge.
It isn't just movies that influence people- we need a whole atmosphere of education in the US.
Of course, another way to do this would to bring kids to 15 year reunions, when the football team captains have gotten fat and work at car washes, and the high school nerds are making great money in great jobs.... Education is cool man.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
I would love to see more science and engineering being taught and endorsed by the federal government, but it does not help that our POTUS is endorsing the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID)
I loathe the concept of "intelligent design" and the way its proponents attempt to give it parity with sensible ideas, but come on. Nice formula for Karma riches...
1. Beat up on George W. Bush
2. Beat up on Micrsooft
3. ???
4. Karma profits!
I'm a big tall mofo.
I have to agree. I was "turned on" to computing by movies like War Games and Tron.
Why not get something out there that inspires interest- and better yet, from real scientists!
Whenever I see the industry trying to get more girls into science/computing by making GameBoys with pink cases, that's another thing entirely (and yes, I'm a girl)...
After watching the LOTR trilogy I have now been trying to make my very own One Ring! I also have been trying to learn how to cast Magic Missile and Root spells as well, but they are on the backburner until I can make my magic invisibility ring using a bunsen burner, a gold-plated $5 ring and some Methanol.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
This seems like an awkward time for them to do this, considering as how they just slashed funding for hard research (DARPA) and schools all over have been scrambling to find new sources of funding.
"...anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book."
What a surprise! Someone's self-important arrogance is immolated by conservatives who are chastising moonbats for their ignorance and stupidity! Oh, that must mean that conservatives are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals (which Neanderthal skeletons were found to be just Homo sapiens, but don't let that stop you from thinking of them as one of the missing links) because they don't drink our Kook-Aid of Lunacy!
Bitch, please! You moonbats are nothing but asstriches. (An asstrich is someone who instead of sticks his head in the sand sticks it in his own ass (which is a far worse and derogatory way of saying you're just believing in your own bullshit, much like people in insane asylums do).) Pull your fucking heads out of your own asses and meet the rest of us normal, sane people in something that we like to call Reality(TM), mmmkay? KTHX!
MacGuyver.
Because it really is all about shocking terrorists with high voltage or shooting homemade missles at drug lords.
kashani
- Why is the ninja... so deadly?
They could do worse than begin by visitng this site: http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ which examines physics in Hollywood movies. The reviews alone are priceless.
Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
I challenge anyone who thinks movies today aren't scientific to watch the original Jurassic Park.
"Hey this is Unix. I know Unix"
With scientific banter like that, what purpose does the government have in getting involved?!
I'm a big tall mofo.
Oh, that sounds great!
I can't wait to see it! How could it possibly not be great? And you're right, it sounds like it will be glamorous too.
Best Windows Freeware
Screenplay eh? Looking for writers eh?
Let's review some recent articles, shall we?
The always flame generating "Creation Vs Evolution" thread
A "freedom of information Vs. privacy" thread (with an added Republican "flame starter")
A "Window's is OK thread"
Ok, that's it, you're laying ground for a "Slashdot Reality TV Series" aren't you? c'mon, admit it!
I can see it now, titled something like "Tweak the Geek".
Here, let me write your first episode:
Make a prank call to RMS pretending to be a Microsoft Attorney. Tell him that MS software engineers have reviewed the HURD source and found several instances where thier patent of "using alpha-numeric strings to represent variables" has been used without premission from MS.
then watch the fireworks ensue.
or...maybe not...
A goal is a dream with a deadline
more like gnaa late psot.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
Actually what I would like to see dramatized in a movie related to science is probably not what they are thinking of. One thing that will probably end up in there is the mystery, the process of discovery, etc..and all that can be compelling. But I think perhaps what is more important in the life of a scientist nowadays is the stuggle between the values of pure discovery and curiosity with the practical pressures of career, money, etc. That's the value axis I would like to see in a movie. The pressures of publication and of obtaining money for grants often press on one's sense of ethics, and most scientists are faced at some point with making the choice of personal sacrifice for the sake of science on one hand, or personal gain on the other. My scientist protagonist would struggle with that choice...
I just imagined 15 of a 50's version of a "scientist" locked in a basement somewhere trying to figure out what the world funniest joke is.
"My Dog has no nose."
"How does it smell?"
"Terrible!"
-they all die
Its a party in my head, all day long!
They need good plots!
I mean, look what they did to Fantastic Four...
Stargate SG1, while being sci-fi, does try to adhere to real science and real scientific theory in many ways. Granted, some aspects can't simply to maintain the story. But a lot of the stuff they discuss and use is based in real theory. If more sci-fi shows would at least try to do that, I think it would be helpful.
.com boom, tons of kids where going into computer science programs and there was a sudden overflow of programmers, right around the time it went bust.
The thing is, I don't know that this kind of stuff really brings kids into science, no matter how much real theory they use. And frankly, when it comes to higher degrees, where the money is can be a big driver. During the
I was a chemistry major my freshman year. Certainly not because of the money. The reason I left it was I had this sudden vision of what life would be like as a chemist and I thought, "Oh God, how boring." And that was the end of it for me.
My girlfriend in college went into comp. sci. because of the money. When she graduated and got her first job doing it, the first thing she said was, "God, this is so boring." I said, "Well, didn't you like it in school?" She said, "No." I said, "Well what made you think doing it for a living was going to be any more fun?"
Needless to say, her career as a programmer was short-lived.
So I guess my point is, money will attract people, but it's the interest that keeps them. I think glamorizing it might bring some kids to find interest in it, but the fact is, most science jobs aren't all that glamourous and getting hit by the reality of that may make careers short-lived.
Why not just commission a few screenplays from Stephen Baxter? Great hard SF writer. Sure, he's a brit, but nobody's perfect. :P
Yesterday called, and it wants that comment back. Seriously, your comment belongs in yesterday's thread, not this one. Did you get impatient waiting for the dupe?
Besides, the President (or POTUS, if you want to try being all cool and using an acronym), can't put ID into schoolbooks any easier than you can get into the Oval Office. It'd take the House, Senate, local officials, and schoolteachers. Shortly thereafter it would require the Supreme Court to rule favorably, too. Not likely, so it doesn't matter what Mr. Bush thinks on it.
The Core? That movie was approved by scientists.
If only we could mine enough unobtainium we COULD go to the Earth's core and start it spinning with a couple of nukes. You know, just like a butterfly hitting the Empire State Building starts it toppling over.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
If it wasn't for seeing the film "Wargames" very very early on in my life, I'd have not spent my teenage years getting excited about running linux on a 486 sx-25 overclocked to 33mhz. This was in the pentium 2 days folks.
I blame Matthew Broderick for making me believe that spending all day in my room looking at a CLI would make a girl like Ally Sheedy love me.
Oh how it hurt to realise that I wasted my youth!
I've seen articles (in print, sorry I can't link) that detail what happens when science hits the screen, but it's not portrayed accurately - it's called the "CSI effect." People who see this pseudo-science on TV think it's accurate, and then when on juries, demand evidence that they "know" the prosecution / defense can produce. Even when someone explains to the jury that CSI is fictional, they don't seem to realize that that includes the science as well.
The last thing we need is for scientists to write accurate scripts, which are then altered to show incorrect information, and Hard Science is then seen as "wrong, because the movies we saw said otherwise!"
Wouldn't this be a great new way to get your funding requests approved. Not only can you read my proposal, but you can SEE THE PLAY!
Watch in awe as the poor Scientist Hero struggles against opression and tyranny and battles with the Evil Finance Committee Member who always voted to deny his Funding Request for the project that could Save The World. Who will win? Find out...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
America should probably do what the French have done and ban the teaching of religion in schools. They teach philosophy instead and leave religion and other superstitions out of it.
Personally I don't see how anyone can advocate teaching "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. How do dinosaurs fit into ID, and if we're talking about theories why not bring in the tooth fairy and scientology as well?
Doesn't this fill anyone else with misgivings? We've already had plenty of inventive facts when it comes to Iraq and Iran from our political leaders...
I'd rather not explicitly nuture storytelling impulses among a community which is supposed to function based on the correctness of the data, as opposed to how well a particular hypothesis plays in Peoria!
Look at Iraq... the facts for "Looming threat and mushroom cloud" obviously made for better stories than the "Actually, not much has changed" better-facts.
This is like having a program to help police be "creative" in their arrests...
if you see what's on tv, you'll find so many shows dedicated to doctors (ER, grey's acadamy, chicago hope) lawyers (law and order: special victims unit, criminal intent, trial by jury) and cops (CSI miami, ny).
you never hear anyone even mention engineers in movies or tv series. it's got to do with the social culture of the states. 100% of the political leaders in China have an engineering or science degree. In the states? none! (source: IEEE spectrum magazine June 2005).
my blog
I took a screenwriting class myself, there. (Hey it was free for us, and the instructor was some big shot whose name I forget.) There was also my brief moonlighting stint as a paparazzo, which foundered due to my inability to recognize celebrities...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This already happened in the 50's right after the Soviets started launching rockets. I would suggest you check out "Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land."
In the movie Donald learns that not only is math usefull in everyday life, it can be fun as well. One of my all time favorites. Remember watching it in Calc class in high school as we were all fans of the movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052751/
It's not the size of your stack that matters, it's how you push and pop
Two reasons I don't see this happening:
- It would be bad for the oil companies and Saudi princes Bush is beholden to.
- It was something John Kerry suggested during the campaign.
Although the second reason isn't as strong as the first.
Lara Croft
Forensic Investigator.
Why? CSI and its ilk have shown a cooler side to using science to solve real-world problems.
The problem is that people enter (or try to enter) the field with unrealistic expectations because some of the technology depicted in the show is still on the level of sci-fi equipment.
It still doesn't change the fact that more people are interested in the field *because* they saw cool things happen with it on TV.
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
My solution would involve replacing nbc, cbs, fox, .... and all those crummy networks with space, discovery, outdoor life, history, or whatever else that actually has substance. This mindless cliche crap is ruining a whole generation and if the people don't like it and watch less TV even better!
Secondly, make MBA's difficult to obtain once again (no degree in exchange for money anymore!!!) and put a cap on the number of lawyers being graduated.
Thirdly pay scientists and engineers what they deserve! Little pay and lots of overtime isn't very atractive. It's no joke that some businessmen keep us locked up in the basement while they make millions.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
My point was not that you are wrong about George W. Bush, but that bringing up GWB's stance on intelligent design in a discussion of scientist's creating movies is off-topic and that you likely did it for the inevitable mod points you would accumulate.
I'm a big tall mofo.
While the kids may be getting smarter (I don't consider SAT scores to be a measure of intelligence, but that's a topic for another discussion), the adults seem to be getting dumber. I'd consider your post to be evidence, but you're most likely some 14 year old kid that doesn't know what he's talking about.
If were a kid today and watched his show, I definitely see a lot more of my time (as a kid) going on the internet to learn (howthingswork.com) rather than playing games and chatting on AIM (which is what I see a lot of kids do today).
ps: his raps were hilarious
"Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM
and LOTR has no scientific content. Moron.
I know, you were just trying to be funny, but it didn't work. You fail it.
very unfortunately, you are an idiot. hardly anyone in the field thinks neanderthals were any "missing link." they're not a missing link.
the other strike against you is that they WEREN'T actually found to be neanderthals. you're obviously not acquainted with the research.
to lead to the restoration of the 'Its the will of Allah/God/Yaweh/insert_name_of_deity_here' to explain everything that requires any actual work to find out.
Its a lazy and cheap solution that 'explains' nothing and avoids having to provide any deep answers.
I grew up with that kind of crap in a Catholic school. The beloved answer to any 'hard' question was 'Its a mystery.' Accept that for an answer and pretty soon the 'mystery' gets wider and wider until its a mystery why you're even asking the question.
My favorite answer of that type is a reply given to students looking into some part of nuclear physics. Would you trust students who were told that something was just 'the will of Allah.'
Were talking nuclear physics here. The kind of stuff that goes boom in a pretty mushroom cloud.
I worry more about the Iranian nuclear program when they start accepting those answers than if they actually admitted that they don't know everything but were damn well going to try and find out.
Otherwise the worst nightware scenarios just got likelier.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If this produces even one influential work, it would be a benefit to both the arts and science. Science treated with even a modicum of respect in fiction, and a work of fiction from far outside the perspective of a talented generalist.
Personally I'm looking forward to seeing what pops out.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Suddenly something in one of the tubes starts fizzling. Suddenly the President comes into view and hands Billy a big bag of money and says, "By God Billy, you've found a cure for cancer!" Everyone starts cheering.
All the kids playing with non-science related toys get fat, ugly, and contract AIDs on the spot. They all fall over dead and no one seems to care about them. Billy is given a parade in his honor.
Roll credits.
A little extreme perhaps but I think if we made science look "cool" to little kids they'd probably buy it. If I would've seen this when I were little I'd probably have become a chemist.
But, it certainly increase the status quote of being a geek and reduce peer pressure on whom might choose to be a geek (higher probablity becoming engineer?)
Also, give engineer a more proper social status and image. Which make your parents happier when you don't want to be a lawyer/doctor/BANKER.
Before you begin pontificating, perhaps you should even bother to familiarize yourself with Neandertals. They are very clearly morphologically much different than any modern H. sapien population. I can only presume that you are either reading eighty year old documents, or the lies spouted by Creationists (in either case you look extraordinarily foolish). The molecular evidence also shows that Neandertals' and modern humans' common ancestor far predates the first known fully modern humans (which is about 150k years ago). Thus, current understanding indicates that Neandertals are cousins, and that they did not contribute to the modern human gene pool. This isn't exactly new information, and has been hotly debated for some time now.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I remember watching the "Beautiful Universe", Nova, in physics in high school. It was mind blowing and awesome. Thank god for PBS.
I think this is a fantastic idea. Not so much because of the idea that they're going to protray scientists in flattering ways, which seems like a highly suspect goal. But because they are introducing some critical thinking into the big Brain Dump which funnels through hollywood, and in turn so heavily influences the future cultural direction of the country. Kudos to the Army and Air Force for thinking from causes rather than effects, and seeing the value in this.
I'd rather watch CSI: Seattle.
It would be as hot as CSI: Miami but with a better music scene.
And since we have tons of military bases nearby, it would be easy to write screenplays, since we Blue staters are fanatical in supporting the military, since many of us served (or still do) there.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why not just use the scientists that are also good writers that we already know about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Benford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brin
I don't think he's talking about SAT scores.
He's talking about todays politicians using bashing science for political gain.
The whole evolution debate is just such utter complete bullshit... It's like a bunch of kids suffering an inferiority complex. Yet we have a President and a Congress pandering to them.
It's also quite awkward for those of us who actually believe in freedom and individual choice, and resent the fact that we are forced to fund [insert your favorite self-serving pork campaign here].
The perfect example is CSI. Now, we all know that the show is extremely dramatized and most of the stuff is bullshit, but the effect it has had on the amount of people wishing to pursue careers in forensics has been wild. I know Purdue has/is creating new degree programs and classes just to keep up with the demand. A popular introduction to forensic science/crime scene class has a waiting list all the sudden.
And how many times have you met a woman at school who tells you she wants to study forensics? It seems like that's the only thing they study nowadays!
sereous, cartoons just are too retarded....like i watched this anime ...dark blues or somthin and some dude built a rocket that knicked this orbital castle thing and i was really inspired to get an engineering degree cause it show me application!
what does x^2 mean to most jr high students....not a damn thing! ummmmm law of falling bodies. really wheres the application.
i wish kids luck!
I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
But this is a horrible, horrible idea.
While I agree with the premise that it is a good idea to get pop culture to embrace science and technology as something cool, I think giving a bunch of people with no proven record of artistic creativity (the scientists who are more than likely geeks anyways), will just make people even more anti-intellectual in the long run, since crappy entertainment (in the entertaining sense of the word), tends to have a negative effect on people.
Also, this is a top-to-bottom approach in trying to force a cultural change on society. It would make much more sense for people interested in science to hang up their lab coats for a few hours a day and get people interested in science at the grass roots level where most real trends tend to develop.
I mean, Rap's popularity today didn't exactly develop as a spinoff to corporate rock in the 80's, even though modern rap shares a lot of the same similiarities with corporate rock.
Unfortunately, getting so-called geeks, many of whom have disproportionately been picked on all their life, and who are now afraid of their own shadow, to go out into the country (the red states) and the inner city where intellectualism is not exactly embraced is going to be a hard sell.
It would make much more sense for people involved in science and technology who worry about future generations being technically illiterate to stop trying to make science and technology seem cool, but to actually make it cool. I know a lot of people will have a problem parsing that last sentence, but if understand what I am saying, then you have probably wasted your time reading all of this because you already know what needs to be done to change the cultural attitudes of Americans towards the fiefdom of geekdom.
You can get quite a bit of scientific knowledge by just looking at the movies that Hollywood is making and by showing what is wrong (or right on the rare occasion that Hollywood did something right) with them. If you want kids to pay better attention in their science classes why not show them clips of movies then discuss the science behind it. You can fill an entire semester just by explaining all the things wrong in Mission to Mars.
I have to confess that I went into physics after seeing all the cool labs in movies. Of course real labs didn't much look like the Hollywood versions. But I worked a Los Alamos for a while and fulfilled my dream. I suspect that just focusing more on science and making it positive would do wonders. There is that CBS show Numbers. But I tried watching it once and after some horrendous abuse of the uncertainty principle and chaos principle to some FBI agents I could never watch it again. (And reportedly they actually had some mathematicians as consultants!?!)
... and anyone who thinks SAT scores are indicators of intelligence clearly knows NOTHING about the test. Even minimal amounts of studying for the test can raise your score considerably.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All those rumors that the feds wanted to use the influence of sci-fi fanaticism to discredit those seeking the truth about UFOs and what's going on at Area 51 ... well, they're all pretty much confirmed now, aren't they? :)
Don't people always write about themselves? Do you really want to share your private thoughts and dreams with the Pentagon? What if your screenplay expresses anti-war sentiment? What if you glamorize cloning? What if this is all a PLOT and they are simply trying to steal our precious bodily fluids? Seriously, it's a little creepy.
As opposed to someone else's POTUS?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Pick your poison: "President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation."
So talking about ID in a science context now suggests that it isn't being paraded as science?
Wow. Magna Cum Lowdey (sic) graduate from Rove University
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
He just did just this past week...
Yeah yeah, I know. He used coded language to make him sound all moderate and shit. So what you're saying is he's simply pandering to the kooky right, he doesn't actually mean what he says...
which brings into question the whole notion of Bush actually standing for anything.
This was the first thing to come to mind when I read this story. Anyone else watch it?
I've only seen a couple episodes, and while it doesn't actually go into the math, it seems to glamorize mathematicians.
Plus, it is a decent crime drama.
Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
I think the Pentagon may have a tough sell here. If today's kids are anything like kids from when I was growing up (1970s), "How To Build A Bomb With Household Chemicals"-type of book was always a great introduction to chemistry. That's the kind of book that Homeland Security would love to keep out of the libraries. Then again, today's kids would be more interested in simulating a nuclear explosion on a network of PS2 consoles.
Why do i have the feeling that this Pentagon step is more about PR than about hard science?
It reminds me of some bbc comedy spoof of the SAS secrets or something about that military elite force: "Hey look! We're surviving! Oh boy we're gonna so much survive now!"
In real life it doesn't work like that. In real life serious shitting-our-pants-from-sputnik education reforms work.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I haven't RTFA, or AFP (any freakin' posts), so this may have been said. Exciting movies alone arent't the answer. We need to teach more math and science in the schools, and we need to do it early. Even if kids are incited by glamorous media portrayals to pursue science, most of them will shrink from the increased math & science load if they don't already have a foundation in it. Teaching those things early will give us more well-rounded average persons, regardless of whether they become scientists. Kids with a math & sciences foundation will be more likely to positively respond to any of several stimuli later, whether it's cool science movies, televised spacecraft launches, etc.
Joey B
The morons who imitated B&B were doing their bit to stay out of the gene pool. (That why I love the Darwin Awards.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Bush has never endorsed the teaching of Intelligent Design as a science rather than religion. That's simply a fabrication intended to karma bait the Bush haters. Congratulations on your success -- but you are still a troll.
c le/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Actually...
"Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Just a thought from an older guy. Mr. Wizard wasn't all that hunky a middle-aged balding dude. He just demonostrated cool things and then actually took the time to drone on about why they worked.
What are the chances any cool, hip young science show today won't be a mess of 5-second jump cuts, cgi and musical interludes "rappng on the elements"?
What we need is "Buddy Einstein"!
"That machine has got to be destroyed...."
Contact
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
We need Van Wilder with science. We need semi educational stupid movies.
Something where science isnt THE story line but just pushes the plot forward. Touch sensitive lite explosives, oscolation chemical reactions, maybe just maybe a basic explination of torque. Something along the lines of "Hey you know how objects feal heavier if they are farther away on a stick. That is a little thing called torque. And we are going to use it to toss these water balloons over the field to hit those jerks." Nothing overtly factual just stuff that will lead people to maybe find out more.
Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
but if more science was glamorized like this, I think you'd see more interest in it. I'm sure you could do a version with some appeal to the ladies as well.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
There seems to be two types of conservatives...
The wingnuts usually go off on rants about some kookie concept without regards to fact.
The moonbats just say "If President Bush believes it, so do I!"
At least the wingnuts are fun to debate with. The moonbats are just pathetic.
Will they omit the part of the movie where the highly trained scientist/engineer's job is shipped off to India? Or will they just cut to the chase and produce the movies themselves in Bollywood?
Seriously, the thought of being able to create a girl with your PC (I'll leave the what kind of girl vs. OS to the rest of you) should be enough for most kids. That and all the damn popcorn in Real Genius. Mmmmm... popcorn.
-J
hm. Maybe Shatner's "Starfleet Acadamy 90210" idea wasn't so bad after all. Bill? You with me? Science professor material here...
Bill?
The opinion of the president is not the same as the opinion of your neighbor. As a public figure, what he says and does are considered globally. He represents the will of the people and by extension is supposed to share the opinions of the people.
If his opinions were the same as everyone else, the office of president would be filled by drawing straws. We have an election every four years to determine who the majority thinks is the best man for the job. Sadly, the electorate doesn't think about who is the best man, but votes based on who is the most like themselves.
...anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
The number one cause for the anti-intellectualism spiral in the U.S. is religion. Just look at who won the last two elections, and what does he stand for. When the majority elects a simpleton, the general direction of the country follows his simplistic thinking.
>Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
Not enough.
You want them to sit up in their seats, do what MY instructors did. Use dangerous chemicals.
*SNAP* "Oh God! Run, everybody run!"
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Of course this will bring more kids into science. However, they will only become horribly disillusioned once they become real scientists. Until I was 12, I really, really wanted to be a scientist, because movies and comic books had taught me that scientists:
(a) Are often asked to create super-science weapons with which to save the world from dangerous space invaders
(b) Build rockets and fly to other planets in them with buxom blondes
(c) Get to create monsters and zombies, or at least dig up mummies.
(d) Can travel through time to fight dinosaurs and/or weird futuristic megalomaniacs with bulging foreheads
(d) Are most likely to be exposed to something that will give them superpowers
(e) Are well-respected by politicians, journalists, and the public at large
Of these, the last was perhaps the cruelist fiction.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
are rising wildly, right? NOT!
So... we're starting to outsource knowledge work, lumping science/technical skills in with manufacturing labor in the competetive race to the bottom. And Academia is increasingly competetive and less remunerative, and public funding is getting slashed.
I guess science is something you go into for love, right?
Tweet, tweet.
Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Its not just a movie with Amy Smart! Mmmm, Amy Smart. Its proven scientific fact that butterflies start hurricanes and all kinds of other natural disasters. Well, that's what I heard!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
I'll just post these two links. If you bothered you could find many more yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush. html
Waste of my fucking money!!!!!!!!
You want to end anti-intellectualism,then privatise schools. Private schools have an incentive to teach kids, and to create an atmosphere of learning.
There's little doubt that the conservatives are at war with science. From evolution to stem cell research to global warming, they're so radical that the Pentagon is to the LEFT of them on these issues. Remarkable!
:)
And, you may find it dubious to say that the Pentagon supports evolutionary theory, but believe me, they do. Just search for all of the DARPA funded projects that use genetic algorithms and genetic programming.
And then, of course, there's global warming.
The Pentagon is absolutely correct that our national security is at risk due to our lowering quality science education. That, combined with folks on the conservative side prefering to question science rather than study it, could destroy our ability to develop new technologies. It's like the religious fundies are taking the hippie route: science isn't cool, man! It oppresses us! Don't do it, man!
Whoda thunk it? Right wing conservative christian hippies!
I agree, and I must add that not only is "can't teach creativity" untrue, it's also destructive. It takes a lot of training and education to produce a creative work of any value. The misconception that you need a degree for science but anyone off the street can be a(n) actor/singer/dancer/etc is precisely what leads to the sort of drivel that passes for entertainment nowadays.
People aren't scientists because they are inherently incapable of being screenwriters or vice versa. Maybe what we ought to do (rather than teach scientists screenwriting or teach screenwriters science) is create some sort of specialization for people who want to do both. So you can go get your Masters degree in something like Science Fiction Writing for Screen.
"Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
NOT likely, there are several flicks (Sci-Fi and others) that "glamorize" the scientist but they always pair them with an "action HERO"... Thus downplaying the scientists to be second fiddle.
The money would be better spent in education, starting at PRE-SCHOOL!!! This may NOT put kids into science but at least it will raise the overall intellect of society.
Here's an idea...
Start teaching THREE languages at age 3-4... (English, Spanish, and Mandarin)
Spend MORE money on education right down to Preschool.
Teach musical instruments at a younger age. They don't have to be experts or even intermediate, but exposing children to a broader view of what they are capable of will only benefit them.
Teach athletics at a younger age. THIS goes without saying, just look at all the obese people in this country. When I went to school the "Presidential Challenge" was taken seriously and rewarded. Now, that I am older I am a little wider but obesity is wide spread (ha ha) in this country.
And for GOD's SAKE(!), teach HISTORY(!) at a younger age. Spend money to make sure children know history, geography, art, social studies, etc. (Humanities in general)
Spend the money to make it interactive, THAT is what will make them stay focused on it.
Strong Museum for kids here in Rochester, NY is world renowned as one of the most kid friendly museums and is recognized nationally with awards.
Spending money on the older kids is after the damage has been done. They are ill-prepared for life.
Teaching science and "glamorizing" it is great but lets make "whole" kids instead. Well rounded kids, who will grow to become more then their parents narrow views. Making "scientists" and non-scientists is not the solution either.
We need better EDUCATED kids, THAT is the way to change society. Children that understand history make better politicians and citizens. Children that know Math/Science AND Languages/Humanities are well rounded, well adjusted, productive and better people.
US Government: Evolution bad
Scientists: Evolution bad
US Government: Stem cells bad
Scientists: Stem cells bad
US Government: Abstination good
Scientists: Abstination good
US Government: Global warming doesn't exist
Scientists: Global warming doesn't exist
Is the current decline in CS enrollments due to the media portraying computer types as "geeks" or because there are no CS opportunities? The government does nothing to stem the offshoring of engineering careers (Programming, Radiology, Mechanical Engineering, etc) and then bemoans that there is little interest in the community.
.... but I keep reading about how movie directors are bringing in real experts (history experts, etc., on movies like The Patriot, and science experts on all sorts of movies) to advise and make sure that mistakes aren't made (within the realm of artistic license). Then, when I see the movies, I notice all sorts of glaring errors are made (I only notice the sciency -- and a few computery -- errors. Dont' get me started on Spiderman2 or Chain Reaction). If they're going to bring in these experts, why not listen to them? Really, "whoosh" in space?
While... what? My brain just exploded.
Maybe a little protectionism or at least reciprocity with regards to importing scientists would help? I would think the fact that a lot of people don't see science as that lucrative is hurting the amount of people majoring in it and having to compete with everyone around the world mkes it harder. I hear about a lot of Phds out there who don't make all that much compared to the monkeys who manage them.
This isn't the most popular idea right now with books like the World is Flat out... but in the long term America will no longer attract all the best scientists around the world. At that point we will need to rely on domestic supplies of scientists for national security.
The truest cause of anti-intellectualism is the anti-religion movement. The reason is very simple if you are an atheist or any other form of moral relativist including those folks who go around trying to sport the claim that 'in the end all religions are equal' you cannot answer this question:
"why truth?"
To be more specific.
If there is no God/gods no absolute truth that is critically relevant and can be known then WHY should i care about science? Why should I care what is true? Why not believe whatever happens to make me feel better to believe?
If my mind and body are mere accidents then why should I trust any conclusion that I come to anyway? So what if you happen to be able to "PROVE" something is a fact? What if that 'fact' doesn't 'resonate' with me and it feels better for me to believe something else. why shouldn't I ?
In summery the existence of science as a discipline is based on the idea that knowing what is true about the observable world is valuable and important. Without moral and philosophical context to support that assumption all you have left is what feels good to the individuals involved. Not enough people have that 'good feeling' about science and where it is taking us for them to consider it to be relevant.
I guess maybe making a few movies might help to bolster that 'good feeling in the short term' *shrug*
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Why not call him the Grand Potus? That would be a cool name for a leader.
"Oh Grand Potus, we bring glorious news from the east!" That sounds absolutely great!
I will call myself Grand Potus when my plans for word domination succeed.(Did I type that last bit out loud? Oh well, now I have to kill you all. Nothing personal, you understand?)
What more can be said!?
No the Rock
No Vin Diesel
No that fucker who directed Alone in the Dark
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers involved, and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
Why do you hate His Noodliness?
Speak truth to power.
Remember James Bond's expert in nuclear weapons? http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/bond-girls/denise-ric hards.php?id=002
She can be a role model...
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Seriously didn't you just want to join the Army after watching Black Hawk Down.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
which brings into question the whole notion of Bush actually standing for anything.
Remember that concept when you vote for Hillary in '08. I want to make sure you revel in your own hypocrisy.
Karen pursed her lips. "I knew that some nuclei where spherical and some were ellipsodical, but how did you find out some fluctuate in between?" He rolled his warm body next to hers. "They've been observed with an electron scanning microscope..."
theres a program called "operation hollywood" available on bittorrent and ed2k. highly recommended.
d etails&id=57591&query=operation%20hollywood
http://www.torrentspy.com/search.asp?mode=torrent
Operation Hollywood (2004)
"Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies" draws an unsettling analysis of the military's influence on the film industry.
This program examines how the development of the motion picture industry in Hollywood coincided with the US's entry onto the world stage, on both political and military levels. Hollywood and the Pentagon...most people are intrigued to learn than a relationship exists between these two pillars of American power. Yet the US armed forces foresaw of the benefits in supporting the production of war and combat films when the country's cinema was still in its infancy. At the beginning of the 20th century, in the early days of cinema, the US was still a young, relatively isolated country. Two world wars later the country could no longer afford to remain insular. The story of how America faced up to the world was told by war movies.
It did for me. And physics, and maths and computer science when I finally got to a place that would teach it.
OK, by that stage, I knew I was never going to find the magic formula to turn my brother into a frog, and that my army of killer robots had a few technical hurdles to overcome before implementation.
It didn't matter - by that time I was hooked.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
How many impressionable young children have been inspired to become semiconductor designers by the Britney Spears Guide to Semiconductor Physics?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers involved, and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
Doesn't anyone read these submissions for grammatical correctness?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
Shit, all I ask is that Hollywood actually TRY to get some of the science right. Asteroid the size of Texas? And you're going to blow it up with a couple nukes? And the two pieces just HAPPEN to go on either side of the Earth? I can barely watch movies anymore without groaning because some "scientist" spouts off stuff that makes the pseudoscience whackos look intelligent.
does the anti-intellectualism come from ?
:) Furthermore, assuming this below-average block was smart enough to all think alike, they'd still not have a majority during elections (it seems reasonable to assume the smarter half of the population understands the mutual need for smart-solidarity to prevail during elections, assuming above/below average intelligence splits along party lines, as some like to suggest).
And what does that mean, exactly ?
Other people have taken this as an opportunity to bash the president (hint: he attended a more prestigious university than you do/did)
Other's have said that Creationism/ID is anti-intellectual. Certainly i have a hard time seeing eye to eye with people that beleive the earth is 6000 years old.
No, what is anti-intellectual is the wholesale writeoff of religious thought, and the complete lack of philosophical and scientific scrutiny of the origin of life. It seems like you can't, with the same mouth, say that ID is "junk" because its not falsifialbe, and then suggest that evolution factally contradicts the tenets of christianity and therefore the latter is junk.
Yet some people do just that.
Personally, i don't think i'm anti-intellectual - i had a math minor before leaving highschool, and got dual degrees in math and CS, and have managed to hold down a job with the same company since finishing school over 5 years ago (in the software industry, no less). I've taught myself how to do home wiring, pipe work, and structural repairs, and I perform all the maintenance on the vehicles in our home, and am comfortable troubleshooting fuel injection or replacing suspension components. According do most methods I'm aware of that claim to measure intelligence, i'm at least not outright stupid.
That said, i do dislike the crop of people that seem to be playing the "intellectual elitist" card. I don't like people that think they know whats right for everyone, and i dislike people that talk down to/at others. I especially dislike these traits in politicians. I'd say a good portion of Americans feel the same way, and if that constitutes anti-intellectualism, so be it.
IMO, the people that go on and on about how dumb Bush is or about how Christians are stupid, or how they themselves are such brilliant hot stuff are going to continue to be marginalized at election time. Nobody wants to hear how great you are and how dumb "we" are.
My amusing "statistical" argument is that, for better or for worse, roughly 50% of the population is of below average intelligence
So here's my advice for you "brilliant" people out there - learn to deal with us dummies. We're not difficult to convince - we buy shit off of TV after all, and we're in credit card debt just like you [although i personally suffer from neither of these two conditions], so we'll beleive pretty much whatever. But if you cant convince even us curmudgeons that you're right, you probably aren't. It's not like you aren't adept at lying through your teeth, so if you'd just stop insulting us all the time, you might gain a little support.
Maybe I am anti-intellectual. Not because I'm stupid, but because I'm sick of hotshots with meaningless lives telling me how I'm wrong and they aren't.
Nearly everytime there's an election where you've got a farmer running against a lawayer, I'll vote for the farmer. Both people are in the shit creation business, but one of them manages to produce food out of the deal.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Well, I was going to post some links but I see a LOT of others have beaten me to it ;-) I guess it was you that needed a good thumping with the "clue stick" huh ;-)
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
If there was that much demand for accurate portrayals of science and positive portrayals of scientists in the movies, the hard science fiction authors (who can write and are often pretty sharp with science too) would have cornered the SF screenplay market already. Ergo, there's no market for it.
Now we'll have to put up with shows like Jackass: Extreme Scientist Edition and Beavis and Butthead do Particle Physics!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"First of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."
This is verbatim. The elipsis represents a pause where the reporter asked a clarifying question (Both sides ought to be properly taught?).
If you don't understand that Bush is implicitly arguing that Intelligent Design should be taught side by side with the Theory of Evolution, you are either ignorant or stupid. As I suspect you are neither of those, I suspect that you are intentionally spinning and trying to minimize Bush's comments, which is just as bad, if not worse. You know full well what he meant and means.
The chief fallacy that Bush is putting forth is that there really is any scientific debate, that ID and the Theory of Evolution have some sort of equal footing as competing ideas. This is patent nonsense. We might as well say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the 2nd Commandment of the Old Testament are competing ideas, and there should be some sort of debate. One Law is in the realm of science and empirical reality and the other is in the realm of religion/philosophy and spiritual reality.
And here is the crux of the matter. Bush and the proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design wish to ignore empirical evidence when it clashes with their dearly held beliefs. Not just to ignore it, but to destroy it, to make it go conveniently away. This is called intellectual dishonesty (or just plain dishonesty, why mince words?), and you are guilty of the same sin when you claim that Bush is not endorsing the teaching of ID as science.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Hint to budding hackers: don't point your war dialers at air force bases.
All scientists do all day is think. How boring is that?
I think they would come out a lot like this:
- Set a course for Alpha Centauri!
- Aye aye, Captain!
(five or more years of boring space cruise)
(exterior shots in perfect silence, there is no sound in space)
(finally the ship arrives)
- Scan for life forms!
- Sorry sir, there's no such thing as a "life form detector". It's not like life gives off a special energy or something.
- Well, shit. Let's go home then.
(several more years of boring space cruise)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Of course they could just increase pay. That might help. Plus teaching kids about intelligent design "science" is going to hurt our national defense posture....
It was made in the 80's, starred a young Val Kilmer, and was called "Real Genius"
Seriously though, thats pretty much an 80's version of what you're asking for. Bringing it up to 21st century standards, all that would have to change is some new computers and hotter girls with skimpier clothes.
Absurd Flamebait? No more absurd than the idea that children will learn from movies.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Hogwash.
It's the pentagon, you expect the left pinky finger to know what the left ring finger is doing?
The mathematical truth and falseness that scientific logic is based on doesn't need an invisible man behind the curtains to back it up.
In case you haven't been keeping up with the news, the government has been enacting massive fundings cuts to American educational institutions. If the government doesn't want to help, filming movies about a career with no future will only end up helping the filmmakers.
"It couldn't hurt."
r
Whatever you do, dear God, don't let the scientists come up with the movie titles! I mean, they'll come up with a movie called "Phencyclidine", instead of "Angeldust".
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
"Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
Forensic scientists can tell you that kids are definitely paying a lot more attention to their field these days...
I agree. Encouraging students not to question widespread beliefs is a good way to produce top-quality scientists.
Anime such as Fullmetal Alchemist have been doing this already. Sure it isn't American, but it proves that this is possible. FMA uses a lot of technical chemistry terms in it which are mostly all accurate, besides the fact that Alchemy itself is impossible. (the way they show it) And they mix in cool fight scenes with subtle science lessons. Watching this show made me more interested in Chemistry, as I just started watching it my Junior year of highscohol and I was easily able to use things I saw in the anime to relate it to real science, and it made things interesting. I think doing this in mainstream media won't happen in a while, but it WILL have a positive affect if it is used right. Just don't make it something all about science, mix it in with a show where there is action, and then apply the science to it. Not at all impossible.
...off the top of my head:
Contact with Jodi Foster
Indiana Jones series with Harrison Ford
Jurassic Park series
2001: A Space Odyssey
among many others, I'm sure.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
We've systematically turned our public school system into a group-think factory, where decisions are made for political reasons and not for educational reasons. Is it any wonder that people turn to the "softer" sciences like sociology, law or (to complete the vicious cycle) education?
The next round of Feynman-like super-scientists will probably depend heavily on the ranks of the home-schooled.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
If you want people to go through the pain and effort of an engineering education, you need to create an environment that honors engineers, pays them well, and offers some job security.
Offshoring engineering jobs, blaming engineers for high profile disasters (the Challenger disaster, for example, was a management FU), and H-1B visa programs do nothing but discourage kids from persuing engineering.
These are the smart kids we're talking about here. A bit of Hollywood fluff isn't going to cover up the fact that the US government hates engineers, and the resulting US government policy is to outsource as many engineering and manufacturing jobs as possible.
Is it really any wonder that these kids don't want to go into engineering or the sciences???
PS.
As someone who voted for Bush the first time (I know, sorry!!!!!) I feel your pain. Originally, when I would see all these retarded statements attributed to him, I would think "No way!". Of course it always turned out to be true. There are still times I hear something and think, "OK seriously, he cannot be THAT retarded". Of course, I'm still always wrong. Now when I hear this rediculous things I tend to just accept them.
However, if I ever heard something intelligent or insightful attributed to him I'd have to do some searching to verify that. Luckily for lazy me, I've never even heard of anyone attributing such things to him so its not a problem.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
From the blurb: "Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
Not for as long as they have retards like Jeff Goldblum talking like science as an evil that is out of control.
We need "evil genius" style scientists in film, like Frankenstein. That's what the chicks dig, at least.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Movies these days are long highly effective commercial for selling stuff like soda, cars, shoes etc. Why not promote something that "markets" science as field of study. I can see it now Gordon Freeman drinking a pepsi smoking a Marlboro and fragging bad guys to develop a new scietific theory. Would be fun
two cans and a string, now that's innovation
Down that road is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism - and you don't want to go there.
I can see your point that without a God, then what is the point in life? Why even bother living? I cannot give a satisfactory answer to that. But I think for most atheists the goal of improving humanity, and make humanity more powerful (control of environment, conquest of skies and space, etc) is a sufficient goal by itself.
Occam's razor is one possible 'answer' to Solipsism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism ).
That great movie with John Lithgow where a kid builds a nuke in his bedroom?
It eventually builds up to a point where the kid and the military are in a situation of mutually assured destruction and then the bomb suddenly triggers itself.
Of course, they defuse the bomb and everyone is so releived that they forget the whole thing happened and walk off into the sunset.
"We need scientists, its a matter of National Security. If we dont have scientists we are doomed....
Oh, BTW, did I mention that all scientists are full of crap. Its all an Intelligent Design."
-President George W. Bush
Funny, I come to the opposite conclusion. If I believed in a God, in a heaven, etc., then why should I care about anything in the "real world"? So long as I dont commit evil (and some religions allow death-bed confessions to get you salvation) I can pretty much waste my whole life, comforted by the fact that I can relax for all eternity in heaven.
It's precisely because I think we ARE accidents of nature and evolution, that we only have our lives on this Earth to spend, that I am motivated to learn, to do, and to interact with others.
This brings up another pet peeve I have. Why the hangup religious nuts have about abortion? Aren't abortion doctors sending potentially unwanted, abused souls directly to heaven where they will have no wants, no drug addictions, no poverty? They should be thanking these selfless doctors who are really saviors!
BTW I find your equating no god == no absolute truth to be either pathetic or short-sighted.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POTUS : Because of the superpower status of the United States, the American President is considered by many to be the most powerful person on Earth, and is usually one of the world's best-known public figures. That's a lot of responsibility when making remarks about THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE. I personally don't envy him that.
"I'm a Laver, not a Phyto[plankton]"
schools all over have been scrambling to find new sources of funding
Maybe they should start by using the money they have better.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I'm starting to think that the goal is to make the populace a bunch of subservient low-wage slaves with no ambition or ability to innovate.
There you go. Have Rockstar make the next GTA game with a rough-and-tough grad student. Make quests like "pull an all-nighter to get this paper done for your prof" and you'll be all set.
The difference between the actual truth and the movie or tv show made is kind of like the difference between Pee Wee Herman and the James Brolin version P.W. Herman in the movie "Pee Wee's Big Adventure".
Hollywood will listen to the ideas, but they already know how to make it better.
The mathematicians were probably very accurate and precise in their descriptions. But the dialog probably wasn't snappy enough, and needed to be punched up a little.
Paging Mr. Herman. Mr. Herman, you have a phone call in the lobby.
My kids hate going to school now. Well, ok most of us did but the reasons are different now..
No Band
PE 1 time a week
No Library because they have no Librarian
They can't RUN at lunch (fer chist sake!!)
They have to be quiet at lunch
and the kicker..
No Dodge Ball!!
Personally, I got more interested in school as the electives became more interesting. While I was there I wend ahead and took my math and english too, and later on I got a degree in Physics of all things. But if there is no joy in school its kinda hard to get excited about it. Especially hard to get excited enough to go on to advanced degrees.
Eschew Obfuscation
If they are made easier to digest (essentially, dumbed down) wouldn't that offset the bonuses gained by such wide exposure? People would feel "cheated" whe nthey try to take on the real thing....
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Since I am a fan of the Robotic Nation, I find this post to be right on target: Robotic Education. Computer aided instruction using a video-game-like interface could radically improve the delivery of science education to students. Many schools, apparently, are starting to head in that direction: Why millions of teachers will be out of work soon....
Shut up and give us all your dough.
(And I think its 'abstention' not 'abstination', which isn't a word so I don't really know what you wrote. Or was this the new 'BushSpeak'?)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Many (quality) original scripts submitted are tight well thought out with plot points and technical devices that make sense and work.
They key step is to add the advice of the personal assistant, hairdresser and buddy or three of the producers. Take a well thought out scientific thriller that uses subtle and interesting plot points based on subtleties of a particular field then just before it goes into production insist there be 15 explosions, a car chase, 7.5 seconds of nipple, and an alien that drinks blood. That really cranks up the science.
The original script for 'The Island' started out with a pregnant clone and a distinct lack of car chases and no explosions. If the Pentagon thinks that starting with a rational script will up the quality of Hollywood productions, well, I have a bridge in Iraq to sell them. Oh wait, they've already bought a few...
This reminds me of a time I told a friend of mine that I was majoring in Electrical Engineering, and she asked me what an Engineer was having NO CLUE at all what and engineer was. >_
I meant universities who do research funded by the government, not high schools.
The issue is fundamentally different.
Look at it like this. Classically speaking, this is the way that the government has purchased the far out in the future, hard science, research. Only a few government labs do this sort of thing. Academia is a very cheap route to find this, because most of the labor are graduate students who are willing to work for less because they need research in order to finish their degrees.
Taking academia out of the equation essentially means that you are no longer interested in hard science.
Why then, would you encourage the youth to go into this field?
Our government's priorities regarding science and education is so screwed up that the *Pentagon* feels the need to step in and encourage science. What about the Department of Education? The National Science Foundtion? The president's science advisor? These get no respect from our president - who is more corfortable with creationism than with science.
Only the Pentagon commands sufficient respect from our *war* president to attempt to address the public preception of science.
The best thing that could happen to science education is to replace the current occupant of the White House with someone competent and intelligent.
Whether or not the American people are, as a whole, smart enough to replace George W. Bush with someone better is open for debate, unfortunately.
All about me
"The truest cause of anti-intellectualism is the anti-religion movement"
I was going to take issue with that, but reading the rest of your post perhaps I agree, though I'd phrase it differently: "The truest cause of the fiction-is-better-than-truth movement is the truth-is-better-than-fiction movement." Religious people who insist they are "under attack" and must fight back (by making everyone else live by their beleifs) piss me off. But in a larger sense, much of religion is about not trying to actually understand the world, and so has indeed been under attack for the last few centuries. Why truth? Because I think the world today is a better place to live than it was in the middle ages, and the difference is down to people with a prefernce for truth.
How exactly does it require a made-up evidence-free beleif in order to value evidence-based attempts to actually understand the world?
"If there is no God/gods no absolute truth..."
The lack of God/gods does not imply the lack of absolute truth. In fact, a God (who can change his mind) would seem an impediment to absolute truth.
"So what if you happen to be able to "PROVE" something is a fact? What if that 'fact' doesn't 'resonate' with me and it feels better for me to believe something else. why shouldn't I ?"
Well, in that case, I'll be right, and you'll be wrong. If "resonance" is more important to you than accuracy, feel free to beleive whatever you want. Just don't be offended if I fail to take your beleif seriously.
And everyone clearly knows studying has nothing to do with intelligence. [/sarcasm]
I'm certainly no SAT fanboy, but what is wrong with the idea studying might help you become more intelligent?
ever heard of einstein?
Want to know why America is losing science and engineering students? Sure, some of it is laziness/TV/gaming. But if you take a look at what REAL scientists and engineers go through, you can't really wonder why students aren't doing it.
The scientist/engineer-to-be coasts through mediocre (at best) high schools with nary a challenge. Then, they hit a major university, where teaching is secondary - at best. IF they don't quit because of the workload (remember - they're not used to this!), they'll spend the next three or four years slogging through class after class proffered by a school that probably doesn't really care about the individual student; taught by professors that resent having to teach when their careers are based on publishing; and baby-sat by graduate students who are overworked and underpaid.
Assuming this hasn't curbed their energy, many will opt to forgo the graduate program and join the business world - another totally different creature. Here, the 60-something executives will run the corporation like it's something from the 50's - beat the employees for every ounce of work out of every minute they can get, never considering the life balance many now pursue. To call it adversarial is an understatement.
Having been through all of this, how many are going to remain scientists and engineers? Why would they want to remain on the losing end of every proposition? And, how many are going to encourage the next generation to do the same? I wouldn't. Not that I wouldn't like to see more intelligent people (an oxymoron?) become the scientific thinkers we need - I just wouldn't recommend it for that above-average student looking at his future. I'd tell him/her that - if all other things are equal - take the job that pays the most and/or provides the best lifestyle.
re: Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?" Why would any kid in America want to be an ace in chemistry when all it's going to get them is a flag on a homeland security watch list? Intelligent design is something they teach that God does. Not America's school children. Good luck though.
What's with you people. 200 + posts and no submissions yet? I'll give it a try, and would appreciate if someone could add to it...
...
Camera pans over a lab, and stops on a middle aged man in an "so two seasons ago" Hawaii shirt.
"Helga" he says "take a look at this please."
A middle aged, somewhat overweight, woman with poorly dyed red hair looks at his computer monitor.
"The variable?" she says.
"Yes, I can't figure out why it's coming up negative?"
"Well, how did you declare it?" Helga says, trying not to sound too patronizing.
"To tell you the truth, I don't know" He replies. "I think Xian-Chu coded that as a part of his masters thesis."
"Oh my gosh!" exclaims Helga as she realizes that Xian-Chu has returned to his beloved China well over a semester and a half ago.
"Jason" she says in a more serious tone, her thoughts already on the two moves ahead "which version of Studio Dev Kit are you using? Have you applied all the patches, and updates?"
I'm thinking about pitching it, whaddayall think?
It'll probably be titled "Researchers of error propagated artificial neural networks...of doom!!!"
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
A play?! You have to be kidding me. If they want to interest kids in science they should let them blow shit up. What's the point of knowing that mixing two compounds causes a violent reaction if you don't get to try it out? My brother and I couldn't tell you what the symbols for the chemicals were but we could tell you which household chemical + household chemical = Fun.
Although a screenwriting program funded by the Pentagon doesn't necessarily mean that the US government isn't trying to find why so few "native" Americans aren't interested in studying science and engineering, I think an exploration of why American students aren't interested is perhaps more beneficial.
Consider: a postdoc at the NIH makes about fifty thousand dollars a year. That is, after spending on your undergraduate education, then your doctorate, and then being paid a wage, for your one to three year postdoctorate, that's equivalent to what an assistant manager at Starbucks likely makes, you then almost have your first job.
Then, also, if you're interested in becoming a research scientist, you're likely going to have to work long hours, much longer than in other similarly paid professions.
Perhaps, the reason that American students aren't choosing these careers is because it may be implicitly understood that the monetary compensation of working as, say, a research scientist isn't worth the expense and time.
Also, one seemingly easy to solve this problem, if there are immigrants who are studying these subjects, is to easy the rules for American citizenship.
Let's not forget the extremely interesting science in some of last decades Blockbusters. Jurassic Park for instance, and Hackers, and Golden Eye, and Deep Impact (aka Armageddon), and Contact, Mars Attacks, Men In Black, the list goes on. We're not in that bad of shape...are we?
...after seeing Wierd Science. Strangely, I still have little interest in actual science.
Here's an excerpt from a TRN interview with NYU's Nadrian Seeman:
TRN: Sports, commerce, crime fighting and warfare are glamorized in our society. Can science be made sexy? What would it take?
Seeman: I don't know if sexiness is the way to sell science. Our educational system is pretty successful at stifling the natural curiosity with which we are all born. That would be a place to start.
Eric Smalley
As a scientist who has peddled screenplays, let me tell you that they are approaching this ass-backwards, as usual.
.50 cal Gatlings on Mirimax and get them distributed.
[relevant aside: Did you hear about the Polish actress? She was sleeping with the screenwriter.]
If they want more good movies about science, the way to do that is not to encourage the generation of more screenplays. Fucking Hollywood is tit-deep in screenplays. You can't swing a dead cat without knocking over a stack of them.
If the Pentagon wants more science movies, then start up a production company and buy the scripts, make the movies they want made. The train a couple of nose-mounted
More screenplays? They are farting into gale-force winds.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
-"Who is that mystery man!?"
-"The name is Nye. Bill Nye."
*shudder*
Nasa spent billions making a pen capable of writing in space. The Russians just use a pencil.
Luckily we have a president who feels science is so important that we need to spend time on intelligent design in our science classes.
I wonder if the pentagon will be funding scripts which make evolutionary biology look fun and exciting.
Was there a jump in the number of archeology graduates after the releases of Raiders?
We are doomed to be a nation of big dummies. The Pentagon as in the Oxy Moron "Military Intelligence"? Let us support generating scientific interest in youth for national defense. The interest has always been there, but education is expensive for american students that want to study science and engineering. Then they are offered squat for pay while trying to make a living. They ship the best jobs over seas. Let's patch the leaks in the boat before we put yet another coat of paint on the bridge. By by fair US of A. I once knew you we..
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
Good writing cannot be taught, but it can be encouraged. My guess is that while 15 scientists (and potentially more in the future) will to the screenwriting class only a very small percentage can be successful.
Take the subject of mathematics for instance. It's usually easier to teach the mathematics, to say, a biologist studying population dynamics in the field than it is to take a mathematician and teach him the vast subject of biology.
This does not hold true for creative writing. You need a person who is has a "foot in both doors", more of a renaissance man, to be successful in bridging the gap between the humanities and science in this age of hyper-specialization. Some people can successfully do so (Alan Lightman comes to mind), but in general it takes a very special type of person to create something that mixes the sciences and humanities in a meaningful way. Writing is hard, and science writing is incredibly diffcult.
You're pretty dumb, dude. K-12 education spending does not equal hard research spending (graduate school, postdocs, faculty). I don't think the NSF is giving much money to Joe Bumblehead High School.
If there is no God/gods no absolute truth that is critically relevant and can be known then WHY should i care about science?
Well, there is no real "WHY". But think about it this way, if we as a species didn't spend a lot of time caring about science, then you probably would not have been around ask that question. Hell, without science you would still be cowering in a cave somewhere, wondering if that sound you just heard was a lion who invited himself to dinner.
So there is no reason for you to care about science, other than that it is the one way we have of improving our chances, both individually and as a species, of surviving a little longer. If it makes you feel better to believe in some omnipotent space fairy, then go ahead. What really matters is whether you help or hinder the survival of the species.
You are probably asking "but why should the species care about survivial if there is no universal truth". What it comes down to is that it doesn't really matter. If the species stops caring about survival it pretty soon won't be around anymore. The problem pretty much solves itself.
Actually, if there is a god out there, I think it is probably even more in our interest to learn as much about the universe as possible. I mean, if a god exists he is certainly not looking out for us. It might be time for a coup...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
The only "coded language" in Washington is "neocon" as a codeword for "Jew".
Morons. This just underlines for the 3000th time how completely and totally out of touch our government and military (are they different?) are.
Wake the fuck up.
Read some Neal Stephenson or Niven or maybe a BOOK.
Jackasses
Both Stargate SG-1 and Star Trek (not Enterprise) do a pretty decent job of interesting kids in science, in that they put together drama and excitement with just enough real theory to get some of the audience to look further. Science fiction in general was a major motivator for many scientists and engineers, and I have a feeling that the decrease in science interest could at least be correlated to a decrease in SF quality.
Personally I prefer Stargate to Star Trek, though. A little more believable, a better story arc... plus Samantha Carter is a hell of a lot hotter than Scotty.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
Well, I for one agree that both sides ought to be *properly* taught. ID needs some good debunking in the classroom these days.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A better bet for every country is to teach peaceful conflict resolution methods for the next generations: Peace Resources
You mean it wasn't this one?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/
... noone would want to do one of the 'uncool' jobs as they don't get glorified. Which sounds abit like manipulation of your youth perhaps a bit conditioning as well and that contiously!
Right now, being a metalworker, welder or a decent electrician is more profitable then being a programmer around here cause there simple aren't enough to fill in all the work...
Good workmen are always needed. Glorifying only a single field of the job spectrum will just cause imbalance, as it generally DOES work to get alot of people going into that field. But mostly they end up with too many graduates the particular field where they try to quickfix the problem by throwing financial bonusses for people who pick up a training / study in the starving fields.
Higher educations are perhaps good for a nation, but it's generally known that there is alot of snobism; "I'm more then person x as I've been able to get through a +3yr study" where most of the cases intelligence isn't really the factor leading to completion of the study, yet the completion comes often with an blown up ego.
I have some friends and family who hire people for a living. They all complain about the same green college kids waving with their 'accomplisments', papers and what not. Yet, they are worthless and a drain to the company as they proved they can study, but seldomly can apply what they've been taught in practice. Those with the biggest egos never get hired as they're completely unworkable.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
I can see your point that without a God, then what is the point in life? Why even bother living?
Good point. But we're here already, so why bother dying? You'll get your chance at that eventually.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
The ONLY part of the Dubya regime that isn't run by completely brain-dead presidential appointees IS the Pentagon, which published a paper earlier this year that not only confirmed that global warming was real, but also has been trying to plan for the patrolling of the soon-to-be completely-devoid-of-ice Arctic Ocean.
They are, however, completely dependent upon the neo-Con(artists) in the Congress for funding, so they are still on a tight leash. Unless there is a substantial public backlash against the Dubya regime in the 2006 mid-term elections, this nearly universal Dubya regime aversion to real science in particular, and the anti-intellectual climate in general, will continue to hamstring America's future scientific prowness, regardless of Pentagon efforts to the contrary.
After watching MacGyver I paid much more attention to physics and my surroundings.
I worked for the airforce in a civilian capacity for a time. There were two black network administrators. Black techies aren't that common in the business, so curious, I talked to them about their career choice. Each spoke of seeing Captain Benjamin Sisko on TV. Seeing another black person handle tech stuff comfortably was all it took to get these two into network administration. Who knows how many other black people got tech jobs because of Sisko? And think of all the engineers Scotty generated...
how about instead, we do something to make studying science/math PROFITABLE for people again. if people could get more well-paying jobs in technical and scientific fields, I think that would go a lot further to promote them than a few movies.
:-P
these days it beginning to seem like the only way to make decent money is to ditch the science and go get your MBA!
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
I'm an american. I'm a college educated, intelligent american. Why do I want more intelligent, college educated americans living in my country? That's more competition for me.
Let america dissolve into it's own mindless pop-culture juices. It just makes my life easier.
It's unfortunate that so much of America's scientific research is funded by the Pentagon, since they tend to see research in terms of national security rather than in terms of discovery of knowledge and advancement of the human race. The achilles heal of this approach is apparent when we've deployed the military, are strapped for cash, and funding for pure research is the first to go. Pure research is, in the long term, the single most important investment a nation can make, for social, scientific, and technological advancement, and for national security reasons. Anyway, I suppose now we're going to see commercials recruiting high school kids to be scientists - "A Research Team of One", or some such schlock.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
The article you linked to is about funding for education, and a lot of it is about K-12 and not college. Either way, I agree that schools could use educational money better.
But the funding from DARPA and other agencies getting slashed has nothing to do with education. This is research money, allocated to scientists at universities which do basic research as well as educate. Those activities are almost exclusively funded by specific grants, with no connection to overall educational funding. Slashing this money won't encourage schools to become more efficient; all it'll do is hurt working researchers, and cause the US to fall further behind in science.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
Heinlein did it with books (and later with a movie) for a few decades, starting in like the 1940s or so.
If science had a reputation as being lucrative (blingful or something, for you modern kids), it would catch some attention from kids (some of which would start to like it for it's own sake).
Oh yeah, and if nobody else has written it:
Step 1. Make science movies.
Step 2. ??????
Step 3. Big Profit!
It might open with Homer Simpson getting rid of the radioactive sample stuck in his collar and end with B&B blowing up Springfield.
Actually, screw science shows we need things that will weed out the gene pool. With actual footage of people getting 'snuffed' competing for the first prize.
That would bring up the remaining IQ of the survivors.
Like 'Death Comes to the National Parks.' You could have really neat shows about the dangers to be found in the wild.
How about shows about exploding double-wides? (Sorry that one's already taken. 'Trailer Fabulous' on MTV.)
Or 'How to Have Fun in Arkansas: Fire Bombing Your Neighbour's Meth Lab?' Lots of science there. You could start a discussion grup about combustion and the difering rates of various chemicals.
Or 'Beavis&Butthead Guide to Ingesting Rapidly Dissolving (Il)legal drugs?' You could discuss drugs, digestion and/or death.
Or 'Jackass: Taunting Happy Fun Ball' Which would be about silly stunts you can commit with spheroids, like musket balls and canon balls and WWII sea mines.
Or '101 Things I Like About [name] Disease' where contestants are infected with some disease and have five minutes to identify it and receive the anti-toxin or die trying.
The possibilities are endless.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
No, but it might push nerds into acting careers.
I am half way thru Sterling's Zenith Angle, it talks well about the scientists as heroes. It's been a while since that's shown up in SciFi. Too Long.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
jobs either go/went overseas,
or we're importing migrant engineers.
I tell yung un's to get a job at wal-mart
be content, and work there til retirement.
signed:
occupationally challenged
Maybe students would learn more if we had well paid teachers who actually knew their subject and were good teachers? My biggest hurdle in school was that teachers didn't know the answers to my questions and neither the teachers or the textbooks were good at passing on knowledge to students. This was especially true in science and math classes.
:)
Luckily I was a geek so I figured things out for myself and read every book I could get my hands on.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I thought my kid's schools were not so good! Now I have a more positive perspective.
Do you have charter schools where you are? I'm in Arizona. A few years back the state allowed charter schools. I have noticed significant improvement in the regular public schools since then.
No band?!? That's no good!
Breaking into a complex, choreographed song-and-dance number in the middle of research. I must admit, I chuckled.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Today's "coin-operated" American youth will look at average pay for a scientist, and average pay for a lawyer, and, really, you don't have to be a wiz at calculus to see that yearly vacations to Cabo aren't in the cards for the average scientist, as they are for the average lawyer.
Greed is good for some things, in terms of human motivation. But when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Greed's a good motivator for work, but it's terrible for innovation. The guy who invented the wheel didn't do it out of greed. He did it because he was sick of carrying heavy shit around all the time.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You have mistaken my first premise.
If there is no God no immortality. Then all that there IS is this life and all that is IMPORTANT is how i feel. mathematically truth , scientific truth is only IMPORTANT in so much as it affects how I feel about myself and the world around me. If that is the case then there is no reason I should not adopt beliefs , especially as it pertains to things difficult to understand or where that facts are remotely questionable, that feel good to me, because this life is all I have and how I feel during it is all that is the MOST important thing. Further more if I investigate things rationally that might challenge me and then I would need to change. Change is uncomfortable so the most logical thing to do is to learn as little as possible while creating for myself the illusion that I am educating myself.
My premise was that not that mathematical truth could not exist without God. ( that would be an interesting discussion in itself, but a little too off topic and would take many hours.)
My premise is that without God most individuals find scientific truth of little VALUE.
I know many people with no religious belief at all and most of them also have no real interest in what is true, because what is true is only important to them from the perspective of what it can do for them.
For a religious person what is true SHOULD be the single most important thing in their lives. Religion is almost by definition the search for spiritual truth. On the other hand without religion you are much more hard pressed to justify why you should care what is true at all.
Most of the 'evils of religion' people decry actually come when individuals deviate from the philosophy they are imperfectly practicing and choose convince over the search for truth.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
If these games were really fun it would be a great way to promote interest in science and teach some basic skills.
When my younger brother was perhaps 8 or so we purchased some math games for him, I think one of them was called "math mountain" and he really got into them, playing for hours.
I have seen him play this free MMORPG "Runescape" in which many of the players do things like click on a rock over and over to get ore, then go melt it in a furnace, then make items out of it. If people are willing to do this for empowerment in a game environment, perhaps they would also be willing to design algorithms, chemical synthesis, circuits, whatever, if it could be contextualized within the game.
Probably something like this would have top be a collabaration between scientists and experienced game developers who know how to motivate players to engage with their games. I think this could be highly effective given the willingness many people have to play these sorts of games for HOURS at the exclusion of practically everything else.
I totally agree with the spirit of your post.
You can't really debunk Intelligent Design because there is nothing to debunk. No evidence, no logic, just a shared belief with nothing objective to point to. No foundation for debate; you either believe it or you don't.
Besides, a science class is the wrong place for such a debate, even if the debate were legitimate, because Intelligent Design/Creationism/whatever you wanna call it has nothing to do with science.
[javac] 100 errors
In a Age where more money is spent on sports and less on academics its no wonder there is a brain drain in the US. I live in a town that worships college sports over anything else, ranking in the lower 45 states in quality education. Even now there is talk about city and state spending for another new arena, parks, and golf courses. Throwing a ball into a hoop will never cure cancer, allthough the income from sports can bring in new equipment, after the pay there coach 10X's what the nearest professor is getting. I have allways thought they should seperate sports, make them a industry on there own, fill there own ranks with potential stars. In effect the private sport schools could make money on venues and fund there own students, and possibly drive down the cost of regular academic education. In the end the States have to set its prioities where they belong, in allmost every state run university there is ongoing promotion of sports, while you barly see anything about there education. We have allmost fanatical parets push kids into sports and send the wrong message, there are more jobs out there then sporting contracts.
more fine works like Deep Impact and Chain Reaction.
Oh yeah, the parts of Contact that I saw sucked too. Keep trying, Hollywood!
Not only has Bush stated it (as referenced in many of the children posts), but McClellan has gone on the record as saying that he has championed this particular view since his days as Texas Governor.
So if it's a fabrication, it's one perpetuated by Bush's press secretary (and Bush himself for that matter).
Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
This question is irrelevant and too narrow. Paying attention in Chemistry class has little to no effect on my choice of careers (Software Engineering). There are a variety of Engineering professions that do not involve Chemistry.
The question rephrased to "Would movies about Engineers make kids want become Engineers?" Would a movie influence a child's decision that will effect his/her whole life?
I participate in National Engineering week. Where Engineers from various fields go to middle school and high school classrooms to try to get kids excited about Math and Sciences in hopes they will look into an Engineering career. It is a great program and I believe that is making a difference in my community, but only time will tell.
One thing I use to motivate kids into chosing an Engineering profession is a picture of my motorcycle (with an explanation that you can afford a decent lifestyle as an Engineer). That seems to get some interest, but I also like to think I have a good personality.
- Bruzer
"Tempt not a desperate man" - Willy S.
Maybe YOU and some people you know don't find value, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.
Your apparent lack of self-esteem is not a valid basis from which to start arguing philosophy.
Man, that movie Real Genius definately made me want to design lasers.
Most scientists, male and female, are so ugly that they need to put paper sacks on their heads and their sex to mate. And woe betide if a sack falls off: the other turns to stone.
The discussion instead should be "Which are uglier - math chicks or physics chicks?"
"I guess science is something you go into for love, right?"
It's the same excuse used around here every time outsourcing or education is mentioned. How many times have we heard "Well I'm glad that all those 'learn HTML in 24 hours','dot-bombers', 'fooseball-loving' are gone. 'you should do it for the love not the money'. etc, etc" Maybe we'll finally find out just how far love will carry you?*
*Here's Gary, a "I like love" engineer. With your donation to "Won't you think of the engineers?" charity you can feed Gary Ramen noodles and tap water for a month. With a bigger donation, you can feed two, plus a years "pacifier" subscription to slashdot. Don't they look adorable with their white pressed shirts, and pocket protectors? Sally says please donate. *puppy dog look*
--
The "are you a script" word for today is forsake.
Amen brother, some of my cousins are REAL Neandertals!
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
> Suddenly something in one of the tubes starts
> fizzling. Suddenly the President comes into view
> and hands Billy a big bag of money
I very much doubt that. It is much more likely that suddenly a SWAT team would burst in and surround little Billy, pointing their automatic weapons at his head and screaming obscenities. Then they'd throw him in jail for possessing drug paraphernalia (namely, labware, chemicals, alcohol burner, etc.). If Billy wasn't alone at the time of arrest, conspiracy charges would no doubt follow.
Then he'd be named a terrorist, after some underpaid police chemist runs some unspecific test and finds explosive precursors (do you realize how many chemicals fit in that category? Anything with a benzene ring can be converted into TNT.) in Billy's test tube. Billy's friends would be immediately included as co-conspirators to blow something up while stoned on some homemade drug.
As anybody who has tried to do chemistry anywhere outside strictly controlled and designated places knows, the message from the government is chrystal clear: don't do chemistry. And now they try to blame us for listening and obeying the law? How amusing.
Seriously, the reason kids aren't into science is because it's not cool to be smart. If it's in movies as being cool there might be a chance.
my point was if you do not believe in an absolute truth that is absolutely important then the most relevant thing IS what "resonates" with you personally NOT what is factually true. This is why fewer people are interested in finding out what IS factually true today. This is why they don't care.
Also, if there is not god what is 'wrong' with me forcing you to believe whatever I like, assuming I were capable of something so asinine?
Incidentally I would find the idea of a "God who can change his mind" very disturbing. That would imply a God that exists inside of time and is subject too it, it would also lead to the conclusion that god did not create time was subject too it and must have been created by the same creator who created time, therefore it could not be god at all. The theology I adhere to teaches that God is unchanging in state, but is in a state of constant motion.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
"Hollywood (in general) does cheap ascientific things because it makes better movies than the real stuff."
Exactly. Plus can you imagine a scientist scripting the love scene?
"The mass of her heaving bosons betrayed her entanglement with Higgs, the mysterious agent she longed to know but had never seen."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You mean they expect it to prove that the goddamn dirty perverts did it?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
So then you agree with my point that IF a god exist the science is extreemly relivant and IF god does not exist there really isn't any good reason to care.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Actually, a science class is the *perfect* place to debate about ID - precisely because it does such a good job of posing as science. Probably the most important think for a kid to take away from a science class is what science (as a whole) is about - theories that make useful predictions, that you can build engineering disciplines and technologies around. ID is such a great example of what science isn't, I'd be certain to teach it if I were a high school science teacher.
It won't make much difference to most student's lives if they come out of high school believeing in evolution or ID, but it can make a big difference if they develop the critical facilities to spot junk science (and the products and legislation based on it).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This idea is retarded. Contrary to popular belief, there is no shortage of science majors to fill the science positions in the United States. The job market, especially for physicsts, is terrible right now. I could give examples of the sacrifices it takes to become a researcher, for little material gain, but you're better off hearing it from someone who has been through this grinder, as I am just starting down this path.
In addition to this, a lot of scientific research, while it can be really rewarding in the long run, is fscking BORING! day to day. (Guess what I do for a living.) Are we really helping children by giving them unrealistic impressions of what it's going to be like if they grow up and enter the sciences. In the movies, scientists go from the desgin stage to the production stage in a matter of hours and whatever they come up with always works on the first try. Guess what? This never happens in real life. Never! If you design something new and build it, it's not going to work the first time.
I think it would be a lot better to stimulate the production of media that actually talk about science in a way that is accurate and accessible at the same time, in contrast to most of the stuff I heard about when I was kid.
Marilyn Von Savant (don't know how to spell her name, but she is the lady in the Sunday Parade magazine that comes inside newspapers and is supposed to be in the Guiness book of world records for highest IQ) actually said she thought engineers were the most important people in our society. Just thought that was interesting, because I agree with you that typically engineers are undervalued.
that they don't have the most idiotic scientists they can find at least. i can almost see it now: they say it's educational, but they'll pick the weirdest people available to make it more 'interesting'. o_O ">:O i'm building a pill that'll make my wang 5 feet loooong!" ":O YOU, sir, get a $300,000 research grant, too."
~it's the ultimate dinner show~
As smart as Spider Robinson thinks he is, using the sink as a urinal is a terrible idea. There exists, at least for me, a strong visual association between the sight of a urinal and "the urge". I don't want to feel an urge to pee every time I walk into the kitchen.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Imagine Professor Frink as the lead character in The Simpsons. Enjoy.
1. Come up with ways scientists and engineers can get money for suggesting story ideas to professional script writers. Hollywood is a nasty place where everyone is trying to steal ideas, sue for an allegedly stolen idea, or closed to new ideas lest they be sued. That needs fixing.
2. Come up with ways scientists and engineers can serve as consultants with movies to make what they portray more realistic. Even the classic Star Trek had problems in that area.
Our society also needs to persuade our young to spend less time idolizing rock stars and celebrity airheads.
Finally, for you scriptwriters out there, if you're looking for stories ideas along the lines of Tolkien's fantasy, look into the tales by someone who influenced him, William Morris. Especially look at The Well at the End of the World and The Wood Beyond the World. William Morris is Tolkien, but with lots of beautiful women who're actually in the plot.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
This definition sounds to me like the opposite of science, or at least what someone who doesn't know any scientists thinks 'science' is. Science is nothing more than truth in advertising. It is high fidelity procedure based analysis. Religious types are jealous that scientists are actually effective at improving and explaining the world, whereas vomiting up metaphysical colloquialisms about the physical world just makes smart people sound retarded.
I'm looking forward to the new generation of wannabe math majors due to NUMB3RS...
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Zen and the Art of Making a Living : A Practical Guide to Creative Career Design
A good book, with the only downside being a bit wordy.
Planetes has dead on physics and barely extrapolates any new technology:e .php?id=2654
e .php?id=771
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anim
While we are at it the President could popularize Virgin Fleet:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anim
to popularize their recruitment and abstenence programs:
"If you hold out you can use your virgin energy and fly planes and do cool stuff in the navy!"
I had not heard she was running.
Does the thought scare you that much?
Women say they like geeks. But it's more likely they'll go for the musclebound alpha-jock just itching to slip her the roofies, then come crying to you, asking why, oh why she couldn't fix him.
Normal, non-geek women are not for us. It's not meant to be.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm a whitewater kayaker and so know a little something about hitting the water at high speed (off a waterfall). For drops above 20 feet, boaters focus on penetrating the water with the bow of the boat so as to break surface tension. Above about 40 feet, that is no longer enough, and the boater needs to aim for the area of maximum aeration. Well-aerated water has a very low surface tension and so is safer to hit at high speeds. Waterfalls have been run over 100 feet without injury this way.
So the shotgun would have a very different effect from a hammer in that it is more likely to aerate the water. Not that it would work anyway (air hurts at 150 mph, let alone water), but it important to understand the principle at work.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
It's one thing actually figuring out how to solve a "novel" math problem, and it's another to say you've memorized all the tricks and shortcuts to get the right answer on a test without doing any actually solving. Though I suppose I'm wrong in the first place to equiate intelligence to IQ (but where does one draw the line?). However, knowing about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) will tell you that people with the iNtuition (N) typically do better on tests than those with the Sensing (S). Either way, it's neither here nor there.
"It's precisely because I think we ARE accidents of nature and evolution, that we only have our lives on this Earth to spend, that I am motivated to learn, to do, and to interact with others."
Your list is very telling. I noticed a very important omission. Are you motivated to seek out what is true? How about when what is true would be to your personal or professional detriment? What if you owned a tobacco company and could PROVE tobacco killed people? should you share your research?
Science is the search for what is physically VERFIABLY true.
Religion is the search for what is spiritually true. Spiritually true things are not verifiable through the scientific method because they exist outside the physical realm by definition.
You are very right that a belief in God makes the things that are in heaven MORE important then the physical world, but it also makes the things in the physical world MORE important then if you do not believe in God, because the physical world is moved from being a chance occurrence with no particular meaning to be a most exquisite piece of art designed by a far superior intellect which expresses something vitally important about that being. What does it express? Love.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Look, we all saw what happened when the dot-com thing happened. A whole lot of people flooded the market with their quick certifications and career changes and very few of those actually had real tallent or ability. They lowered the value of the career category, the expectations of employers and displaced a lot of people better qualified.
What would happen in areas where even more critical sciences are developed?
While I think it's important that people sit up and take notice that it's the people that make technology that really make things move into the future, I would not want to see a bunch of people dressed up like scientists without the genuine aptitude for it. I think it could be dangerous.
If you want to fight anti intellectualism in this counrty lets fund our schools better, AND remove ridiculous, rules governing what is taught.
Reward students who succeed.
Don't dumb down the curriculm. Itelligent Design is not science
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
The US took off economically after WWII largely because of the GI bill, which, more than anything else, created the American middle class.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It really depends. Being a student deeply interested in physics (although I enjoy all school subjects), I really have a unique opinion. It irritates me sometimes how Hollywood can screw up science for the sake of film. Star Wars Episode III, for example. I loved the movie, but that crash scene at the beginning was just stupid. There is no way that the water from the fire ships would have even touched the crashing ship: it was going too fast. Of course then there's the fact that Ion cannons and repulsorlifts aren't real. Glamourizing science could have a considerably positive affect or a negative affect. The bottom line is that kids will not learn chemistry or physics or whatever as long as they think they can get by without it. I choose to learn as much as I can because I have no idea what I will and will not need in my life. 40 years ago if someone told students to learn how to use a computer because it would help them in life, they would have laughed at such a folly. But look at us today. I like the idea, but I think education needs some creative ideas. Of course, that's a discussion for another time...
You, sir, are fighting an uphill battle. Take some sacks of the words "pique" and "peek" to distribute among the heedless masses, and try---try!---not to lose heart.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
This is an attempt to stem the tide of Asian/Indian dominance of Science/Medicine/tech. Jimmy Neutron was one of the movies that glorified geekiness and there are a bunch of other movies that touch on it... but the thing is movies are the wrong avenue.
When I was a kid I watched 3-2-1 Contact, Reading Rainbow, and most importantly Mr. Wizard. Mr. Wizard was a show on Nickelodian in which an older gentleman paired up with kids to do cool easily-reproducable experiments and teach science. He had a show where he used an old Mac to draw a spaceship and then airbrushed in some white smoke (like an early version of paint) and then animated the smoke and lift-off. This instantly drew me to computers and was the true start of my love and interest in science and computers. Movies are one shot deals and not grounded in reality, a weekly show that shows kids like yourself doing cool stuff will get kids interested.
There is the show Zoom and Dragonfly TV, both which do a somewhat good job nowadays.. but they are sillier and not focused. But better than 99% of the current shows which don't have any moral/learning value at all like spongebob. Even cartoons used to have a real message at the heart of them and usually taught a valueable lesson, now it is all just fluff... gee, I wonder why American youth are so ignorant of any number of subjects. Hell, in a college World History class only four people got the bonus question of "Place an X on the country of India" and it was during the time of the Tsunami!!! These are sad times for kids/teen learning, I'm glad my mother had the sense to force me to watch educational TV... I'm thanking her now.
Movies are not the answer.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Science is not going to attract the best of the best (i.e. the folks that can do _anything_ they want) until :
1) pay is better
2) working conditions are better
Right now, working as a scientists means relatively low pay compared to a good actor, financier, lawyer or pro athlete-so if you can do those other things, you will.
Furthermore, working conditions are problematic. Look at what really successful guys like Kary Mullis and Philo Farnsworth have had to go through. Working for the army is especially bad: Put up with egotists barking orders and get paid beans.
National security of the US is doomed. These guys just don't get it.
Forget the multiculti crap and blow some sh*t up!
What?
How about this:
Camera pans to show children playing with various toys. Billy is sitting on the side by himself playing with his chemistry set. The more popular kids are playing with a football. Suddenly Billy decides he's superior than his friends and vows to remain alone for the rest of his life so as not to soil his intellect with their mundane "fun".
Suddenly something in one of the tubes starts fizzling. Suddenly the President comes into view and hands Billy a big bag of money and says, "By God Billy, you've found a new weapon of mass destruction" Everyone starts cheering.
All the kids playing with non-science related toys grow up, get married, have kids and live out their lives in bliss. Billy takes his money and rolls around naked in it, then slips into a deep depression and blows his brains out. Billy is given a parade in his honor.
Roll credits.
A little extreme perhaps but having the government try to manipulate us through the media (like they don't already) sounds a little like brainwashing.
in the subject line. Was EPIC FAILURE one of your DND skills? Early post?! What the shit is that? "Oh, I'm too lazy to try for a real frosty poast, so I'm going to claim an early post!" You fucking FAIL IT, FAIL IT and FAIL IT.
Oh, and your sig is a fucking hideous abortion. Is that supposed to be some kind of retarded half-swastika?
You're on to something interesting. You're partly right; without religion, there's no such thing as a knowable absolute Truth. The question really is, whether that Truth is important, and what I mean by that is how much our actions are affected by the presence of Truth or the lack thereof.
I suspect for most people, Truth is important, because it tells them what's right and wrong, what to do, what not to do. It makes everything black and white--either something is True or not True. It's simple, and most people wouldn't mind living without the worries that a lack of Truth would produce.
For the rest, Truth is but an ideal. It's probably out there, but what it is is probably not applicable to the real world where nothing is absolute. What these people seek is truth (with a lowercase "t"), which is also known as the pragmatic truth, best described by William James as our observations, what we know to be true. This truth changes as we gain more experience and knowledge over time. It is the only truth that is important, or relevant to our lives, because we do not, will not, and cannot exist in the ideal.
Now I'll answer your question. Truth (with a capital "t") is a goal and must be recognized as such. Science is the search for this Truth. Religion is a search for this Truth, albeit through different means. But we must also recognize that we'll never find it--ever. We can only ever get closer, through our unending refinement of truth (with a lowercase "t"), as we continue to gain more knowledge. And therein lies the intrisic value of a subjective or malleable truth.
I've heard that if a young black man studies hard in school, he's said to be "acting white." Similarly, my daughter (salutatorian) observed anti-intellectual attitudes by "the cool kids" at school. Since I'm a geek, and before that a nerd, I feel these kids' pain. I tell them that living well is the best revenge and their slacking peers may well find their vocation includes "do you want fries with that?"
Living well is the best motivation for our nation's youth. My son has an excellent grasp of technology. He also has an excellent legal mind. Though he could easily become a geek like his dad, I'm encouraging him to go into law.
If our government wants to encourage science and technology, it will have to make science & engineering a better career choice. I've made a lot of money as an engineer, but I would have made a lot more as a lawyer. I have friends who are geeks and a few years older than me who'll probably never work as engineers again: Age discrimination. I took the LSAT myself after I noticed that I see a lot more old lawyers than I see old engineers.
You can very well conduct experiments trying to explain the origins of life. That you're too dumb to understand the material or to know how to look for it is hardly the fault of science, idiot.
Yeah, like our Jewish George W. Bush. And our Jewish Dick Cheney. And our Jewish Karl Rove. And our Jewish Rupert Murdoch. And our Jewish Grover Norquist, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and so forth.
And their opposition, like the not-at-all Jewish George Soros or Noam Chomsky.
Here's a tip: sobbing "you meanie anti-semites!" every time someone criticizes the administration isn't going to fucking work. Now scram. Shouldn't they be waiting for you on Little Green Footballs or Free Republic?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Their political leader is the smartest man since Einstein. His grand unified field theory will be presented at Evil Genius Con 2006, with a working Moon phaser proof of concept, shortly after he wins the Super Bowl and defeats Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Is this as dumb as the founding of the Mormon church?
So I guess my point is, money will attract people, but it's the interest that keeps them. I think glamorizing it might bring some kids to find interest in it, but the fact is, most science jobs aren't all that glamourous and getting hit by the reality of that may make careers short-lived.
Maybe that's why the kids in China are more interested in science; when you live in a communist society, nearly anything can be considered interesting and glamorous.
eh...anything pertaining to the origins of life should clearly be taught as philosophy. there is nowhere near enough proof to teach any one idea as a scientific fact to children.
for most of the people of the world, the idea of the origin of life is a fundamental axiom of their entire belief system (read: principles, values, morals) - even, i dare say, those who believe in evolution. this goes the same way with creationism, which shouldn't be taught as scientific fact, either.
teach 'em as unbiased philosophies and let the kids make up their own minds. jeez...i don't see why this is so complicated.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
"is a good thing"?
Hey, you lost already.
The war against intelligence (not the military kind, the one some of us carry with us) is on, and it's making good progress. If US scientists are inspired by holywood-grade science, the world can be at ease, the US will be a scientific backwater in no time.
In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
Maybe some DOD funding is all that Hollywood needs to get off their collective asses and profit off of these ready-to-buy stories.
Might even make some non-geek guys turn to science. Might also be some buyer's remorse when they realize that in the real world, the math/physics geeks with big tits are old fat men.
For a long time in high school and college I wanted to be a theoretical physicist. Got into computers. Fell in love with computers. Realized there is no money in being a physicist. I would have ended up eating soup-in-a-cup for life being someone's lab bitch. But, everyday I wish I were creating, inventing, discovering something wonderful that will propell man closer to utopia. So here I am at work, in a cubicle no bigger than my closet at home, my legs are killing me. I'm getting no excercise, but gaining weight by typing code and dealing with freaks. No sunlight, constantly looking over my shoulder. Married, but no sex life. All-in-all I think I ended up the same way.
But, I do make lots of $$$. I love my electronic gadget toys and huge freaking 30-inch LCD HDTV that I use as a monitor at home, and doubles as a monitor for my XBox and PS2. Hooray for broadband because it substitues the porn for a sex life.
Yes yes, I agree so much. But why stop at evolution. We should talk about giant turtles holding up the earth as much as regular astronomy during astronomy class. People based their entire belief systems out of such notions after all.
Or that volcanoes are angry gods who can only be sated by sacrificing virgins. Lord knows we wouldn't disturb such practices (if they existed today) as we might disturb the basis of a culture and besides, it's all equally plausible - definitely has a place along side geological science.
Nobody walked on the moon -- it was a hoax. Need to include that in history class.
What else? I'm sure I've missed thousands of "alternative philosphies" that need to be included along side subjects based on evidence.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I do beleive in absolute truth. i.e. I believe that some statements are not matters of opinion, but are literally true or false. I don't know of anyone who claims to disagree with this. I do know of quite a few rather annoying people who claim to agree with this, then go on to claim they have certain knowledge of things they clearly beleive only because they resonate with them; and they want everyone else to accept these things as true, despite a lack of any evidence, and in many cases the logical impossibility of their beleifs.
"if there is not god what is 'wrong' with me forcing you to believe whatever I like, assuming I were capable of something so asinine?"
It would be asinine. I guess you mean, what inarguable authority beyond you, me, or any other human opinion would declare it objectively wrong? And the answer is: None, so what? It's still wrong, according to me, so I'll tell you so. Just because I take responsibility for my own moral judgements doesn't make them inferior to those of people who ascribe their own moral judgements to some imaginary higher authority. Quite the oposite if you ask me.
"The theology I adhere to teaches that God is unchanging in state, but is in a state of constant motion."
I can't manage to interpret this as anything but meaningless or contradictory. Nor do I understand what existing 'outside' time would mean. If one who did not create time must have been created by the creator of time, why doesn't that creator need a creator? Uh-oh, talking about the creation of time means I'd better stop, I've already started trying to apply logic to nonsensical concepts. What could it possibly mean to "create time"? There wasn't time before is was created? Woops, that "before" doesn't work...
Propaganda works. Fighting fire with fire is a great way to combat the dumbing down of the US. I do think that rigorous education is the -only- acceptable way for civilized individuals and groups to oppose the increasingly high level of religious/superstitious idiocy that sane people in the US now face. If it takes propaganda to help provide that education, then it takes propaganda. The alternative, a theocracy based around one of the absurd abrahamic religions, is nothing to be taken lightly.
WE CAN DO IT!
Back in my laser jock days at UCLA, two fairly young (early-20s) people came into the lab where I was working. They were from a studio or a production company, I don't remember now. A few minutes of looking at the assembly of equipment and they left without saying much.
To get to the point of being able to operate that equipment took a public school education, then an undergrad degree, plus grad school. If I'd seen a movie that made it seem glamorous, and on the basis of that film started on that path, I would likely have never stuck it out. Real science is punctuated by too much unavoidable dullness.
I've had a similar revelation, after talking with real military pilots, with whom I was working, after we saw "Top Gun."
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
It's not science fiction, it's fantasy. The technology behind the movie is not interesting to the Pentagon -- why should they be funding the next generation of CGI experts? And science museums have been doing this sort of thing to earn money for years, since planetarium laser shows set to "Dark Side of the Moon" have nothing to do with science but bring in lots of cash.
Conclusion: Your joke wasn't funny and you still fail it.
Let me expand slightly. without invoking Right or Wrong there is no rational reason to justify CARING about what is true. truth is no longer any more relevant the falsehood.
For instance if I held no strong moral beliefs and you could prove to me scientifically that it was detrimental to myself and all involved for me to brutally touchier and kill people who disagree with me we might image our conversation would go something like this.
U: Look what I can prove.
Me: why should I care.
U: um, because you should.
Me: I don't and there is no reason I should. Give me one reason I should.
U: walk away frustrated because you have no answer. Without invoking right and wrong you have no way of persuading me I should not do what I know is wrong if it pleases me. Further more all the scientific proof in the world is completely irrelevant to me because I don't care about your (t)ruth because i don't believe in (T)ruth.
This would force the outside observer ( as many people are) to note: 'Fat lot of good all your studying and hard work did for you to accomplish your science. Why should anyone care, little lone me. I don't see the point in me wasting my time with any of that science stuff.' And it is exactly that attitude that is undermining the interest in science today as far as my personal experience has shown me.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
Don't we do that now? Isn't it called "The Sci-Fi Channel?"
obviously... i meant to say "WEREN'T actually found to be HOMO SAPIENS."
it's a ridiculous meme: "oh, some scientist looked real carefully at some neanderthal bones, and he realized that actually they were just old humans, and everyone who had said 'this is neanderthals, different group than humans' was wrong!!!"
sometimes the meme goes even further: "...therefore all evolutionary theory is dead wrong!"
idiotic.
that guy babbling about moon/bat/shit/asstrich is pretty weird. and stupid. and: he thinks he's right. about everything.
there's too many of them.
He probably finds the thought of Hillary running scary because it'll mean having a Republican president for four more years.
Or maybe they can try running another Massachusetts senator.
The real problem is in our universities and how they are rated by U.S. News and World Report. The best and the brightest who already have a demonstrated interest in science and engineering are getting attracted to research universities that are more interested in producing research papers and running their own businesses than they are in producing the next generation of scientists.
Take for example the Number 2 rated engineering university, Stanford. Is it training the next generation of engineers, or is it resting on the laurels of achivements by its graduate students trained at other universities? Read http://www.epinions.com/content_73675148932 to find out one engineering undergraduate's experience that runs contrary to the conventional wisdom.
Seemingly corroborating that opinion, Ray Delgado reported in the Stanford University Report (May 19, 2004) about the problems that exist in advising undergraduates (bold emphasis mine):
Are faculty spending too much time consulting (advising) outside companies and serving on boards (compensation for which is, at a minimum, from $20,000 to $30,000 annually) rather than advising students? Do low student participation rates reflect student dissatisfaction with poor matches or bad advice? Is the "psychotropic medication" complaint just camouflage -- and how do other colleges deal with the problem? Is the phrase "sound advising program" merely diplomatic doublespeak that contrasts sharply with the 12% participation rate? Or was the word "deaf" intended?
It's hard to imagine that a film created by the Pentagon will improve the situation. The Stanford Daily complained (May 14, 2004)
eh...anything pertaining to the origins of life should clearly be taught as philosophy. there is nowhere near enough proof to teach any one idea as a scientific fact to children.
I think you have a basic misunderstanding of science. There are only around 20 "laws of science". Those are the only things that should be taught as "fact" (even those its always good to question). The VAST majority of science isn't "fact" its more "best guess at this point in time". Should we only teach those 20 or so laws?
for most of the people of the world, the idea of the origin of life is a fundamental axiom of their entire belief system (read: principles, values, morals)
OK, the idea that the Sun circles the Earth used to be "a fundamental axiom of their entire belief system". Should this have disqualified ever teaching that the Earth circles the Sun? Believing the Earth was created in 7 days and is only a few thousand years old also used to be "a fundamental axiom of their entire belief system". Should we "adjust" history and geology classes to reflect that?
Lets look at another more relevant example. Say you are going over the different periods of the Earth and looking at how "humanoids" have changed over time. The average height of us/them is a simple example (though just one of the more minor changes). So you are looking over millions of year and seeing average humanoid height growing fairly drastically (in the scheme of things). A kid asks why that is. Choose your answer from below:
1) Every few thousand years god comes down and stretches everybody.
2) All organisims tend to change over time in ways that are more advantages to them in thier environments. This often happens via the strong more adaptable among the specises surviving and passing on those genetics. This passing on of advantages traits over time can cause changes in the specises and we call that "evolution".
3) Shhhhhh!!!!! We cannot talk about that!!!!
The most annoying things is even those who support ID accept #2 as the answer. They just want to go one step further and mix the most decidedly UNSCIENTIFIC concept of "Well boy, thats pretty complex! I betcha that couldn't just happen. There must be some'um dat made it happen. I ain't got no proof or nutt'n, but we should teach in those science class thingys that maybe god made it happen."
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
My wife is a classical pianist... and for some time, I've lamented the fact that she can only expect to make a fraction of my salary as an engineer. But after working in R&D for 4 years now, I can see that I'll never make as much as those who went into law or business.
I loathe the concept of "karma whoring", but come on -- George W. Bush is an illiterate retard, and everyone knows it. Pull your kisser away from his ass for a while and pay attention to the rampant anti-illectualism his administration has been breeding.
Yeah, but the tests are being made easier every few years. Kids today are getting the same scores on easier tests.
Which is flawed because intelligent design isn't necessarily exclusive of evolution. The literally interpreted, seven day version of creation is, but evolutionary creation is a perfectly acceptable theory in most Christian traditions.
My premise is that without God most individuals find scientific truth of little VALUE.
My premise is that without invisible pink Unicorns, invidividuals find scientific truth of little value. The problem with my premise is that it's completely ridiculous: and so, too, with yours.
The world doesn't have to have an evil divine overlord demanding harvest sacrifices for scientific truth to have meaning. The world doesn't need Kings appointed by Divine Right for scientific truth to have meaning. The world doesn't need blind faith for science to make a meaningfull difference in people's lives.
Science provides us with the miracles that religion promised, but couldn't deliver. No Pope ever raised the dead: but surgeons can now save the lives of patients who's heart has stopped beating. No priest ever moved a mountain by an act of faith; but our bulldozers and digging equiptment move more earth than any thousand priests could by hand. There's no evidence that anyone ever "spoke in tounges" without first learning the language they were speaking; but Babelfish brings us closer than any priesthood ever could. Science lets us fly through the air; heal the sick; raise the dead; communicate with people at vast distances; and predict the weather.
The people who pray to Gods say they can do all of those things; and when they're proven to be lying, they just waffle, or backpedal, or decide that the claim was a metaphoric truth, not a literal one.
Science is predictable, reliable, and logical, and it gives us the technolgy to make life better. We lived through nearly a thousand years of misery thanks to religous fanatics who were searching for their mythical "spiritual happiness" in a ficticious afterlife. Science offers us a better life in this world, and makes no promises about magical, invisible fairyland places.
Of the two sides, who should you trust: the guys who gave you medicine, sanitation, literacy, transportation, communications and general comfort and happiness, or the people who gave us the Inquistion, the Crusades, the Dark Ages, famine, pestilence, and general misery?
For a religious person what is true SHOULD be the single most important thing in their lives. Religion is almost by definition the search for spiritual truth. On the other hand without religion you are much more hard pressed to justify why you should care what is true at all.
I see your problem.
Truth is defined to mean by scientists to mean something that is rationally consistant; not blind faith in a premise despite all evidence to the contrary. "Spiritual truth" is an oxymoron, and one that begs the questions, besides: we have no evidence of the existance of any spirits, so how could they have any truth to offer?
Religion is not the search for truth; it is at best the half-hearted search for pre-concieved notions that lie at odds with rational thought.
Science is the systematic, exploratory search for the truth of the world, as discerned by repeated observations and careful deductive reasoning.
Religion is the ridiculous shortcut that says: "I'll stop thinking, and just believe some comfortable dogma". There is no valid reason for religious belief: it's merely the force of ancient, bloody traditions. If a religious faith truely had the support of a God behind it, it would be absolutely unstoppable by mere mortals.
As we see by examining religions across the world, religions only exist where their followers do. There is no evidence of
There's no evidence of any divine practice within the history of the world: if you can provide some, there are people who would appreciate the proof. If you, or anyone, can really "talk to God", could you please warn the rest of the world the next time a tsunami is coming? No? No divine power? Can't move mountains? Can't lay on hands? Can't do anything your Holy Books say you can?
Why am I not surprised?
For almost the first time in history, we're in a country where we won't be killed outright for rejecting the prevailing religion. I suggest you take advantage of it, while you still can.
--
AC
to improve the glamour factor in career in sciences; why not stress good hygiene practices among the geeks; deodorants, shaving arm-pit hair etc. Wouldn't help if people loose a few pounds around the waist as well.
All you have is your circular argument: "Without an external agent to motivate me, by definition I can't be motivated." So what? Your problem with self direction is not a limitation for everyone.
If you have to invoke invisible men pulling strings to keep yourself from killing people, fine. Whatever works for you. Most of rest of us know and care about what's right and wrong without such crutches.
"None, so what? It's still wrong"
The problem with the situation in your second paragraph is that without appealing to an absolute cause of 'right and wrong' all you can appeal to is common perception. If i don't share your perception then you no longer have any case and the result is that if I am stronger then you, you lose. More over why should I care about the consequences of my actions on YOU if I like their consequences on me and those I consider important, supposing I don't like you or consider you important.
as to you last paragraph stating with: "I can't manage to interpret this as anything but meaningless or contradictory."
well, maybe you should think about it. I will try and expand a little.
if a god exists it is fair to say it is the force which is the cause of the universe including time.
I'm not sure how you cause anything without time , but I am sure that time had a beginning and that there is nothing that has ever been observed that has had a beginning but that did not have a cause.
It is however not that difficult to believe that there may have been a cause that had no beginning. atheist say time was caused by random chance.
so chance is a cause without a beginning.
I think it is much more difficult to believe there is a beginning without a cause. ie time just is and was not caused, even by chance.
The problem is that chance as we understand it does
not posses the quality of being real. It is only a mathematical construct. So how can a mathematical construct be what imparted reality onto the universe. I claim the first cause then was a force.
That is a force that creates time and space.
It existence does not depend on time and space.
It is without form as we know it. it therefore is indestructible. It is without time as we know it it therefore is unchanging. since it is the cause of time and cannot change it must be continually the cause of time because it is not possible for it to stop causing time. so you must say that this force
IS causing time not did cause time because the force must be unable to change.
That is a start of the Theology I adhere to.
If God exists then God must be in some way equitant to that force which is the first cause.
'God is never changing yet always causing' which perhaps is a better way of wording the original statement I made.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Why not pay the real directors to make a movie specifically about science and then just have the scientist review the movie for accuracy? Terrantino (sp?) directed the season finale for CSI, what could be better?
Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
Took me bloody ages to get the gobbledygoop they talk out of my head as the yardstick for "real science". Reverse the polarity on the warp phase transponder! Ehhh.
Yes, but the intelligent design part of this still isn't science. It's proper place is in the church or a philosophy class, not in the biology class room.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
as two rocket scientists. Gosh, isn't that cute or what?
A moonbat is someone leaning too far LEFT politically. Conservatives lean too far RIGHT.
I'm guessing you often get lost while driving.
Sounds like something that maybe classes in Screenplay writing could help with. That would be one of the things they teach there, right?
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
There are darned near 600 posts already here.
I am sure damn near all of them will say the same thing.
The answer is so obvious it does not need special funding to solve.
Science/Engineering/Technical stuff requires a LOT of study to get it right.
In my case, engineering school only taught me enough vocabulary to talk to the real wizards... it took around 30 years of working along wizards before I had encugh experience I finally felt comfortable working with this stuff.
In the case of computer stuff, your learned skills are often obsolete before you even graduate - even worse now that a lot of the lower-level jobs where one would learn on-the-job are now outsourced.
With the low level stuff now outsourced, just where does one go to get experienced to enter the high level arena?
By our economics, we have told our younger people to stay out of arcane specialized technical stuff , just as we have told the earlier generation not to go into factory assembly-line kinds of work - there's no jobs assembling washing machines or televisions in this country anymore. My generation has been told we don't design stuff here anymore either. We sell stuff. We make money. We dont DO stuff, instead we deal in rights so we can sell permission for a fee to permit someone else to do stuff.
Who cares whether or not this country can feed its own materialistic appetite as long as we can finance our way in the world with borrowed dollars.
When a farmer is serious about getting water into his field, I see him install pumps and lay pipe and trench his area so the water will flow to his plants.
When I see our government getting serious about growing technology in this country, I will see them easing the way, removing restrictions, rewriting IP laws, easing employment laws, doing what they can to enable those of us who still know how to bring a product up to form small companies and hire others and begin producing product again in the USA.
Yes, there are quite a few of us in this country who have the skills to bring products to production, but many of us are dormant, held down mostly by legal and taxation means.
When the government takes their foot of the taxation and IP liability brakes, the car will start moving again - and go even faster if they goose the accelerator.
But, for now, government has given all indications to me they are quite content to sit on the side of the freeway and watch the rest of the cars whoosh by.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
You have noticed the logical reaction of a society in which the greatest crime you can possibly commit is to make someone feel ashamed of themselves.
Is an outstanding scientist. He's also a physician, but bailed out of the program after passing his Step III. He has like, money, too. If you're wanting "screenplays" written, talk to Mikey.
As him to write one about junk-science...
Billy is actually accused of blowing up his school and those popular kids playing with the football.
Furthermore, those kids go on to either play football professionally, or instead join the Army, sometimes both. Parades are given in their honor, not Billy's.
If he's lucky, Billy will get a plea bargain that lets him join a government lab and design weapons of mass destruction. Years later, Billy is featured in documentaries that blame him for the death of millions of innocent people.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Not too many kids are going to be enthralled into following the modern scientific pathway.
1: Bust your butt in high school and college, while your friends party.
2: Spend your life from age 22-30 slaving away 60-70h a week as a grad-student/post-doc, locked up in a dank room with a bunch of geeky guys. During this time, you get to write a dozen papers that will be ready by ten people each, and which no one cares about, not even you.
3: Finally graduate and get your 'real job', only to realize that your friends with BS degrees are already making as much money as you are, while your friends who went to professional school are making much, much more.
More over why should I care about the consequences of my actions on YOU if I like their consequences on me and those I consider important, supposing I don't like you or consider you important.
Because with that attitude, there will always be someone bigger and badder than you that will feel the same way about you, and will also have no qualms with squashing you if it suits them.
The golden rule isn't religious in origin. It makes damn fine sense whether you believe in a god or not.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
What we need is Oliver Stone to Produce and Direct "Einstein" Starring Tom Cruise who takes on the militant Newtonian Regime who are not-so-secretly pro-Axis American Scientists with German accents and monacles. Against these insurmountable odd and through sheer brawn and courage Einstein overcomes these rotten ne'er do wells and splits atoms for all mankind. The final scenes will be Albert personally dropping the fucking a-bomb over Nagasaki and then flying home victorious into the arms of Gwyneth Paltrow.
Booyeah baby!
"As opposed to someone else's POTUS?"
Yes, as portrayed on TV. You might be suprised just how many people think that "The West Wing" is the real deal.
The fact that the Pentagon is driving this says much about our personal and political leadership. The military should worry about defending the country and the politicians should worry about education, business, politics, etc so the military has a qualified pool of potential resources, be they people, chemicals, metals, whatever they may need. When the military has to step in and do the job of the parents and politicians for their HR pool, many someones are screwing up royally somewhere.
Chance 'em.
Although I'd agree with you with regards to Asimov, as a counterpoint, Michael Crichton (from Harvard Med) does a phenomenal job at writing science fiction -- 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Andromeda Strain' are two works that really got me interested in pursuing science.
I am a research scientist, and trust me, I wish my post-doc salary was $50,000. My hourly pay-rate barely exceeds that of my brother, who is a janitor. Even when I do get my first "real" job, I will be making only a bit more, if any, than smart people with a BA and a lot less than a doctor or lawyer. Note that lawyers typically get their first "real" job at age 25. I will probably be 31.
To a large degree, this has a lot to do with the portability of science jobs. Doctors, and to a large degree, lawyers, are by necessity local. This is not true of science, which can be exported. Hence, a doctor in New Jersey does not need to compete against a doctor in China, but a scientist does.
I don't mean to sound trite, but ultimately all moral beliefs such as you describe boil down to this. If I have found a truth that helps me to improve my life in one way or another, and you refuse to believe it for whatever reason, then I will necessarily live a better life than you, and my children will grow up to be better and stronger while yours will die off. Evolution at work.
Now if you don't care about your own existence, that's your affair, but I like mine and want to enjoy it while I have it. There are plenty of very rational reasons to care about the truth, the number one reason: ignorance can kill you. If you don't think that's important, then sooner or later, your genes will be removed from the gene pool. So you either care about the truth, or you are an evolutionary dead-end.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
Tell that to Senator Rick Santorum. I heard an interview the other day with him talking about, while he respects those people who believe evolution, he thinks ID is a viable view as well... all the time speaking about them as if they are mutually exclusive!
Well I could see Jena Jameson pulling that one off ... wait, did I say that?
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
is out doing this this. I havent seen what she wrote yet, I'm going to have to bug to to sent me her story again. Shes very exited
Just use Jules Verne's The Mysterious Island.
Do you remember?
5 people and a dog are brought to an island somewhere in the Pacific before the end of War of Secession in 1865. The island appears to be uninhabited and there is no way for the travellers to leave. One of the is an engineer, one is a botanist, one is a journalist, another is a sailor and the last one is a black servant.
The engineer finds ways to use the natural resources to make the living much more comfortable: creates nitroglycerin, makes soap, builds dams, an elevator and even a telegraph. They also build 2 boats, and since the engineer is capable of figuring out where they are in the ocean within 5 degree error, they find out that there is another island nearby and sail there.
Then they meet Cptn. Nemo.
Oh, man, I loved that book.
You can't handle the truth.
Continuity also seems to be a low proirity now. It really astounds me that so many projects that have so many people working on them can make it to the screen with so many glaring errors that people that have done high school science or have some general knowlege should spot.
I don't see the solution as getting specialists to write scripts, but to get someone other than the producers nephew who no-one can challenge in any detail to write the script. Much more effort goes into the script of the average stage play (which is almost always going to have a lower budget for the entire production) than goes into the average movie or TV episode. The solution is professional scriptwriters.
It seems to me that this is just an attempt at "cheap education".
A startling fact is that the number of students pursuing engineering and science degrees and careers is shrinking greatly. At a time when other countries, such as India and China, are stepping up their national education in science and technology, the US is making budget cuts in education funding.
Now I don't consider myself a liberal...in fact, I am a moderate who leans in many ways toward the conservative side, but these budget cuts scare me. If we can't foster the brainpower today that will keep us competitive tomorrow, jobs will keep flowing to India. But this time, they won't be call center or grunt-programming jobs. They will be development jobs. Design job. Knowledge jobs. That is what really scares me.
This article, and this practice, seems like nothing but a smoke-and-mirrors trick to divert money from the real problem. You will inspire far more students to take up careers in science and engineering if you pay to hire good teachers (like those that I was fortunate enough to have) than by making Tom Cruise a rocket scientist. It may cost more, but the raw returns are much greater. This should be a supplement to widespread greater science and engineering funding, NOT a replacement. It would work much better that way -- to have students see it on TV as a catalyst, then go to school where their teachers make the subject interesting and fun.
If you think nothing humanity has created is worth anything without the blessing of some space fairy, then I guess you are right. I just figure that the existence of some omnipotent pointy haired boss does not really impact anything we have to do to as species. If god exists then it is obviously not doing anything to help humanity, so it is up to us to survive. If it doesn't exist, it is still up to us to survive.
I guess it comes down to whether you want to do something because you think the space fairy told you so, or because it makes sense from a species survival point of view. Does there really have to be any reason other than that?
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
Consider this. Lawyers have far higher lifetime earnings than scientists. A law degree usually takes 7 years of college. Meanwhile, a scientist can expect to spend 8-10 years at university, followed by 1-3 more as a post-doc, before getting a job with lower pay than they lawyer started at four years before. The same general point is true with doctors, though their residency requirements make the temporal aspect more even.
Also, a scientist two other major disincentives:
1: Job flexibility. A doctor a lawyer can get a job almost anywhere. There are jobs for them in every city in the country. For a scientist, this is not true. Where you live is almost always determined by where you can find a job, and generally, only a handful of companies fit a given scientist's background.
2: Meeting women. Simply put, it is very difficult and you will be working in a heavily male-dominated environment - and there all the time. As a scientist myself, I am quite confident that my colleagues are much more likely to be single than my equally-intelligent friends who took different career paths.
What about Howard Dean? Dr. Dean? ...Not that he's really DOING anything toward fostering a scientifically-(or intelligence-) oriented society, but its worth noting that he does have a Ph.D.
As long as the unions have a lock on the pay-scales, and refuse to acknowledge that a BA in Communications from NorthSouthWestEast State University is not the same as a BS in Physics from MIT, the problem will not be solved.
There simply is not enough money to pay all teachers from kindergarten through high school science the salary that a good secondary science teacher deserves, nor would this be fair. The private market recognizes that science is worth more, and pays accordingly. Our schools must do this too, or they will never attract a large number of good science teachers.
Your high school teachers probably did not have even a BS degree in whatever they were teaching, and if you went to a poor school, maybe not even a minor.
in China...
I suppose I better get to work on Mandarin.
What in the hell do the department of agriculture scanners they force all your baggage through at the Honolulu airport do?
It's all about complexity.
Where does it come from? Is complexity "preprogrammed" (designed, if you will) in the universe, or do the basic rules of the universe somehow generate complex structures as a possible (or even inevitable) result of things which are very simple and uncomplicated? In other words, can something complex come from something simple? Clearly a human being, or any other living thing, is a very complex thing; an immense and fascinating assemblage of proteins and other molecules. How could something so wonderfully complicated ever be created out of or by something that was not equally if not more complex? (The old Watchmaker argument.)
An interesting but rarely appreciated fact (even by many modern scientists) is that even very simple initial conditions and rules can produce behavior that is arbitrarily complex and self-sustaining. This applies to everything from abstract logical systems to physics, computers, and everyday life. If you are interested in this phenomenon then see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Disregarding such common mistakes as confusing evolution of species over time with the origin of life itself and/or the Universe, I think there are a few intellectual stumbling blocks many people have with "Evolution".
One of these is that "something" (life) cannot come from "nothing" (a primordial universe of diffuse, hot gas and radiation) without a guiding hand. Of course, something did not come from nothing; the complexity of the precursors to life was slowly increasing over eons. We owe our own life here to the presence of a relatively stable rock already endowed with carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, and a relatively temperate and appropriately placed hydrogen fusion source in this particular place. The assumption seems to be that a guiding hand is neccesary to increase complexity over time and create these conditions.
Before Rockstar could come out with Grand Theft Auto, there had to be a previous generation of stars in this area of the galaxy, well before the birth of our own Sun. The complexity of this previous generation solar system was relatively lower, as any planetoids around early stars would have been bereft of those critical elemets such as carbon, created only (as far as we know) in the heart of stars. There was no chance for life to evolve in such a primitive solar system. Yet the seeds for our own life were nonetheless planted in there. The complexity of these earlier star systems (compared to a diffuse cloud of gas) was in turn wholy dependent on an earlier seed of complexity in the initial accretion of primitive matter and energy that later became the Milky Way (or its predecessors.)
Our galactic neighborhood may have in turn been born of a more primitive ripple or fluctuation in the primordial blast. The source code for Grand Theft Auto was in no way implanted in this local pertubation of matter and energy that developed into our corner of the universe, yet it somehow emerged anyway.
So is the universe like a computer following some kind of program? Not exactly, at least not like we think of contemporary computer programs written in C++ or Java with thousands or millions of lines of source code. One might imagine a "program of the universe" that goes something like this (paraphrased):
create swirlling primal matter, then create local star system, repeat N times, forge higher elements, create Earth-like oasis of calm areas, create primordial soup, create simple replicating molecules, create more complex structures evolving into bacteria, then into fish, then shrews, then finally into Claude Shannon, so we could have information theory and eventually, Grand Theft Auto.
Of course that is ridiculous. My point is that the "program of the universe", should we be capable of even partially comprehending it, will likely prove to be amazingly and mind bogglingly simple. It would not likely stoop to addressing the details of su
Real scientists work on incredibly minute projects that are of interest to only few dozens of people around the world and comprehensible to a few hundreds. Each individual step is incredibly small but their sum is the impressive things you hear about on TV. In the major journals in my field, I would estimate that only 1% of articles truly have any new idea, and only 10% of those are actually likely to lead to any useful result. The rest are just minute evoluntionary steps on well-established foundations. And then, you have the lower-tier journals, which are purely evolutionary work.
The US seems to think scientists will take words instead of wages. That scientists will accept abuse, rather than seek a more receptive climate elsewhere. Its the typical approach of narcissists. Those who take and never give. Those who think they have some kind of right to lie. Which brings me to a question. Why are scientists being persecuted here in the US? Could it be because science refuses to be politicized? Or because scientists are speaking out against the looting of Americas future 9and treasury). About global warming? It just might. There was another global superpower that made the mistake of persecuting the learned, the cosmopolitan and the scientists. Spain. They never recovered. In the Inquisition, (which officially lasted until the 1800s.) During that time Spain threw away a positin that made them the envy of the entire world in the 1500s and 1600s.. Why? Like the US, they were fatally obsessed with the preservation of their rigid status quo.. Millions were tortured to death for witchcraft and heresy.
in-field degrees than chemistry, physics, and math teachers. Even when they do, it is also another sad fact that the number of science teachers coming from the top of college classes (determined by grades, test scores, whatever you like) is falling rapidly, while teachers from the bottom quintile are becoming more and more common. It is for the same fundamental reason - the private sector rewards competence and the public school system does not.
The truest cause of anti-intellectualism is the anti-religion movement
Firstly, you shouldn't equate your feelings regarding truth with those of the 'anti-religion' movement. I highly doubt that many of them feel that truth isn't important without belief in god.
Why truth?
This is a difficult question, because truth is generally accepted as being good in and of itself, even without reference to god. Fortunately, however, science goes even further, in requiring theories that are falsifiable. This means that theories have to have a demonstrable effect on the real world for them to be accepted as sound. So the answer to your question as to why you should care for (scientific) truth is that you can use it to have an effect on the real world. For example, you can build a house that doesn't fall down as a result of scientific truth in physics. And if that isn't enough justification for you, i don't think anyone can help you.
You're still missing the point with your assertion that "[ID] does such a good job of posing as science", and with your belief that ID is in any way worthy of scientifically debate. ID is based on belief, not on empirical evidence.
ID is part of an IDeology (there, a mnemonic to help you keep it straight). As such, it might be debated in a forum for political ideas, in a religious studies class, or in a philosophy class.
I think, however, that the basis of your problem is a misunderstanding of science. I base this on your description: science (as a whole) is about - theories that make useful predictions, that you can build engineering disciplines and technologies around, which is a bit lopsided. I'm not saying that your summation is utterly wrong, just that it is utterly incomplete.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
That wouldn't have anything to do with the new scoring that raises a perfect score from 1600 to 2400 now, would it?
And how do we like that Vonage banner ad promising that it doesn't require a Phd in Nerdness?
"The problem with the situation in your second paragraph is that without appealing to an absolute cause of 'right and wrong' all you can appeal to is common perception."
While it might be a very nice thing if there was an absolute cause of right and wrong, that does not make it so.
"If i don't share your perception then you no longer have any case and the result is that if I am stronger then you, you lose."
If we diasagree, and I cannot convince you by argument, and you are stronger, I lose; regardless of why either of us claim to beleive what we do. If you recognize that you yourself are responsible for your moral judgements, you are more likely to be swayed by my arguments than if you think they are imutable truth handed down from on high.
"I am sure that time had a beginning"
Why? Were you there? What was it like before that? How could time possibly have a beginning? "Beginning" is only meaningful in reference to time. Yeah, it's equally weird to think of time not having a begining as to think of it having one. But just because something defies your understanding doesn't mean you get to pick one of the nonsensical alternatives at random and start resoning as if it were true. Not if you expect me to treat your conclusions as anything but the random BS that "resonated" with you on one particular day.
"atheist say time was caused by random chance."
No, we do not. Atheists say that they do not believe that God exists. That's all. As a group, atheists don't say anything at all about whether time required causing; whether it might have been caused by random chance if it did. Personaly, I say "random chance" is a concept(redundantly described), not a thing that can cause anything=. I also say that the reason you're having trouble describing what it means to "cause time", is because it's not really a meaningful phrase. Causing something implies time.
In any case, this unchanging God you posit... Well, I'm having a hard time seeing how a universe where that God existed would be any different from one where he did not. To get right to the point: why should I care if such a God exists or not? Why should I not conclude he is a perfectly undetectable and superfulous addition to my model of the world, whip out occams razor and hack him off?
Who are the Republicans going to run?
Bill "Terri Schiavo" Frist?
John McCain will never get the nomination. either would Chuck Hagel.
Who do they have left that's worth voting for?
As far as science is concerned, it only cares about proofs. There are fossils, there is current living biosphere, where you get to connect the dots, come up with a theory through induction, then verify your theory's predicting power. In case you happen unto something that disproves your theory, you go back and reexamine it. What can I predict from intelligent design? That whatever else I look at next will also be a sign of intelligent design? Duh... I'll give you the concept of Foo, the world is because of Foo, life is because of Foo. Predicting power? Anything else you come across, you guessed it, it's a sign of Foo. Duh.. Sure, the Universe was created by GooGoo the Frog, currently living on bottom of the Lake Chiwauwa, nobody can see him, that's his undercover outfit he takes, but if he's threatened, he jumps two galaxies and hides under the molten sulfur volcano, on a planet near Sirius. What kind of benefit does this theory give me? Predictable power? Proof? Darwinistic evolution does not try to explain how the universe is, it only explains how life and the animal world is. It can predict what happens to life under circumstances, and it can explain the past, without arbitrarily summoning magic. Show me proof it's wrong. Sure, I can't show proof that your magic intelligent design is wrong, because it's outside of scope, just like my GooGoo the Frog theory. Anything's possible. Anything. That's a correct scientific mentallity to take on, to keep an open mind. But just cuz it's possible, we don't put it into science books as something accepted.
...please leave your brain at the door.
You want to "stem the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism"?
Try kicking religion out of the classroom and back into churches.
Oh and a having a president that doesn't want equal time for "intelligent design" aka creationism, is a good start too.
Which reminds me - I read recently about some professor making a comment about your fearless leader - something about the abiliity to get through an Ivy League education unscathed. Pissed myself.
(Posting under the assumption that this topic is germane at all to this discussion...)
ID does not preclude the creation of life on earth by Alien life forms from another planet after 'Terra'forming the earth
Say that aliens landed and designed life on Earth. The value of a theory (to science) is in how accurately it makes a prediction. Now, whom does ID, if it is a theory, predict would have designed those Aliens?
to write a screenplay? One. Just one. If you add any more scientists, the end result will be inconclusive.
[quote]
The reason is very simple if you are an atheist or any other form of moral relativist including those folks who go around trying to sport the claim that 'in the end all religions are equal' you cannot answer this question:
"why truth?"
[/quote]
Why not?
..don't panic
...he jumps two galaxies and hides under the molten sulfur volcano, on a planet near Sirius.
With astronomy knowledge like that, its clear you're a Hollywood sci-fi screenplay writer.
Blank until
And look what happened to him: he had a lobotomy and ended up being the dumb colonel in charge of a bunch of scientists. Hmm, SG-1 isn't entirely inaccurate then...
Blank until
Maybe they should be teaching MBA students how it's better not to outsource tech jobs and we wouldn't have a problem.
The OP still has a valid point about the pointlessness of life, the fact is just because a certain group of people want people to live certain kinds of lives or do certain kinds of work for their own temporal economic or national benefit is a form of collectivism and almost 'anti-individualism' or 'anti-libertarianism', because they are attempting to influence people's choices as a form of social control.
The fact is physicists have already started speculating if not talking outright about the evidence of natural cosmic disasters and the universes eventual death, if these pan out scientifically then really all of humanities achievements and work is moot if at some point (no matter how far in the future) their are natural circumstances that our descendents and their science/ability, and limits on the laws of nature that simply cannot overcome. S ay like a galactic collision or some other cosmic calamity us (perhaps) finally realizing the laws of physics exist in such a way making travel to other stars and our survival very low probability for our kind of life (even enhanced/genetically engineered life, i.e. immortality, etc).
You can go ahead and accuse me of being fatalist but any student of physics should know that the universe has its own giant program unfolding and that it may (and certianly gives the impression) for all intents and purposes that nature itself in it's ultimate unfolding over time is the absolute destruction of our kind as the universe cycles ands goes through it's motions and processes far beyond our ability to control it.
Religious faith in science and technology is just as bad as faith in religion in my opinion. Scientists often pour scorn on the "miraculous" wishful thinking of religious people, when they themselves are just as guilty as wishful thinking about human ability to transcend natures laws and become masters of those laws existing and surviving forever in this universe cyclic creation and destruction, with cosmological forces much that will most likely be much beyond the control of any human being for the rest of this universes existence.
Everyone wants to believe in hope, no matter how misguided, irrational and baseless it is, you could argue that irrational faith is key to our survival even if it is placed in science and technology rather then religion, because frankly I think hope in science and technology when looked at from a large enough scope of universal time is in fact irrational, there is plenty of evidence suggesting our kinds destruction in this universe.
We live at a point in time of the universe in a small oasis while the rest of the universe is completely hostile to life and many if not all our sophisticated artifacts, no matter how well built and shielded from universal processes that seek to rip them apart and cause their decay over time.
I wasn't trying to think there..
"Why should I care what is true?"
Your argument is full of holes. The fact is scientists, and people of a scientific bent, do care about what is true for at least two reasons:
- Their theories and conclusions can be analyzed and tested by others and if they are wrong and can be proven wrong its an embarrassment to the scientist
- The most important one is that when you move theoretical to applied science truth matters. If you are working from bogus theories and principals, just because they made you feel good, when you get to applied science nothing works. If you want to build things that work based on science you need actual truth in science.
If you opt for what makes you feel good in science instead of what is true you are a bad scientist and your work is useless garbage. You may as well not bother because you are doing more harm than good. When you find truth your work has value and people build on it to find more truths and apply it to build things that work.
Make things that work is a perfectly good motivation for science, scientists and engineers and it has zip to do with God or Jesus.
Now contrast the scientific search for truth with the religious search for truth. Religious scholars propose theories and principles in their search for truth too. The only catch is they often intentionally delve in to areas where it is inherently impossible for them to prove the truth of their principles and more importantly for anytone to disprove them. This is why the search for religious truth attracts conmen and people with weak minds. They can propose things that are insane and no one can prove otherwise. It is truly a waste of time because one conman's religious theory can be completely contradicted by another and another and another and there is no way to establish the truth of any of them. Its way easier than science which is why there are so many weak minded people in the religion game.
There are problems with today's liberalism, contempt for religiosity, and moral relativism but you are totally off base in proposing it has anything to do with the relative truth in science and religion. The problems lie in psychology and sociology which is in a gray area between science and religion. Most science is based on the search of certainty and it can achieve it in many area which is what attracts people who like to discover truths. It does bump in to things which are at present unknowable so science bumps in to religion and and there things are messy. People who want some certainty in their truth shun religion because seeking truth in relgion is a waste of time. It's inherently impossible to find truth there.
@de_machina
Your post is too full of stereotypes, I don't see how it was labeled interesting. Let us see which points you have made that are your own -
- China is going to overtake the world
- People in the US interested in science are labeled "nerd" by everyone else that matters.
- The only way kids are encouraged to be successful is to be a jock and to take the easy way out.
- Kids in the US are dumb because they watch cartoons while Chinese kids are learning useful quantum physics equations that they will use to build personal spacecraft for themselves, leaving all of us dumb americans behind on stupid ol' earth.
Nope, nothing really new or interesting here. Still waiting for the chinese kids to use their equations to beam themselves into outerspace so we can stop worrying about overpopulation, peak-oil and the like.
Dear AC, Your post is implying that stereotypes are bad. You list all the stereotypes then you say that there is nothing interesting there. But you never really prove or show that stereotypes are bad. It is as if I said "your post is full of adverbs, and that is why it should not be moderated too high".
The long-long term view is a bit depressing, but I'll be loooooong dead by then. I don't think it's that silly to expect that we might have power to keep ourselves alive after a few billion years.
Culturally speaking:
Is it any surprise that when the
neo cons get in bed with the
religious right that the offspring
can solve an equation?
Wow, Slashdot was broken for me this weekend, perl errors on any attempt to post :\
You're still missing the point with your assertion that "[ID] does such a good job of posing as science", and with your belief that ID is in any way worthy of scientifically debate. ID is based on belief, not on empirical evidence.
Well, you've missed my entire point. Telling stdents "ID isn't science `cause we said so, now go back to memorizing the Received Knowledge" isn't exactly going to help kids differentiate between science and religion. ID is literally a textbook example of junk science. The most important thing a kid can learn from any science class is critical thinking, and specifically how to apply the scientific method, and the difference between weight of opinion and weight of evidence. If there's time left over to teach specific theories, go for it, but that's less useful to most people.
I think, however, that the basis of your problem is a misunderstanding of science. I base this on your description: "science (as a whole) is about - theories that make useful predictions, that you can build engineering disciplines and technologies around," which is a bit lopsided. I'm not saying that your summation is utterly wrong, just that it is utterly incomplete.
If you intended to communicate anything beyond an insult with that paragraph, I'm not sure what it was. If the study of some subject won't eventually lead to anything of practical value then it's mere entertainment.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yeah, ok, sure.
Cool? Not always.
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
Everyone who needs this bit of code say Y.
It is probably safe to say N.
If you wish to build this comment as a module, please say M.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler