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?"
Because I saw this glamorous,compelling drama, and I wanted to be just like the protagonist. ^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The astro-physicists would all be wearing low-cut gowns.
I see you missed Godzilla: Final Wars.
Loved the scientist in that one, she reminded me of one of our research students here in Biochem who's from Japan.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
Ugh, the "can't teach creativity" line. It's not really true. Creativity is 'fostered' by teachers, quite effectively, by teaching people how to make use of their creative instincts. Most people can be 'taught' how to 'improve' their creativity, just as people can learn perfect pitch or how to draw. Even surreal anarchic comedy is 'fostered'.
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.
... 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.
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
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
I take it then, that you've never watched the original Flash Gordon serials, as I have. Dr. Zarkov had enough guts to build his space ship and launch it against an un-known force that was threatening to kill everybody on the Earth, and looked capable of doing it. He also had the sense to take along a "man of action," for those deeds of derring do that Zarkov himself wasn't capable of doing. Zarkov, Flash and Dale made a great team: brains and brawn, plus Dale as a highly-skilled lab assistant. (Ming respected her brain just as much as he wanted her body.) Not that there haven't been any number of cowardly scientists, mind you, but Zarkov doesn't fit the mold. He was quite willing to risk his life standing up to Ming, even if he wasn't the man to run around in close combat with the guards.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Ah, yes, the CSI Effect, by which laymen have come to expect instant miracles from forensics instead of a long, slow process of detection.
Here here. Let's please not focus on ID just because it is the latest thing to come out of this government. Rather, let's focus on the torrent of unsound and unresearched scientific claims made by the administration and the stifiling of scientists who strongly oppose such intrusion.
Here's a great place to start:
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Another good article about the CSI Effect. It talks about how jurors in cases expect the forensics in a case to be exactly like a CSI episode.
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.
This is nonsense. There is no reason to appeal to multiverse theories in order to account for the existence of life. I presume you are referring to fine-tuning; see here.
Beyond that, the fine-tuning argument is wrong to begin with. If you observe a universe with life in it, such that its properties are specially conducive to the existence of life compared to other properties it could have (it's "life friendly"), that increases the probability that the universe was not supernaturally created. (Who knows about intelligently but naturally created...) After all, a supernatural creator can make life in universes that are not conducive to life, whereas universes obeying natural law can have life ONLY in life-friendly universes. See this FAQ for a proof.
ALL evidence, no matter what it is, is automatically consistent with design. That's a bug, not a feature. You can't falsify it.
Of course not. That's because you know aluminum containers full of sweet liquid are made and transported by humans. You're just repeating Paley's dumb watchmaker argument. He was walking through a field and saw a watch lying there; he thought to himself, "it must have been put there", and then "reasoned" that seeing anything else, he should conclude that it was "put there" too. After all, plants = watches. Like I said, dumb.
What's telling is that Paley didn't have this "revelation" upon looking at, say, a rock. That's precisely because rocks don't look like they were artificially put there. It's only when you know the origins of something that its design becomes obvious.
This is not even remotely true.
Samuel Wright Bodman was sworn in as the 11th Secretary of Energy on February 1, 2005 ...
Born in 1938 in Chicago, he graduated in 1961 with a B.S. in chemical engineering from Cornell University. In 1965, he completed his ScD at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For the next six years he served as an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT ...
IANAE, but I walways thought that a CE was an engineer
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
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.
Hmmm, that's not really true, but it's clear that there's a lot of them in the highest offices including the very top posts. They may really dominate the younger bureaucrats as well since a technical higher education seems much more likely among the younger generation of Chinese leaders. A counterexample to your original claim is the defense minister, Cao Gangchuan (he was in 2003, at least) who had training in the "Nanjing Number Three Artillery Ordnance Technical School and Number One Ordnance Technical School".
According to this document, 496 of 535 members of Congress (both House and Senate) have at least a bachelor's degree. Of these, the vast majority come out of politics or law. There are 8 medical doctors and seven scientists. Not much is said here of the type of degrees held so it may turn out that there are more engineering degrees in the group than this sample indicates.
But it does indicate to me that China is a technocracy heavy on engineering and science, while US politics is probably dominated by softer "sciences".