Slashdot Mirror
The Decline of Science and Technology in America
puke76 writes "There's a good article over on the BBC about the decline of science and technology in the U.S.. Vint Cerf and others are going on record to voice their concerns about the current administrations recipe for 'irrelevance and decline.' Scientists are increasingly concerned about the White House's pandering to the religious right at science's expense. From the article: 'radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data ...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations.'"
It's been a while since Slashdot had an article bashing Bush that included religion and science. Nice to know the bias is still strong.
I am surprised that slashdot is essentially running an anti-christian/bush article, when the truth of the matter is that the USA is losing it's edge in science and technology because kids today do not have the patience to become scientists/engineers.
Also, there was just an article on slashdot about how the nobody is going into engineering fields anymore since their jobs are getting outsourced and the Chinese are threatening to take over the lead in the scientific and engineering fields, because they don't care about low pay and go to schools paid for by the state.
The average student loan bill is what, $50,000?
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
...about junk science.
Priceless.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
As for deficit, who says we're ever going to repay it? As far as I know there are no plans to repay the deficit in this country. You send us all your goods and we'll give you these magic things called Dollars, which keep going down in value. Works out pretty well for us if you ask me.
Why do you nutcases all refer to global warming as a fact? There is no facts to support that. You're a nut.
You're an idiot Simon.
Nevermind Islam. Christianity never did you any harm.
A "Christian Republic" would ultimately fail or prove useless because it would have no basis in reality. You can't build a very tall wall on quicksand, and you can't build a very informed society on religion.
[javac] 100 errors
So what this guy is saying is that America's lead in science isn't because America is slipping, but because the rest of the world is catching up. Am I supposed to be alarmed by this?
As for the Bush bashing, it's weak and tenuous at best. More of the same "Bush is anti-science" bullshit coming from the Iron Rice Bowl crowd. I'm sorry they can't get their federal funding handouts to investigate the nasal passages of gerbils during ejaculation, but I think - and most reasonable people agree - that funding the war against terrorism takes precedent to the ability of masturbating rodents to breathe.
From the article: 'radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data ...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations.'"
So the "professionals" are irked that they are no longer in charge and the relgious right is?
Both sides cry when the other kid has the ball. Solution, remove the ball from the playground.
E.G. less regulation, federal funding etc....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
"Nevermind Islam. Christianity never did you any harm."
Except eradicate the entire South-American Civilization, and kill hundreds of millions of Jews (I'm not just talking about WW-2, but pogroms from the middle ages as well). Not to mention evangelical christians leading armies of mass-murderers in India, China, the Phillipines and gods only know where else all throughout the 19th century.
While the damage perpetrated by chrisians may not be as bad as that perpetrated by muslims, it's still bad enough to warrant an end to the cult-minded religion from any secular moral standpoint.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
There were problems long before Bush Jr. was elected (or whatever). Great American science came about because of the massive cold war dollars that were spent in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and now people aren't willing to spend that money. Any other reasons for the decline are, in my opinion, just sideshows.
There is not consensus on the theory of evolution--certainly not on the way it is often taught in public schools. No one has demonstrated an ameoba mutating into a human being, infact, nobody has demonstrated anything else mutating into a homo sapiens.
:)
Nobody has shown that, given a certain set of conditions, life spontaneously generates.
No. The aspects of biogenesis, macroevolution, synthesis of homo sapiens from other species - none of these things have been demonstrated (to my knowledge - im happy to be wrong).
It seems disingenuous for you to attack ID for being non-falsifiable when to "prove" Evolution you'd need to witness things on an immeasurably long scale of time such that it is "non provable".
It's certainly harder to prove that something _cant_ happen than to prove that it did. Non-theological discussions of biogenesis rely on accepting that there is no supernatural explanation, which means that living matter must have been created from non-living matter (a tautology, right?.. as there was previously no living matter...) or "energy", of which we haven't yet discussed any notion of living vs non living... in any case, how is a tautological scenario falsifiable, and thus scientifically sound?
Fundamentally, science must suggest theories which fit the data in question. The best theories - the ones which seem to fit the data best - must bubble to the top. The claim of ID proponents is that an intelligent, omniscient designer having a hand/influence in the arrangement of matter to generate life is the most likely of the presented theories.
I, for instance, find that much more likely than NaCL turning into protozoa.
You'd suggest that ID is non-falsifiable because you cant conduct experiments to test it. Sure you can. Wait for the divine being to decide you're worth convincing that ID is correct about biogenesis. Then wait and observe.
That experiment is _no_ different than "create conditions similar to how we guess earth might have been $maxint years ago, stir occasionally, wait for miraculous process"
In any case, I'll do some more intelligent falling research. Thanks for the link
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
There is irony that it appears the Roman's were in fact, doing the right thing trying to nip Christianity in the bud. One wonder what the world would be like if monotheistic religion had never gained a foothold, if European civilization hadn't been decimated by the Inquistion, the dark ages etc. and Arab civilizaiton hadn't been decimated by Islam. Religious fanatics tried really hard to suppress Copernicus and Galileo. If they had succeeded we might still be flat Earthers thinking the Sun resolves around us and America would still be populated by peaceful communists in tune with nature.
If you've read much Nietzsche he does a pretty good job of covering why Christianity is a philosophy for the weak and the weak minded.
Let the Christian flamage begin.
@de_machina
But the fact that numberous people here are saying Christianity has declined science is fallacious and does not have enough evidence to prove itself.
Thanks for mentioning this. Christians are being demonized here, but the truth is there are loonies on both sides.
That said, Christians need never be afraid of the Truth, since it is quite literally our God. That means there is absolutely nothing that real and valid science can prove that can possibly disprove His existence. In fact, it is well-accepted amongst philosophers that objective truth and God are inseparable, and that if God does not exist, then neither can objective truth. Those philosophers who are reject God but are intellectually honest take this to it's logical conclusion of existentialism and the utter meaninglessness of life. Logically, God exists and life has meaning, or He doesn't and it does not. There is no in-between for a binary condition.
That the universe around us (and particularly living things) exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design is inescapable, even to evolutionary scientists looking for proof of their theory. But the real point of this debate should be that there are very good scientific reasons to doubt evolution. Evolution is the church of the anti-God, and abandoned any real pretense of science years ago. When "scientists" assemble a "human ancestor" skeleton made up of badly damaged fragments of bones found over many miles and numerous geological layers, why shouldn't we all question the validity of that "science"? (See Parent of the Apes, Part 1, Parent of the Apes, Part 2, and Let's talk about Lucy.)
That's *exactly* the sort of thing we should be teaching our students to watch for - people on any side of an issue who are willing to cheat to make their point. The purpose of real science is to expose TRUTH - nothing more, nothing less. Evolutionary science (and to be fair, almost all of of "creation science", too) are not interested in truth-seeking, but grandstanding. Any real scientists are only interested in finding what is objectively true and real, and since real belief in objective truth requires the existence of God (whether or not one chooses to live in accordance with His wishes), then atheism and science are incompatible. This was well understood several hundred years ago at the height of scientific progress when theology was known as "Queen of the Sciences". Theology was not paced above all other sciences because of church domination, but because it is a logical necessity, and people then were smart enough to realize it and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
It's a lefty outfit. In BBC-speak that makes it automatically "well-regarded".
Christian-Judism has always had a strong influence on America the influence is less and les each year.
This wasn't really true up until WW2. Then with the threat of the "godless communists", for the first time the wealthy elite (Republican Party) managed to ally themselves with the religious Americans. This relationship has proven very profitable for the wealthy elite, but hasn't really done crap for the religious people since they have allied themselves with the party whose goals are the diametric opposite of their own. Here is a really nice analysis of why this is true..
It's sad, but it's hardly the first time that religious people have willingly been duped and used against their own beliefs.
Do you think the ten commandants were recently put up in court houses?
In fact, I do. Because they were. Largely as a promotional item for the movie of the same name.
Same site, different essay.
Take any shred of religion out of the government, but don't tell me our forefathers or constitution says it should be that way.
It is really quite explicit about that.
Anybody who actually believes in their religion would be far more adamant about keeping that seperation strong than somebody who merely knows it's a good idea. Their religion can *only* be corrupted by any merger between the state and religion.
For examples, please see the entirety of human history.
What a shame!
And I thought the Americans are well educated better than the rest..
This is like quoting from various books that US is racist and that the blacks suffer discrimination, have higher proportions of convictions, and aren't there in the corporate America.
On the other hand, be you all in ignorance, while the Elephant and the Dragon rises. Your ignorance of India would only be an asset.
Let the sleeping dogs be.