Slashdot Mirror
Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science
fbg111 writes "From the NYT: A panel of experts convened by the National Academies, the nation's leading science advisory group, called yesterday for an urgent and wide-ranging effort to strengthen scientific competitiveness. The 20-member panel, reporting at the request of a bipartisan group in Congress, said that without such an effort the United States 'could soon lose its privileged position.' It cited many examples of emerging scientific and industrial power abroad and listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global lead."
Considering how the attack on science by religious conservatives has reached a fever pitch, I am not surprised that fewer people are entering the hard sciences as a career. When every scientific discovery is met by screeches and howls by the religious right, the general public is left with the impression that scientists are just another protected minority who are forcing their views on the rest of society. There is little to no discourse on *how* these scientific discoveries are vetted; but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic.
Biology and any other field of science dealing with the age of the Earth are destined to decline in the US. The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue. This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating.
Any student of history knows that Scopes lost his trial. Things haven't changed that much in the US in nearly a century.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
but we more than make up for it with intelligent desing
and aloose it come
It isn't just science. It literally hurts to be intelligent today. The kid comes into the world, sees what a great big pile of shit it all is, and then is given two choices: work hard to excel at making it an even bigger pile of shit, or smoke pot and listen to music or play games on the computer all day.
It's red pill vs. blue pill, and now that everybody has seen how the trilogy ends, blue pill wins every time. Want to change it? Take the Nazi out of Amerika and put forward a vision of where this country is going to be in twenty years that doesn't involve killing and torturing innocent people around the world.
Really it comes down to this: the propaganda being dished by The New York Times/CNN works well, but only for the retards. The kids you want to see building tomorrow's superweapons can think for themselves, and therefore see this shit for what it is.
And when you think about it, would you really have it any other way?
--
You didn't know.
remove Bush administration...
Copied verbatim from TFA:
If nothing else convinces you of the magnitude of this problem, consider the fact that The New York Times confused "lose" and "loose."
Given the United States penchant for spin, as evidenced by its political problems, we feel it necessary to warn you that U.S. Science may infact try to state that you don't exist.
Keep a sharp watch!
signed,
Advisory Panel
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Of course not.
When someone has a monopoly on steel, steel consumers suffer.
When someone has a monopoly on OS's, computer users suffer.
When someone has a monopoly on retail in a community, that community suffers.
But when education is monopolized, that does absolutely nothing to the quality and cost of education.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Odd, possibly Freudian slip. Granted, it's a typo for lose, but in the sense of letting it go?
It's already loost it's grip on english.
Panel suggests voting for the GOP is a vote for corruption, murder, waste, and erosion of US values.
when a country has god with it...
Every infomercial I watch talks about how every product is a leading scientific breakthrough for the 21st century. I have a channel on DirecTV that only has infomercials, so I should know. Just wait until Ronco hears about this!
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
.....that the typo is actually in the original article, too. :/
Wait, shouldn't this be "lose" and not "loose"? It's in the NYT article too, and I would assume they can spell.
One major question is why the Panel didn't mention the fact that religious fundamentalists are trying to legislate science out of the classroom, as illustrated by the Intelligent Design lawsuit going on in Pennsylvania? If you're not allowed to teach biology in science class, but instead, you must give "equal time" to "creationism", doesn't that tend to degrade science, too?
It's not surprising that the U.S. will lose its scientific dominance. It's a combination of the guns versus butter argument, an alarming increase in the politicization of science, and the general retreat of science in the face of religious zealotry in this country. Overseas outsourcing of technical jobs isn't helping either.
I imagine that after three more years of Bush being in office, we should be ecstatic if the majority of the population is still toilet trained.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
By labeling "intelligent design" as science.
When the label finally sticks, we'll be in the lead again. YAY!!!
Kansas will be the new MIT.
It's time to open source science and it can only help because thousands of scientists around the world will help US science become better.
it 'could soon loose its privileged position.' not before the editor looses his job....
Linux is to the internet as Duct Tape is to the Universe.
In response to a radio programme about Intelligent Design, I wrote the following, concerning the potential erorsion of science in Saskatchewan classrooms:
John Gormley of 980 CJME.com had two guests debate Intelligent Design, and sadly almost 2:1 callers thought that ID should be in the science classroom. Every one that gave a reason why they thought that, presented a flawed understanding they held about a scientific concept. As one caller pointed out, only the United States is looking at this debate seriously, and every country in Europe is laughing at it because it's so stupid. Intelligent Design is an attack on science by Christian fundamentalists who want to get their foot in the secular school door. An understanding of science is a blow to the culture of ignorance that a few of the fundamentalist leaders count on to maintain control over a bewildered and sheep like flock.
Here's what I wrote to Gormley, but he was only taking calls so it wasn't read on the air:
Thank you for having a discussion about Intelligent Design today. Your guest Larry Krause put it so well when he said that the effort to insert creationism into the science classroom is a perhaps "well meaning attack on science". Intelligent Design makes no sense in Saskatchewan, where it's apparent that we'll have a half Aboriginal population in a few decades. If we're to require a creator to initiate our earth's development, why should it be a Christian God that puts it all in motion? There are a number of creation theories, and I've seen nothing that the Intelligent Design crowd has put forward that discounts a mythological figure from Aboriginal history being the earth's true creator.
-
I don't think it serves our children any better to have Aboriginal creation myths taught in science class than it does to teach them God created your little bits and it wasn't the laws of the universe that did it. But I wanted to make the point that this is about religion, and if someone who's for ID is against Aboriginal creation myth, then they show their true stripes. It isn't about an "intelligent designer" it's about Christianity's God. It isn't about the "science" behind ID [which there is none], it's about injecting Christian myth into a class that our future drug designers, and doctors rely upon to be effective professionals.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Loosing your position gives you some margin so you can adapt to changes. In no way does that imply that you're going to lose your position.
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
This is sort of already in place. Every international student, who graduates can apply for a work permit known as OPT (Optional Practical Training, I believe). This allows that student to seek employment in a field that is relevant to his/her education and or qualification. It is not automatic but nonetheless I have yet to hear a student get rejected for it. But it ends right there. After the year is over the individual already has to have a work permit or have a petition for it to stay legally in this country. I have personally seen couple of brilliant students leave this country because they couldn't get the work permit in time. Thus this suggestion of "expedited residence status" could be a very benefecial.
But now comes the ugly side of it. I bet the locals will not approve of it immediately, for very good reasons. Now they have to compete with potentially very hard working and probably smarter people for the same job. And I have seen instances where an American has been passed on for an Asian because they believe that person is going to work harder for less pay. But this new suggestion, if it becomes law, tilts the balance in favor of international students a bit. They can bargain for higher pay and will that cause any difference is to be seen. Now, IEEE was really campaigning hard to curtail H1B a year or so ago. We have to see how they react to it.
Use the same 20 step solution to the Lawyer and Doctor shortage
1. Pay More
2. Pay More
3. Pay More
4. Pay More
5. Pay More
6. Pay More
7. Pay More
8. Pay More
9. Pay More
10. Pay More
11. Pay More
12. Pay More
13. Pay More
14. Pay More
15. Pay More
16. Pay More
17. Pay More
18. Pay More
19. Pay More
20. Pay More
The free market works. That's why our best and brighest are leaving Science. Dumbsh|ts!
Umm... yeah, after Bush invented his hurricane machine, he set about murdering all scientists using creationist goons.
Slashdot: news for Bush haters. *All stories involve Bush(TM)!
I guess the scientists are going to move to Nigeria, where they have a very high "happiness quotient".
I am a Fizzisist.
Don't mix the root beer fizzies with the orange fizzies. It's gross. Tenure is great.
Other than in military arms races, in what sense do nations have any compelling reason to "compete" in science? Science is a cooperative win-win enterprise. Althoughgranted there is sometimes some oneupmanship, I don't see how it benefits science. Why should I care if a Nobel prize winner is a Finn, a Nigerian or a some guy from New Jersey?
"The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently
I really don't feel that religion has anything to do with this. Most people, even the so called religions right are NOT anti-science. Actually, I could easily see any person living in the United States become deeply conserned in loosing its posisition as a top technological and scientific country, even those conservatives you speak of.
Realistically, the reason is the almighty dollar. Everything revolves around it, it always has and always will. In the US $$ speaks more than any religious morals.
Let's get something straight. The pending doom of American science has very little to do with our political climate.
It has far more to do with school administrations, culture, and parenting.
#1 Tenure needs to be removed. Peer reviews need to be implemented. Salaries should be review / performance based. Schooling for teachers needs to be DRASTICALLY improved. Remove all the buzzword-techno-political crap that's found it's way into teaching and just TEACH.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed. Yeah, so be it, some kids don't get schooled. If they nor their parents can put forth the effort, then that's too bad. Sure, we'll hear sob stories about how some are going to get left behind. Let me clue you in to a little secret. If you hold back our best and brightest to make sure no one is "left behind" then you're going to DESTROY the best and brightest. Or at least you'll have managed to severely inhibit their potential.
#3 Parenting. Why aren't parents do "fun" things like having foreign langauge weeks where they all try to speak different languages. Turn the fricken TV and computer off. Interact. Socialize. Take your kid out in the f'in garage and fix the car with him.
Finally, TECHNICAL EDUCATIONS. Go to despair.com and read the quote that states not everyone grows up to be rocket scientists. It's true.
If this were Fark, there'd be an obvious tag next to this. The problem is that the same people they're reporting this to are the ones consciously causing the problem. Until that changes, we can look forward to an across the board increase in ignorance.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Here's the National Academies link.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
If you invest a quarter of a million dollars into a foreign student (that's roughly the cost of a phd these days, at least at my university), sending them back to their countries is plainly dumb. Sure, they may out-compete Americans in the States, but that's still better than out-competing Americans from abroad.
The Raven
They force biologists to more rigorously prove the case for evolution. If not for this pressure, they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues. Imagine if creationists hadn't mainstreamed discussion of evolution? Then only a (relatively) tiny cartel of biologists would be analyzing the issue. Thanks to creationists, lots of people are poring over the evidence for evolution.
Imagine if the Bible said something about quantum physics (yeah, yeah, I know you can claim it does, but bear with me here). Wouldn't that speed up the demise of bad theories in that field?
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
In my opinion one of the biggest steps we need in general is to have both better educational material (make the subjects not only interesting but fun to learn) and better educators. Looking back at my high school teachers I am sorely disappointed in how poorly their teaching skills were... That disappointment has been further strengthened by some of my friends who are teachers now (Yes they are friends but when I talk to them I am truly amazed that they are allowed to teach...) We need to seriously revamp our educational structure in the US and get people interested early on. Pushing a book in a child's face and telling them to read it is not teaching in my opinion, but it seems that is what happens in a lot of schools today. Interaction, discussion, experiments and etc... are key.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
In response to the need to find out why scientific competetiveness was lacking, a study was initiated to solve this conundrum. However, the study was deemed inconclusive due to the lack of resources, mismatched numerical systems, and little or no understanding of the core problem.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Block all U.S. based access to Slashdot. We've seen the effect it has had on our youth. We could cripple our enemies while at the same time bring up the IQ level here.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
feasible for students to study in the science and engineering fields. As it is now, a student double majoring in chemistry and CS gets the same amount of aid as a student studying comparitive literature. It would be alright if there were enough scholarships targeted towards science and engineering, but then again, the number of scholarships targeted towards only those areas are comparable with the numbers in other fields. Making it even more difficult is the practice of not considering financial need in scholarships anymore....
I had to work my own way through college, and in some regards that taught me some hard, but very valuable lessons. However, while I was working I also felt that I was missing out on some interesting research opportunities etc. I just didn't have time for them between my schoolwork and work. I also got into a lot of debt which is why I am now working instead of in grad school were I could be doing something a bit more productive than my current job.
If they want more students to study math and science, then make it more financialy feasible for them to do so, or students will start looking at other majors that allow them to you know, sleep.......
Monstar L
Then you can only do one thing. The US is doomed, so you better move to those better European countries and their brilliant scientists.
I hear the Dutch are very forward thinking, they know nothing bad happens when two men have anal sex, so science should be safe there.
So anyway, sell all your US stocks and real-estate immediately people. You need to escape before its too late!
Swim to Cuba! They have doctors!!!
We had lots of blather from Washington, the school systems got some additional money, the universities went on a building binge, and the actual levels of education and real scientific research didn't move so you'd notice [1].
Basically, this is just too good a pork-barrel issue to let actual results get in the way.
[1] University politics being what it is, every department got its share of the take. The only stuff that went to "hard sciences" specifically was military and industrial research grants, and those were (of course) very heavily weighted towards near-term results.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I notice that one of the recommendations is scholarships for certain degrees, after which the receiver would be obligated to teach for a time to pay it off. I have a better idea: pay the teachers who have those degrees more than others. I know the teacher's unions will have a stroke at this unegalitarian approach, but screw them. The capitalist approach is, when something is scarce you pay more for it or do without. Why should math teachers who actually have degrees in math be any different?
Seriously, what other country disparages its "intellectual elite"?
Getting 10,000 new teachers into the school system isn't going to help if they have to teach religion in their science classes. Welcome to the US where 1 in 5 people believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Our problem isn't that we don't have enough teachers.
Our problem is that being smarter than the average makes those average people hate you. Most of them don't want to know that what they believe is wrong and they'll oppose anyone who tries to tell them differently. Which is why you see the fight to include things like "Intelligent Design" on the same level as tested and verified scientific findings.
How many corporations have scaled back or even eliminated their R&D departments because they won't turn a profit next quarter?
How much money does big oil spend to suppress new technologies?
Overly restrictive patents bar research by all who can't cough up the money to expand on somebody else's work.
Kids are actively discouraged from tinkering for fear of hurting themselves or hurting somebody else's bottom line. Want to experiment with chemistry? Here's some lemon juice and baking soda - but we'll arrest you if you put it into a plastic bottle. Want to play with model rockets? Prove you aren't a terrorist. Want to hack your X-Box and see how circuits work? The FBI'll be knocking on your door. Biology? Take pictures of a worm, but make sure it isn't endangered. Engineering? The city'll come and fine you for not building your treehouse to code.
When you get to college... how many professors actually teach science and how many spend all of their time seeking new grants to ensure the university can afford a new football stadium?
And of the precious little research that actually is happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
It really is disheartening to work your ass off being brilliant and cranking out ideas only to watch some beer swiggging retard get more recognition, higher pay and more promotions at work. Get an Accounting degree instead.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
"At a news conference in Washington, panel members estimated the cost of the new recommendations at $10 billion a year, a figure that may prove daunting to Congress in a time of tight budgets."
1 3/1359253
$246 billion--largely earmarked for 'friends of Washington' projects, e.g. "Help Poor Big Oil Rebuild Their Refineries"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/
$10 billion--to keep the US competitive in science and develop our best talent? No way.
I guess you need to keep a pretty tight budget if your goal is to have as much left over to loot as possible.
~Ben
and you will get folks wanting to be a part. send it all overseas, to destroy the society in order to further enrich the millionnaires, and what's the freaking reason to invest the time in educating yourself?
if Americans are going to be competition for illegal immigrants who will work for half of nothing, they damn sure will not spend two to six years learning skills they can't be hired for, and can't pay the student loans off for.
stop whining and bring the real jobs back home!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Why did it take a "Top Advisory Panel" to tell us this? Real science answers to real science questions
This will not be a problem for our country, because Bush doesn't understand. And anything our President doesn't understand isn't a problem. Didn't you get the memo? I mean, he understands terrorists and taxes, so those are the problems. Arithmetic, however, is out of his mental league, so the debt is out of his league. And all he knows about being jobless is going to Daddy, so unemployment isn't a big deal.
Fortunately, it is my understanding that he understands big, honking space guns and flying cars, so when we get to that point, he'll be all like "I want one!! I want it, I want it!" and then we'll have more science.
From the FA:
"...The cost of employing one chemist or engineer in the United States is equal to about five chemists in China and 11 engineers in India."
And how exactly will increasing the number of chemists, engineers and scientists graduating each year increase the appeal of this career to students currently choosing careers in business and law?
My thesis is that in increasing the amounts of graduates in sciences and "lowering prices" they will fail to actually improve the situation.
Microeconomics (oh yeah... THAT natural law) says that increasing the supply of these graduates will DECREASE the price they cost -- in other words by training more... they get cheaper!
College kids are choosing business and law because (a) there are more jobs and (b) they pay better. Decreasing the pay chemists and engineers receive won't improve employment in this area. Why are there less computer scientists these days. Oh yeah, no jobs.
Hence I posit that: Decreasing the cost of engineering and chemists will do nothing to increase the United States' competitiveness in these scientific endeavors
m
Obviously, the problem is that our IP laws aren't strong enough.
*snicker*
The problem isn't only fundies. The problem is also that scientists are often forced (either by an outside company or by their greed) to hide parts of their discoveries because they may have IP value. The discoveries that are released (in some industries at least) are sometimes used for their press release value rather than their scientific value. (e.g. Pons and Fleshman, Pharma industry, etc)
Science is a lot depends on a free exchange of honest ideas, so marketing and IP are no less responsible for the erosion of science than the fundies.
Free college, free books.
Well atleast make it cheaper.
Of course there would have to be constraints as to who would
get money spent on them but really. I'd love to goto school.
A 4 year degree seems way out of my reach.
Any suggestions are welcome, I want a material science or aerospace.
I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
Media in a lot of respects is responsible for the slide into a dumbing down of our society. The venerable Jon Stewart for example may have common sense when it comes to domestic politics and comedy, but he sucks at science. His eyes glaze over whenever a scientific topic comes up, and the jokes are always lame when he's discussing space or discovery.
Hundreds of years ago the most read books were written by scientists like Newton. Now that anyone can write for the world to read it, it only stands to reason that the quality will go down. The problem is that too many people believe the drivel they read, and don't think about it in a critical way.
Stewart had Outkast on his show, and the guy was playing with his PDA the entire time. Stewart obviously made a joke about it. But what saddened me is Outkast was bragging about his new home water filtration system, and was telling Steward how dirty the home water was before he had the filter installed. What obviously happened is that Outkast was tricked by a scam I learned of in University, where tap water is put into a clean glass, and then two electrodes are put into the water where a current is then passed through it. After a while the water becomes cloudy and yucky. The scam artist tells the victim that their water has that junk hidden in it, then he takes "filtered" water and does the same thing. The result in the filtered water is no clouds, because it's distilled water and doesn't conduct the electricity like the tap water does. The clouds are coming from the metal in the electrodes when it interacts with the minerals in the water.
This scam was given to the public at a science/chemistry lecture at the University of Regina in about 2001 on a topic concerning an erosion of scientific understanding at home about "chemicals".
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
the NY times article notes that they graduate a crapton more engineers but don't they have a crapton more people than us as well?? Don't get me wrong, it still appears as though they graduate more per capita, but it might be interesting to note how intelligent they are compared to american grads. Also, when's the last time you saw an american go over seas to get higher education? (aside from Cambridge and exchange programs) That being said, there's an ounce of truth to every exaggeration and I think we should push our education system to be the finest whether other countries are catching up or not.
I didnt think American science was limited to abortions and cloning.
Sure, we're smart. But we're also frequently:
- Lazy
- Get bored easily
- Poor at communicating
- Often unattractive physically
- Overvalue intelligence and therefore often judgemental of others
I am confident and can admit these flaws and I personally share some of them.
Just don't get arrogant thinking you are the perfect human because you probably are not.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
If everyone did that, you would all end up like the New Orleanians. Don't dare everybody to take their ball and go home, because if they do, they're going to want the money they gave you to pay for your silly little war.
Give it up USA, You've already lost. It's inevitable, in one generation or so the american supremacy will have gone the way of the dodo bird.
Seriously, I'm absolutely not one of the US-haters common here, but I can see what way your contry is heading. Things like general education has a huge social inertia or whatever you want to call it. Changing the course of a society takes a huge, concentrated effort over a long period of time. Thats not gonna happen, more like the opposite.
(and spare me the comments about my spelling)
I mean why work hard and study when you see dimwitted athletes on MTV "Cribs" with large houses and expensive cars?
The root of the problem is that we don't value hard work and thirst for knowledge, we value "things." Why is a company going to research a cancer cure unless it can get a patent on it and make a boatlod of money in today's world?
Neo-cons like Bush and their reactionary politics and backwards religious thought is not the reason we are seeing this slow down. DaVinci studied anatomy in spite of the Catholic church's prohibition on using cadavers. I think the fact that neo-cons can dicate scientific policy is a symptom of current enviroment, where anything that is studied has have some sort of financial reward. We even tell our children to go to college, not for personal growth, but so they can get a good job and make lots of money.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
I'm just waiting for somebody in Washington or Wall Street to say something like this on the record: "Let everybody else develop the cool stuff. If anybody develops anything worth having, we can send our lawyers to tie them up in IP knots, our investment bankers to buy them out, our our military to take them over. If the only goal is to be wealthy and powerful, then you can't ever have enough lawyers, MBA's and soldiers."
What are you talking about? The country is ***DOOOOOMED***
Its ***DEAD*** its all GAME OVER
The New York Times sez so!!!
Bush has already killed us!!!
Now give me +5 for hating Bush!!!!!
...where so many gadgets and inventions appear daily that continue to make science fiction into science fact, it is hard to motivate the younger generations to pursue the sciences. Why make a career out of a subject where you may never see the results of your work with your own eyes, when other fields have tangeble results from their work?
Other problems include:
- poor pay
- an increasing tendancy among scientists to take theory as fact
- increased outsourcing by american business
- unmotivated and/or knowledgable teachers(see poor pay as the reason for that)
- Greater competition by other countries
- The fanatical religious destruction of the scientific community.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
The US government is more than happy to Kowtow to big business; research and development is a COST to big business. ERGO:
Step 1 : Acquire lots of patents.
Step 2: Sit your hefty corporate ass on your patents, regardless if you use them or not.
Step 3: Litigate anyone who tries to "use your stuff".
Step 4: Profit!
Step 5: Stagnate.
Step 6: ???
Step 7: Lose.
GG! Re-roll in Asia.
I'm living proof of it.
And not to toot my own horn, but many of us are capable of leading balanced well-rounded lives.
Poltically involved, intelligent, athletic, caring, family people, many friends, do charity, etc. I do all of that stuff and know others who do as well.
But you would be correct if you said most choose the blue pill of sloth/laziness/greed/non-caring.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
"Considering how the attack on science by religious conservatives has reached a fever pitch, I am not surprised that fewer people are entering the hard sciences as a career."
Considering how the liberal left wastes all of their time nagging on the "religious" right for having morals and consciences and actually trying to make the world a better place, I'm not surprised that they've lost their majority in the federal government, and are starting to lose at the state level as well. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/00 3019.php
Now go and look at the history of those countries from the time when they decided that being one of the "intellectual elite" was a bad thing.
... unless they changed their opinion.
To me, it seems that they all declined pretty quickly and either vanished or are still on the bottom of the heap
You got two options people:
Either wise up and realize that being smarter is a good thing
or
Practice sucking up to whatever country will surpass us.
Castro knows how to keep his fundies in check...
Can I get a big slashdot "viva Castro!" now?
I can just tell.
While you Europeans kill yourselves with tobacco and every other drug under the sun, at least some of us Americans still have morals.
While you Europeans bash our country incessantly, why not take an economics class or two and realize that your method of artificially trying to create jobs just doesn't work.
Making 40 hour a week full-timers work 30 hours a week so that others can work is not sound economics.
Oh, and the birth rate in Europe is much less than the 1-1 ratio needed to simply maintain the current population.
So, while we in the US will prevail fine, expect to see much of Europe continue to disappear over the next 100 years and be replaced by the stream of poor uneducated immigrants that are currently wrecking havoc in the UK and other places.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Remove/revamp the "No child left behind" act (aka in schools and by teachers as "No other children get ahead"). They need to decrease the amount of standardized testing and start teaching students on how to apply the principles of what they are learning, not just memorize and regurgitate the final result.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I don't know what the schools in this country are doing these days, confidence building activities I suppose, but they sure as hell aren't teaching the kids how to add, read, and write.
Or in my case... type.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
As long as people can get an MBA and make millions moving OTHER PEOPLE'S money around, a lot of the smartest people are going to go into business, not science.
I don't see that changing. There's no money to be had in research, or production, at least not for an individual. It's all about owning property, whether it be intellectual or physical.
I can't figure out if you're trolling or if you're horribly mistaken.
> more rigorously prove
One cannot "prove" in science. One can only disprove a falsifiable hypothesis.
> they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues
Biology has and continues to progress quite well without religious fundamentalists trying to legislate their way into the classrooms.
> creationists hadn't mainstreamed discussion of evolution
Yes, and I imagine what the world would be like if the members of the Flat Earth society weren't constantly screaming at Rand McNally. Participating in legitimate scientific discussion is good. Cluttering the public with rhetorical tricks is a waste of everyone's time.
> cartel of biologists would be analyzing the issue
Besides the loaded language (and misuse) of "cartel," this is ridiculous. There is an amazing amount of dissent in good scientific discussion. But, you are correct; no competent scientist is considering the impact of fairies, trolls, or biblical floods on their experiments.
> Imagine if the Bible said something about quantum physics (yeah, yeah, I know you can
> claim it does, but bear with me here). Wouldn't that speed up the demise of bad theories in
> that field?
I'd rather imagine how much more good science could be done if religious fundamentalists weren't wasting everyone's time trying to legislate their nonsense.
If you didn't intend to troll, learn about science and the scientific method! You will be enlightened and possibly intrigued about how the process works.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
When I read the paper they are asking to teach both ideologies...
Besides, Its not like evolution is proved, its just the the best theory that doesnt include a god.
I am still stunned that evolution has anything to do with this isssue. Seems like Republicans put a lot of money in to space research and military research. Both require a ton of math and science.
Granted that religious fundamentalism has prompted a FEW prospective scientists to pursue other careers, I nevertheless seriously doubt that that's the real cause of the problem.
Other possible causes:
1. People like money and most don't perceive engineering/science to be high-paying.
2. Most people derive satisfaction from interacting with other people, meaning they get less satisfaction from numbers- or theory-oriented professions like engineering/science.
3. U.S. popular culture disdains "intelligence". Thus for most Americans "geek" and "nerd" are pejoratives. This perception may be coming around, albeit very slowly. I doubt we'll see any TV shows about 40-yr old molecular biologists who use their mental acuity to solve the world energy crisis.
The MBAs comming out of business school tell me that in the future, the US will just be managers "managing" all the stuff being done overseas - I should be an MBA too, or I'll be obsolete. If that's the stuff they're teaching our business leaders of the future we're just screwed...
And God said "In Any Right Triangle, The Area Of The Square On The Hypotenuse Is Equal To The Sum Of The Areas Of The Squares On The Other Two Sides, and This is Good !.
"He then Ordered his followers to read http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ and to register, for this was Good, Too"
"On the sixth fractal equation, God contemplated his finished creation in its vast splendor and saw that it was "Good", also "((The New Gen. 1:31))
On the next meeting, our Pastor, Hon. Prof of advanced Quantum Particles Physics Peter Hawkins, will explain us how God managed to create Free Will and reminded us about it by also creating Quantum Incertanity Principle as a practical example..
By - The First Church of the Flying Scientific Spaghetti Monster, reformed -
See, there is a theological answer to all your question ! 8p
Now Begone, Unbeliever !! 8)
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Considering how the liberal left wastes all of their time nagging on the "religious" right for having morals and consciences..
I'm a libertarian. I doubt there are many political topics you can get more "to the right" of than me.
Go flog another strawman. Religious conservatives have no exclusive claim to morals and conscience.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
(I submitted this to McSweeney's Internet Tendency. It got rejected, so you'all get to suffer:)
Suggested Names for Bills Requiring Intelligent Design in Schools:
Trofim's Law
Global Laughingstock Initiative
No Child Left Secular
Equal Time for Unbelievable Bullshit Measure
Last Nail in the Coffin for Public Education Act
Irreducible Complexity Sophistry Initiative
Created for Excellence and Metric Elimination Bill
National Irrelevance Act
Changing the course of a society takes a huge, concentrated effort over a long period of time.
This is certainly true, and points out one reason why the U.S. is sliding in science and other countries (primarily in Europe and Asia) are reaching and passing contributions U.S. science has made. By "U.S. science" I mean companies that are essentially headquartered in the U.S. and are supported by U.S. universities. That doesn't matter to science - but it's salient here because we're talking about the state of science in the U.S.
However, I'd argue that globalization has much more to do with this than any degree of disinterest in science. While the Soviets are the sole provider of missions to the I.S.S. the U.S. is also leaps beyond anyone else when it comes to commercial exploration of space.
Back to globalization: The U.S. was dominant in science because the aftermath of WW II, among other things. It was U.S. science and military spending that sustained technological growth that started in WW II and continued through the end of the Cold War.
But with companies becoming less nationalistic it stands to reason other countries will be reaching the mantle of scientific contributions. And that's a great thing - science depends upon money to fuel research and the more diversified that money the more stable its input will be.
So don't get too emotional slamming the U.S. - globalization has a lot to do with other countries gaining economies capable of sustaining the budgets science requires. Just because Europe and Asia are making contributions faster today than yesterday does not mean the U.S. is slowing down - it just means others are contributing more today than yesterday. If U.S. scientific contributions sustain or slow just a bit the 'gap' appears to be very large.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
1. Don't elect someone like Bush again. 2. (Science) Profits no need for ???
The way to a man's heart is through the left ventricle
I believe the reason is because companies are not interested in developing new ideas, but on "saving money" by trying to protect the "property" they already have. In fact, we're seeing these large former R&D friendly companies switch to making acquisitions of existing ideas and technology rather than experimenting with new ideas and technologies.
There is no good tax break for companies willing to take risks.. only benefits are to companies that peform patent abuse and sue others.
When we backed away from completeing the SSC, it signaled to me a
fundamental change in the US attitide towards long term science research.
It has been a slow downhill slide from there.
Years and years ago I read a great article by this title. Consider, that their are a small but finite number of smart students who have the potential to become scientists and engineers. Consider that they are smart enough to look at what is happening in the US. American society rewards people who can a) entertain the masses, b) move money around from one place to another while extracting a portion for themselves, or c) extract money from others via the legal system. Scientists and engineers must spend years in expensive and difficult training to qualify for their fields. Spend many hours a year keeping up with their fields. Work very long hours. Risk unemployment from changing corporate or government priorities. And worry about their career disappearing when industry decides to outsource overseas. So scientist / engineer vs. athlete / entertainer / financier / lawyer. For many smart students it's a no-brainer.
[Insert pithy quote here]
This problem is a direct result of the American obsession with the "Cult of Cool" The worship of what is cool strongly discourages those who are interested in the "Geek Culture" including the urge to find out why things work. The basis of science and technology.
The cult of cool doesn't value the geek. Therefore the work of the geek doesn't get valued and thus not paid very well.
To truly increase the numbers of people going into the sciences requires the deprogramming of the cult of cool.
Evolution has been tested and verified. Check about it in reference to the common fruitfly. If you don't believe that, then it is your understanding that is in error.Why would you have to?
That's only necessary with Intelligent Design because that cannot be falsified in any other manner.Re-read your statement. Here, let me clarify it a bit for you:
"What pisses off a religious group is when people try to prevent the teaching of their religious beliefs in science class."
I can see why that would piss them off
Again, thanks for volunteering to be my example.
The reason not to teach a religious belief in a science class is because the two are not the same.What is the "philosphy" behind "gravity"?
How does that compare/contrast with Nietzsche's philosphical approach?
Because A is somewhat like B
But it is not correct.
For "Intelligent Design" to be considered scientific, it needs to be falsifiable without the need for time travel or for God to put in a personal appearance.
Until it is falsifiable, it is not referenced in a science class.
Why work hard to discover or create or design things? It's easier to wait for other people to do it.
Then you sue them or tax them or fine them or racially extort them or divorce them or defraud them or trick them or persuade them or get their money some other way. It's easier that earning it.
Recently, American 12th graders performed below the international average for 21 countries on general knowledge in math and science.
Hasn't it always been like that? I remember hearing how bad American students are at math and science 20 years ago. But how come a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes in the sciences go to Americans?
America has institutions like Cal Tech, MIT, Standford, The Institute for Advanced Study and some of the best physics labs in the world like Lawerence Livermore and Los Alamos. It's the country that pioneered space exploration, developed the transistor, integrated circuit, and invented the Internet. It's a country that spends more on science than most countries combined and I would hazard to guess that most of the fundamental discoveries in physics that have paved the way for technology have come from the U.S.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
Economically, this makes a lot of sense for the US. It's also a nice deal for the many budding scientists and engineers around the world.
But one has to ask: if the US sucks up many of the smartest, most rational people in the world, how are nations like China, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan ever going to advance politically? They need an educated middle class, because it's the educated middle class, not the wealthy and not the blue collar workers, that drives nations towards democracy and freedom.
The best thing the US can do to fight terrorism and totalitarian regimes in the world is to educate people from around the world and then send them back. Of course, realistically, that's not going to happen.
One of his guests was Andy Grove (Intel co-founder) who grumbled (albeit VERY SLOWLY) something to the effect of: "Science is hard-- it's not easy for a 10 year old to learn chemistry, or for a 14 year-old to do differential equations. It takes work." And that every time some asshat (can I say "asshat" on Slashdot?) calls for "Intelligent" design to be taught to kids alongside evolution, SCIENCE is being DISRESPECTED. RIGHT ON, ANDY! --harlo
Maybe if we didn't let Bush hand out $BILLIONS to "establishments of religion", but instead subsidized more science education and production with the money, we'd see an actual return on that investment. We're talking about $2B for churches and only $6B for the National Science Foundation.
--
make install -not war
It cited many examples of emerging scientific and industrial power abroad and listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global lead.
Well, I guess I better get ready for the invasion.
In Asia, India, Japan (to a lesser degree), many parts of eastern Europe its prestigeous to be a scientist or engineer. Parents still push their sons in that direction. The president of China is an engineer, the new German leader has a PhD in physics.
Why train our own scientists when it is cheaper and quicker to simply hire away the best scientists from other countries? Saying we should spend more on training our own scientists is like saying the Yankees should invest in developing New York youth into world-class baseball players instead of simply paying top dollar for the best Cuban players! There are 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million in the US -- this means that 95% of the smartest people in the world aren't born in the US. Why should we pay to educate people when other countries are willing to educate them for us?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Anyone see a little parallel here to Asimov's ideas in Foundations? Scientific stagnation being a sure sign of the Empire dying...
I really don't feel that religion has anything to do with this.
You are wrong, as are the people you cite who are "not anti-science." Even if they dispute natural selection and genetics, they of course are pro-science when they are taking an ibuprofen or getting their children vaccinated or getting their yearly flu shot. And no one with a job or an investment portfolio wants to see America lose its technological edge.
But you, like these people, are not drawing the connections between their actions and the results. Science is not just a collection of facts. You cannot just choose to support the knowledge that benefits you (flu vaccines) and fight against the knowledge that disagrees with your beliefs (carbon dated fossils, genetic evolution). Science is first and foremost a PROCESS (not a collection of "facts"), and if you attack the process you are attacking the development of the knowledge that benefits you as well as the knowledge you don't like.
Developing an effective flu vaccine every year is absolutely impossible without basis in the theories of genetic inheritance and natural selection. These theories were not just proposed and voted on by scientists--they have resulted from and withstood investigation from the process of science, conducted by millions of independent scientists over decades.
Attacking the theories in the way that many conservative religious groups have, is to attack the validity of the scientific process itself. It's pretty hard to do a good job educating and encouraging future scientists when the very concept of science is being subverted for religious or political ends.
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.
We will rid you science blasphemers from our country. Only god is the true path. Repent now. Bless George Bush. You evil doers hate us for our freedoms and riteous religion.
When every other country has a cushy tenure system and you're a top scientist who can work anywhere, why would you refuse tenure? You must think top scientists are stupid. Do you really think they like constantly updating their CV and preparing for, and doing, "productivity reviews"? Fornunately, what good scientists like is doing science, not constantly elbowing for position with their peers. That's a part of the whole point of tenure.
The other part is that tenure insulates the scientist from the political fashions. Scientists research what they like, and whether or not it's popular with the current administration, their position is secure. If it weren't for that security, do you really think they'd work here?
He's right... link.
They just won't stay "on message". You tell them to say one thing, and they insist on saying whatever they want! They're just not Loyal Americans.
That...and I don't think they love Jesus...
It was better in the good old days, when you could just lock up anybody who disagreed with you...
</sarcasm>
(*grumble*)
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
The answer is very simple , put Football aside for a year and you have enough money
to sponsor scientific research and graduates for next ten years.
Its amzing to see how much money goes to sports in this country, Am sure its important
but when you are competing in a global economy what is it going to earn the nation ? come on..
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
2. or smoke pot and listen to music or play games on the computer all day
You mean I had a 2nd choice? Damn!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Why, forcing them to select American graduate students and pay a living wage would bankrupt them!
And those professors who are from Italy, or India, or Taiwan will be unable to get an H1-B visa for their cousins, soon to graduate from the University of [Parma, Delhi, Taipei] with a specialisation in cheating, and so will be unable to hire them as workers in the U.S. university's lab. And so will be unable to receive the thousands of dollars in thankful repayments that those people would make to them years after they were hired and graduated.
Oh, you've never heard of foreign graduate students paying university professors [preferably from their own country] and other personnel in the U.S. to help hire them and get an H1-B for them? My, my, your life has been very sheltered!
You can't make people take jobs that won't provide the standard of living they want. Americans simply don't want to live in dumpy apartments and eat sardines their whole lives. As long as their are liberal arts jobs which provide a better life, they're not going to enter science. If you divert more of their incomes into science, they'll just demand higher salaries for their liberal arts jobs and the few that are scientists will be even poorer.
Most people, even the so called religions right are NOT anti-science.
The religious right may not be against all science but it seems many are against evolution. Look at how some are atempting to get schools to teach ID or creationism in sheeps clothing. In science, biology classes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While it's easy to criticize the religious right for trying to poison science's well, I find it disturbingly easy to understand their motivation.
An earlier poster noted that "smart kids" can be stigmitized as "not cool" in school. My 12 year old son's suffering through that now. Perhaps some other Slashdotters have been on the receiving end over the years, too. My observation is that a significant percentage of the 80% of the population that are of average or below intelligence really resent the top 20% for being (as they see it) smug, arrogant know-it-alls who talk about a lot of stuff that doesn't really matter to the rest of the world. We (I like to think I'm in that top 20%) tell them that even though they don't understand the math to trust us.
This is, ironically, what religious people tell everyone else about faith in God.
Now let's look at the messages. A good priest or minister will tell you that believing in God will bring you Jesus's love and eternal life.
Scientists, on the other hand, will describe how cosmically insignificant you are, that the Universe is a cold and souless place, your existence was an accident of fate and that when you die you're gone forever.
Rationality aside, which message do you think most people will choose given half a chance?
The phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" unfortunately applies to a lot of current science and much of the world's population.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
1) Social promotion must go.
2) Kids need to learn basics of math and not bring calculators to class.
3) Smart kids should not be in the same building as dumb kids.
4) Dumb kids need to be steered towards vocational stuff and not college prep.
5) Children should be tested for hard science skills, at every level.
6) Parents should have vouchers to pick schools for smart kids.
7) Elitism is ok.
8) Social studies and world culture appreciation are not substitutes for math, physics and chemistry.
All of these policies are opposed to by the left wing and so they contribute just as much to the decline of American scientists as anyone else has.
This is my sig.
The first component necessary to maintian our scientific superiority in future eras is to use our scientific superiority from previous eras as leverage, to physically dominate our competitors. For example, if we use our nucular weapons from past eras and "employ" then over the major scientific centers of our competitors, then their scientific status will be reduced relative to ours, thereby ensuring our continued superiority.
The second component necessary to maintain our scientific superiority is to evolve the global legal framework surrounding intellectual property (IP), in order to give us intellectual control over scientific discoveries. The current legal framework is not yet complex enough to allow the patenting of scientific facts with a probable success in defending the patent in an international (let alone domestic) court of law. However, if the current campaign to homogenize the practice of patenting software methods is successful, then this success will serve as a stepping stone in the legal continuum from software to pure mathematics. Once IP law has a firm foothold in the field of pure mathematics, it is an easy step to the field of natural science. Finally, once key natural science IP is firmly controlled by American interests, we will have the necessary leverage internationally to enforce our IP to maintain our scientific advantage. Foreign competitors will not have the financial means to persue their objections through the more evolved international legal system of the future, when American megacorporations can fund their legal assaults from the customer bases belonging to the nation states of these very same competitors.
The third and final component necessary to maintain our scientific superiority is to win the hearts of consumers, the world over, through emotional guidance. This involves using mass media to effect moral standards. By saturating listeners with the plain facts that scientific property (SP) belongs to the patent holder, and that using this SP without permission is theft, we can ensure that the general world consciousness is ingrained with a moral sense of duty to uphold the law and protect the SP which is the legacy of all Americans. This requires that the SP law be enforced relentlessly, and that this enforcement is publicly visible. The IP legal framework described earlier can be used to ensure control of the mass media, such that potentially disruptive philosophical IP can be screened out at the hardware level, thereby ensuring a positive feedback effect of emotional guidance.
In conclusion, these three factors: physical dominance, intellectual control and emotional guidance are all necessary in order to ensure our continued scientific superiority in the world theater. Indeed, they are complementary to one antother, and together they can make America strong.
That was quick. First post already blaming ennui and apathy toward science on the "Religious Right". Nice try, but, really, this thoughtless cliche is getting tiresome.
Does it honestly make sense to you that kids aren't learning chemistry, physics, biology, etc because God told them it was Teh Stoopid? Please.
The truth of this is that it's a combination of pragmatism, feel-good academics, and bad parenting that are causing the decline of the hard sciences, and academics in general, in America.
Pragmatism: In other words, "Show Me The Money!!" Do kids want to spend their lives begging for grants and fretting over peer reviews? Maybe they can have their life's work to cure cancer patented by some big drug company, with their names scribbled on a by-line somewhere? Or maybe they would rather get an MBA, go into management or finance, and make a bundle? Face it, the financial reward just isn't there in these fields. The American white-collar economy is shifting to a management-services-based one, where the "real work" is done in other countries, where it's cheaper. American kids are more apt to end up managing a scientist than to actually be one.
Feel-good academics: If it's hard, it's obviously not for you. Don't worry, try something else. Or don't. In the age of teachers switching to purple pens because red is "just so damaging to a kid's morale", are you surprised that kids give up on the "hard" sciences after their first course in High School? "Hard" science is "hard" intellectually too. Why should a kid spend the effort to master calculus and physics or chemistry, when he can get by with a basic understanding of accounting, and spend the time playing video games instead? To be a scientist and get paid, you need to actually know your stuff. To be a manager and get paid, you just need to know how to play golf. To be sure, I'm exaggerating, but I think my point is clear.
Bad, awful, pansy-@$$ parents. Think I'm kidding? Kids did a lot better in school when they had a shred of respect for the teachers. If a note was sent home, there was hell to pay. Now, the hell to pay is on the teacher's end, when a parent comes storming in demainding the teacher's termination because their retarded kid can't pass a basic math test. Education needs major reform in this country, and that reform generally makes school more challenging to the kids. Unfortunately, there are enough vocal parents in this country who have so little confidence in their kids' intelligence that they raise a ruckus every time schools hint at making life more demanding on The Children. Cry me a river.
Anyway, agree or disagree with these reasons, I think any thinking person would agree that your blaming the decline of science (and academics in America as a whole) on the eeeevil Religious Right is over-reaching at best, and an outright, politically-motivated, self-inflicted failure of reason at worst. Funny that you accuse the Religious Right of exactly the same thing. Unfortunately, in desperation to find a scape-goat in The Religious Right, people are in serious danger of overlooking the real causes of the problem, and creating needless tensions in the meantime.
Who wants to get into science when the pay absolutely sucks? I graduated with a Biology degree (I might as well go back and get a chem degree too) and all the jobs I've found for 0-1 year experienced individuals (those fresh out of college) are in the $24,000 a year neighborhood.
That's great. Go to college, earn a relatively difficult degree (I also did the whole premed program) and make less than an individual with a communications degree. And people have to ask why others aren't getting into science?
From the Article...
:P
Last year, more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China, compared to 350,000 in India and 70,000 in the United States.
Recently, American 12th graders performed below the international average for 21 countries on general knowledge in math and science.
The cost of employing one chemist or engineer in the United States is equal to about five chemists in China and 11 engineers in India.
Chemical companies last year shut 70 facilities in the United States and marked 40 for closure. Of 120 large chemical plants under construction globally, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.
Ha! They say nothing of lawyers, we got them beat afterall!
Well, I see we can't read the entire report without shovelling over a bunch of dead presidents, but let me go out on a limb here and guess at least some of those 20 points from a group of universities involve yet another conduit from my paycheck to... wait for it... universities!
You're ovbiously going to burn in Hell forever. Moderator! Save your soul and mod the parent down! And send me a dollar while you're at it...
</sarcasm>
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
1. There is a huge thread going on about religion and its role in the current state of science. To be honest this should have minimal influence, since the majority of religion is not anti-science and most science is not anti-religion. We are not going to see the same sort of issues we did a long time ago when the church proclaimed we were at the center of the universe and persecuted those who said otherwise. Though the issue of evolution and intelligent design is getting that way, I believe in the end most courts will see ID for what it is, creationism with a fancy name so I don't believe this will greatly detract from the science areas.
2. Standardized testing. In this case it is more the "No Child Left Behind Act" that bothers me. The standardized testing and programs the US Government wants implemented (with state dollars no less) detract from the actual learning experience. Most teachers are pressured by administrations to gear their teaching towards the standardized tests, which results in students who learn for the test and not for the sake of learning. It also forces important subject matters out of the classrooms because at the end of the day there just isn't time.
3. Education. This goes up the whole chain, from K to 12 and through college. While I seriously believe that K-12 is the majority of the problem, to say college has no issues would be naive. I believe high school needs to become a more focused afair at an earlier age. I also believe that more states need to consider raising education funding and to fund special schools for the precocious children. The increase funding is a no brainer, better tech, better books and lower students to teacher ratios improves class performance, learning and involvement. The special schools is also important because many systems have taken the keep everyone on the same level approach and this grossly fails. It is not a good idea to keep faster and smarter students behind with the rest of a class because of the slower students who just cannot keep up. I cannot count the hours wasted re-hashing the same course materials day in and day out through high school and it is often frustrating to put up with.
4. Science is fun. While this can be a deceiving way to promote science it is one that has been lost in recent years. I remember two shows popular on Saturday morning in my early to mid-teens (Beakman's World and Bill Nye, I think those were the two) that gave science a fun perspective and taught things at the same time. I think it is a good idea to show kids early on how much fun science can be by doing more of the "high school" things earlier on. Egg drops, disections, Science based contests. There is a small museum back home called BRIMS, I do not know how many places like this there are, but surely more are needed.
5. This might get me modded trolling or flamebait, but society is next on the list. I harken more to kids whose idols are rap artists, movie stars and professional athletes. While aspiring to become one of these is not a bad thing, there are too many people who are convinced this is how they are going to make a living. Look at the pro baseball and basketball players who have gone from high school to pro sports. Granted these people have money, but how many would survive in the world if they tore a vital ligament or were otherwise seriously injured tomorrow. Some people seem to have forgotten that education is just as important as sports and getting the proper education is a good idea.
6. Video games? This one might get me trolled or flamebaited too, but I have to say it. This has grown in recent years to grand proportions. While everyone has been pushing for people to step away from the TVs or the consoles to go outside and get healthier (not a bad idea), they seem to have forgotten the "brain rot" and so have parents. I would get yelled out for spending hours online, but I learned more in high school reading the internet a few hours a day then I e
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
There is no reason to pay scientists more money, because you can simply go buy them cheaper in other countries.
Doctors can charge more, because most people can't fly to another country when they need medical care.
The fact is, you cannot fix this problem from the bottom. You can make science look as exciting to kids as a gameboy (which it will never be, but anyway) and it still would not make a difference. You can hire twenty billion science teachers and teach science 24 hours a day and it won't make any difference. You could banish "Intelligent Design", or all religion for that matter, from the world and it wouldn't make a difference.
People have to see a future in what they are doing, or they aren't going to do it. People see no future in science and engineering. On top of that, we have become a nation of consumers - people who consume science and engineering in products. Most find the idea of understanding the science or engineering behind what they can easily buy too much effort.
When I was growing up, I was taught that you wanted to learn to get paid for working with your mind, not your hands. It now seems that that was poor advice. Jobs of the mind can be done anywhere people think, and let's face it, there are thinkers just as good as here all over the world who work for a lot less. The "blue collar" worker who works with his hands may have the last laugh. When your car needs fixing, you can't send it to India. When you need a brick wall laid down, you can't bring in a brick mason from India. When your air conditioner breaks, you can't send it to India.
My first child is due in December. I wrestle with what sort of career it would be smart to pursue.
Steve
Just keep military growing. Last hundred years proved that the U.S can prevail everywhere with its' power.
Stronger arm will always dictate others what to do and can have it all.
Should I find a way to phrase it so I can protect their fragile egos? Maybe tell them that they aren't really "wrong"? Isn't that the approach that got us into this situation in the first place?And, in your "experience", does the Sun revolve around the Earth?Again, you're confusing an emotional reaction with a fact.
I don't care if you don't want to hear that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
I don't care if you get upset when I tell you that you are wrong for believing anything other than that.
I don't care if you don't like me for telling you that I don't care.
The criteria should NOT be your feelings, but what the FACTS are.
There were some really insightful comments in the The Future of Education presidential radio address.
It seems to me that if we as a nation wish to improve our scientific, and tech standings we should start at the bottom, mainly getting rid of the current "no child left behind" way of thinking in the public schools. These standardized tests do nothing but prompt teachers and school staff to teach specifially structured classes so that students will be more apt to pass these tests and give the school an overall higherscore so they get more money for next years programs. This is all well and good, but it is happening at the cost of our youths' educations. The end result being fewer people graduating with basic skills needed to be successful in any industry other than food service. An example of my point, when I returned to school to further my education I was bound by lower test scores to take make up courses, this most likely due to the last grade I completed as much as having been out of school near 15 years. In these "catch up" classes there were people who had graduated high school the year before in these classes. If the schools cannot even teach students enough to help them pass an entrance exam to where they would be enrolled in college courses that makes a huge statement about the state of education, at least this is how I see it in my state, and my experiences with the education system within my state.
Has anyone else made similar observations, or had similar experiences after leaving high school and entering college? Have you known someone who graduated, yet couldn't perform the equivalent of high school senior level algebra?
I personally think the "no child left behind" solution is in fact leaving no child behind, but it is also keeping more children at a lower level than they should be. In the corporate world, if you can't keep up, you are left behind.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
A lot of us actually believe it too. "All men are created equal" conflicts with the idea that the "intellectual elite" are The Good People and we should allow them to make all our choices for us.
A recent characterization of an intellectual (originally, apparently, by Max Weber) points out the problem:
Some of us want to make our own choices, subject to no one and without regard to the self-important demands of the "intellectual elite", no matter how enlightened those elite think they are. To the extent that these elite are disenclined to allow us our choices, they are a threat. Disparagement of these would-be rulers is self-defense, and it is well earned.
It's an economic issue rather than a political one. You get more of what you subsidize (either privately through compensation or through governmental intervention).
20 step process to economic competitiveness:
1-20. Pay scientists and engineers like you pay doctors and lawyers.
The US should hang on to its position more tightly.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The USA will fall behind because ever more intellectual property will be locked up behind a multitude of corporations and individuals effectively ruled by lawyers who are more interested in earning legal fees rather than bothering to actually manufacture anything.
Other Governments and Europe's bureaucracies will not hesitate to forcibly acquire the necessary intellectual property needed get things done for large projects. That's how the European airline industry managed to get the Concord, Euro-fighter and even the latest Airbus built.
Other countries and even Europe's parliament will also not hesitate to adopt more liberal intellectual property structures if you demonstrate that doing so will better benefit their economies as a whole, instead of just a few major corporations.
The USA administration and even more myopic major corporations will continue to let more and more manufacturing and service industry be off-shored resulting in importing permanent poverty into the USA.
You want to see the future of the USA? Visit the remnants of Detroit motor city works and despair.
The panel of scientists, huh? Let's see, I can become a laywer and have some billable hour rate of 300 dollars for a company after a couple years of law school. Or I can become a doctor, and make even more, for a lot more school. (not trying to compare or belittle either profession here). Or I can become a scientist, and make a meager research assistant's wage. Let's be real about the market here. One chemist might cost you the same as five in China, but I deeply suspect that research assistants make about the same wage. If you want to motivate people into the field, convince them its a FEASIBLE endevor; raise wages! Scholarships are interesting, but I'd rather see Congress put that money to use employing students in fields of their endevor if anything. Paying people to be scientists will be more useful than paying them to become one. Jobless scientists can just as easily get into law school as anyone else ;)
America is in no danger of losing it's competitive advantage to China, however. Academic progress requires freedom of communication and a number of personal liberties. When you're worried about how a distributed voting system for embedded processor communications might be percieved politically now and in ten years, there's definately an inhibiting factor in research. Economically, the american system very much favors startups and entrepenuers compared to most of the rest of the world. Japan is ruled by the keiretsu, large conglomerates glued together by a Life Insurance company. China is theoretically a communist country, although we've seen significant shifts in intriguing directions. India is struggling with it's own poverty and population crisis, but if you were scared you could simply begin easing citizenship for Indian engineers, programmers and scientists and India would be starved for engineers again.
Recap: if you want more scientists, find ways to help them make more money. Pay your research assistants more. Offer entrepenuership classes for engineers and scientists. Relax the consulting constraints on professors at academic institutions. The war on ignorance and poverty begins at home.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I speak of postmodernism, and its contention that truth is relative, that "local ways of knowing" are as valid as science, that E = M C-squared is a "sexed" equation", that Principia Mathematica is a rape manual, that science is just a tool of oppression by white, European males.
Grotesque stupidity to be sure, but this stuff is being spewed forth by leftist, sometimes Marxist, university professors.
Steroids. All us scientists need to get on the steroids, then we'll be cool again, and the kids will flock to us as rolemodels.
I think the problem is that the parents and the society gives more importances to Sport than Academics. I see lot of parents spend their time taking their kids to football or soccer practices than taking their kids to a tution for math or science. If a kid is good a sports, he gets all the attention and if a kid is good at studies, he is bullied. In countries like India, parents and society look up to kids who are good at studies.
Let's step back for a second. There's a lot more to science than biology, and especially the small part of biology concerned with the origin of life. Evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design has nothing to do with engineering, computer science, chemistry, physics, and all the rest. I mean, when was the last time origin-of-life science significantly grew the nation's GDP? Has attempting to prove evolution ever increased US manufacturing to reduce the trade deficit? Has attempting to prove intelligent design ever resulted in a new breakthrough drug? Seriously, there's more to this than the evolution flame war.
(Which still sucks given who they're quoting.) But the NYT still should have denoted the error in the standard fashion.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Uh... what was the article about again? Maybe I should read it so I don't look stupid... ;) oh wait I'll just make a joke...
1) Forget to read article
2) Make ill-informed comments on slashdot
3) Criticize grammar
4) ???
5) Profit!
You know, there is more to science than evolution. Like, uh, let me think, uh... TECHNOLOGY! HELLO PEOPLE! The article isn't even related to that! After seeing the bulk of the replies here, I am convinced that Slashdot is the reason that the U.S. is trailing ECONOMICALLY in science. You guys rely loose. no rely, you do.
-=Zeus=And=Hades=-
The RR's morals and values consist of one concept: "We hate sex".
Want to kill some brown peoplpe half a world away, thats ok! That whole "THou shall not Kill " thing was a joke.
Cutting funding to social programs! Of course you can, this is the new improved jesus, the one that never said "whatver you do for the least, you do for me". He said "get yours and screw them lazy poort people".
Blatant corruption? Of course thats ok, if god didnt like you, then how come you've got all this money.
so fuck you and your false morality.
... hi bingo
Mod me a Troll but it has to be said, Fundamentalist are the new American Talaban.
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
Lack of general education leads to lack of IQ. Lack of IQ leads to lack of analysis and posibility to listen to other opinions and judge them by common sence, nor by 'ohh, I don't want to know that it is _that_ way' (also known as wishful thinking). And lack of judge yourself and your thoughts and see where it takes you leads to...certain defeat.
And most ironic thing is that in the end, US will have been defeated itself. In many ways.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Its now time to let other countries into the spotlight for change. That said the US has a
much bigger problem than loosing faith in science and that is obesity.
You can't be the best you can be when your body is continually suffering from one of the
many illnesses that long-term obesity brings.
Arash
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
By forcing your definitions and terms the way you do (sample: The "religious right" they are talking about is *by definition* bible thumping. If you aren't a bible thumper, then you aren't included, so quite being offended) you are actively helping anti-science fundamentalists shape the discourse.
For example, most of the Unitarian Universalists and many of the Bhuddists I know are extremely religious. Many of them are also socially conservative. I myself am a Pantheist, and I consider myself both conservative and deeply religious. None of the three religions I just mentioned are anti-science, and UUs are actively pro-science!
Stop lumping all deeply religious, right-of-center organizations in with the lunatic anti-science fringe of Christianity and we'll join our voices with yours. Choose to slander us, try to push us into the corner with your opposition, and you are working against your own interest.
If you haven't gotten it by now, you'll never get it, so I'll just STFU now.
I mean, he really must.
Just look at the latest financial statements for the public company of your choice. My former company's CEO has $101M in vested stock options and another $40M in unvested options. All that and a $2.5M bonus last year, too. Of the 6-7M option shares available to give out, 25% go to "named executives". That's a shitload of money. If you can figure out what justifies that kind of reward, let me know. Personally, when I walk by I see them reading newspapers and shopping for golf clubs.
What does this have to do with declines in scientific works and education? Think about what's motivating the people that work at such companies. To get close to the top these days means not just "getting rich", but having something called "generational wealth" -- that means your grandchildren will be rich, too.
People of of all stripes do whatever it takes to get "close to the money" and stay there. That might mean a top-level MBA and the cronyism that comes with it. It might mean talking shit about anyone in the organization seen as a threat. It might mean being a "yes" person. One thing it means for certain is not looking out for the best interests of the shareholders and employees. One thing it doesn't mean is being skilled in science or engineering; those folks are the cannon fodder.
News flash: American capitalism is brutal, corrupt and discourages hard work and innovation. Who'd a thunk?
The "religion right" has no influence in our schools (thanks to the Supreme Court).
Sorry, but you're both wrong and naive here. There are quite a few Wingnut-Americans on local and state school boards, and school boards have a strong influence on schools. The state of Texas has done a lot to water down science and health education by refusing to buy 'unacceptable' textbooks, and Texas is such a large market that most publishers don't bother making a second edition that leaves the science in. It's not just religion, business is also getting into the act.
Definitely agree that many parents are falling down in their responsibility to prepare their kids for schools and to raise their kids in an environment that values education.
(I boggle at the other post who feels that "teacher's unions" are interchangable with "parents".)
I was thinking of posting the same thing as the grandparent post. Look at that list of countries, and now start listing the scientists who got the hell out of dodge and ended up where? Yup, good old U.S. of A.
Just offhand there's Einstein and Fermi and I'm sure I'm missing countless hundreds more.
The religious right is doing a good job turning the USA into the next entrant on that list of countries. Brilliant scientists aren't going to be dissuaded, they'll just end up going elsewhere in the world.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
>What would you have thought when Jesus spit in the dirt and grabbed it and smeared it in someones eyes?
All I have to do is look to:
unguent:Semisolid preparation (usually containing a medicine) applied externally as a remedy or for soothing an irritation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unguent
salve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salve
which leads me to
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Phrygian+powder
add to that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultice
and what he did is not so unusual.
He proffered a statement that he expected me to reject because I approched things scientifically because he was unaware of the relevant science which wasn't that obscure.
This is slashdot, what the hell do you think you are doing making a post that requires critical thought?
It'd be OK if you made it more technical, and mentioned software a few times.
You realize that the GDP per capita in the US is about US$40k, vs about US$5.6k for China?
For the SAME job, the Chinese chemist / engineer is making a hell of a lot more, relative to local population. Cost of living is lower; compared to peers the chemist / engineer is doing MUCH better. Assume $50k a year, typical starting salary for a college grad in engineering, making $10k in China will be like having an $80k a year job in the US.
I grew up in Hong Kong SAR. Education is seen as the key to "the good life", go to a good school so you can go to college, so you can get a degree in a technical field and hold a high paying job. I bet if the people that actually do the work and innovation gets paid their fair share, we'd see more people going into the sciences too. Does a CEO really deserve 300+ times the pay of an engineer?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just took a few basic damn econ courses. I recommend everyone else do the same.
While it's a good idea, I also recommend people read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" as well as his "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".
FalconShould there be a Law?
2) Speaking of which, I remember the exact same complaints about losing our scientific and mathematical edge against Japan and Russia and Europe from when I was in school, which was in the first half of that 30 years, not the latter half ;-)
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
That'd sure make it easier to get rid of all of those stubborn jerks that don't want to teach creationism in their classes.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed.
Yeah, if little Joey hasn't figured out by the second grade that he loves school, kick him out. Let him push a broom at the mill for a few years. That'll learn him.
#3 Parenting. Why aren't parents do "fun" things like having foreign langauge weeks where they all try to speak different languages.
Yeah, these slackers put in 50 hours a week, and they don't even have the decency to learn a foreign language on the side. What we need to do is get rid of their mamby-pamby social safety net. That'll learn 'em.
Wingnuts. Is there any problem they can't solve?
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
You guys are nuts! First post is some crackpot claiming that religion is what is killing off America's Technical fields. That is the most assinine thing I have heard! The only REAL science/religion debate I have heard is Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design and the flap over FETAL stem-cells! How is that depressing the Comp Sci's or any other technical/scientific feild!?!? Moron!
WHAT'S KILLING OFF or technical/science feilds is several factors:
1) Outsourcing! - Who wants to learn programming/chip design when the jobs are all going overseas to cheaper labor??? Spend MANY thousand dollars on a degree that will be worthless because Chinese engineers get the jobs..
2) Patents/lawsuits - With the increased threats of legal actions due to the aforementioned AND THE DMCA, who wants to reverse engineer anything and develop a taste to the technical? Hack a chip into your X-Box, go to jail, do not pass go. Patents, Copyrights, & the DMCA is the most stifling thing to progress. With a strangle hold on progress, a handful of companies is preventing more companies from starting up... Less technology/scientific companies = less jobs... Less jobs = less people going into those feilds! These are creating more Lawyers than Engineers/Scientists
3) More student spots/aid are going to foreign students so (granted, lesser qualified) American students don't get a chance.
4) Laws, Regulation and Treaties has virtually killed off American Manufacturing so, with no real demand for technical/scientific people.
The religion argument is a crock.
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
You guys are nuts! First post is some crackpot claiming that religion is what is killing off America's Technical fields. That is the most assinine thing I have heard! The only REAL science/religion debate I have heard is Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design and the flap over FETAL stem-cells! How is that depressing the Comp Sci's or any other technical/scientific feild!?!? Moron!
No more moronic than your rant. My post now holds a +3.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I guess with all the money you will be making, you should buy yourself a nice yacht and name it "Mandor!"
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
I think the parent is entirely correct. Religion is just a scapegoat in this case. Who cares if evolution takes a back seat in this country? I seriously doubt that China or India is going to overtake us technologically just because they spend more time theorizing about the origin of species.
Religion certainly didn't curb Isaac Newton's interest in science.
I think the more likely culprit in this country is the entertainment industry. Americans have become way too skilled at turning off our brains and consuming hours of mindless junk, whether that be TV, movies, music, video games, etc...
Consider these factors:
- decreasing overall intelligence of US workforce and students
- a steady climb in oil prices for the most oil-dependent country by far
- continued enormous money sink into military spending
- the world slowly turning its back on the US
- growing, intensifying, global, networked, militant anti-US movement
- continued threat of terrorist activity within the US
- debt up to our ears
The US is in decline and there is no stopping it. The smart ones will leave. The rest will probably go down in flames because they can't change.
This is being driven by labor costs. Technical workers in China and India work for a fraction of the pay of US technical workers. So the work is done there. Less manufacturing work and engineering work in the US means fewer technical workers are needed in the US.
During the recession of the early 90s, US companies laid off employees by the thousands ever other week. During the past 5 years, US companies having been laying of employees by the tens of thousands. This means there are lots of unemployed and underemployed technical people. Prospective students see this and reconsider their field of study. Technical curricula are hard and required lots of work. The reward for obtaining an engineering degree has been dramatically reduced.
Anything done to artificially stimulate the graduation rates of engineers will only add to the numbers of unemployed and underemployed engineers. Just because you graduate more engineers does not mean companies will spring up to employ them.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
On the one hand, they make a VERY strong case that US engineers are 5 to 10 times more expensive to employ than those where the jobs are going (India and China) ...
And on the other hand, they advocate a massive program to train many more engineers and scientists than we already have, but to what end?
If there is no neutralization of the cost of labor differentials between the United States and India/China, all of these newly created scientists and engineers will be unemployed. How is THAT going to help things?
In theory, in the fullness of time, the third-world economies will expand and their costs of labor will rise, as ours is falling due to inability to compete. Somewhere in the middle things will meet, and we will be able to sustain a population of technical workers.
But in the interim, I see nothing being proposed by the panel of "experts" to prevent careers in technical areas or the sciences from being stigmatized as "loser" careers, good routes to unemployment.
Keynes said "But in the long run, we are all dead", meaning that one cannot only plan things based on a long term point of view. The short term must be also accommodated, else we'll never make it to the long term goal.
Somebody needs to devise a plan that will preserve a national capability in the sciences, and will be not make our economy non-competitive in the process. It's certainly not going to be the Republicans, as they represent only the rich, with the rest of us as a resource to be plundered, and it's not going to be the Democrats, as they see business as a resource to be plundered.
Yeah, my kid listed "air" as part of his answer to "name four natural resources" and got points marked off (air, despite being a non-synthetic commodity resource, was not listed in the book).
I should mention that just outside of town the local gas company has a tower where they compress air to extract oxygen, nitrogen, and argon for commercial sale.
The same teacher marked "fuel" as a correct answer to the same question. When I pointed out that many fuels are synthetic, and thus not natural resources, it became apparent that the teacher did not know what natural resources actually are, and was simply parroting an incorrect textbook.
I know plenty of religious people who would never make such a stupid mistake; but the next generation is having all this wrong information drilled into them in lieu of actual education.
i agree with everything you said.
That you dont know the difference between evolution and Evolution, Darwinism. If you did, you'd understand that "things evolve" is not the debate.
Too bad you have an uninformed opinion. Also look up the definition of "theory."
There are several critical aspects of Evolution that are just theory such as life coming from a soup of chemicals and species evolving into other species.
Also, watch "From Ape to Man," a show by scientists and anthropologist that states that none of the fossils found to date are in modern man's direct lineage. Leaving open the possibility of divine creation.
Its one thing to believe in science because you follow the Scientific Method. Its another to believe in it because its your faith.
The leadership of this country (specifically business leaders) at some point in our recent history decided that the best way to make money is by just siphoning cash as a middle man. Oh wait, thats not the right word for it. Ahhh, yes, its comming to me - Service Based Economy.
This is not something that accidently happened - it was a conscious decision made several years ago when it became cheaper to buy stuff made over seas and sell it here.
To compound the issue, companies here tend to "hold back" advances while it is even remotely possible to continue to siphon cash from people using older technology. At the last possible moment - a switch to new technology is made.
The twenty steps listed in the parent are all important. But ultimately the steps are treating the symptoms, not the cancer: 1) Any sense of discovery or exploration is completely dead in this country and the highest levels.
2) Labor is cheaper in other countries. Engineer in our country (software and other) are being treated as day laborers. Worst yet, unskilled day laborers. That needs to change before our students again begin taking an interest in the sciences.
I'm beginning to think that Imperial America's downward spiral is like manmade global warming. It's obvious to anyone w/ a brain that we have no one but ourselves to blame, yet people insist on covering their ears and going "lalala" anytime someone tries to sound the alarm.
[o]_O
Everybody is speaking of reliigious right as a reason science is declining in the US. Well from what I heard there is another far simplier explanation. From the lowest class up to the university, you would be blind not to see that Sport is over-promoted, whereas science/Nerd/Intelligence is decried , laughed at, and even later as adult relegated in a dark corner. How many science chanel is there ? How many Sport channel ? How often Sport "stars" make the headlines ? How often scientifics ?
And even if you go over that, how much do you think a scientific is paid ? How much do you think an average lawyer, or an average MBA does ? I love science (particulary Quantum Physic) this is why I studied that up to PhD. If that passion was not there , I would most certainly not have gone into science but into Law/Buisness to make a killing $$$. I can see the other people in my family/freinds making twice as much as me yearly with not even half the study time (and associated diploms).
With those two argument I think we do not need religion/ID/right wing to show why science is declining in the US. Look at EU , most lands there there isn't such a Sport/Jock/Anti nerd culture.
ID debate and religious right wing are pouring fuel over the "fire" and using the science debacle at their advantage for their own promotion, but the origin of the problem is at school...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's not like someone came up to them out of the blue, called them a moron, dropped some brand-new un-heard-of knowledge and expected them to accept it instantly.
:)
The concepts which are being rebelled against by the religious peoples are entrenched in our culture and collective history.
What we are seeing is a sliding back of acceptance of scientifically proven concepts. Our industry and society is built on those concepts. It's natural for someone to be annoyed when people continually make statements contrary to what is already known and accepted. Especially when they enjoy the fruits of that knowledge in day-to-day life.
Besides, Historically, Scientists have been disparaged by religious people for FAR longer than scientists have disparaged religious people.
You owe us some
Blar.
I posted this article, and included links to the NY Times report which brought this to my attention, but those links were edited out. Here they are:
NY Times article, login required
Original RSS link, no reg required
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
His words only speak of the nation, of the collective, not the individual. To anybody with half a brain who hasn't had it fried with marxist literature the idea of personal profit is self-evident. To the Socialist, the idea that it's more profitable to pursue research for another country is alien, to them it's all about the collective "we". "We" deserve jobs, not filthy immigrants. "We" deserve protection for our farming products, not some dirty starving africans who have no technology base and can only find salvation in trading via agriculture. "We" are clearly superior to the KKKapitalist AmeriKKKans.
Oh yeah, and blaming things immediately on religion, that's another sign of knee-jerk socialist thought.
This is why we need to be able to moderate members. I'd give this nine-times guy a (-1: Delusional Idiot)...
Religious people have no problem telling non-believers that the non-believer will suffer un-ending pain in hell. That's not a very nice thing to say. In fact, it's patently insulting for you to tell me that your un-provable religion is the one and only true faith in the face of so many competitors. From my point of view they are all equally viable...but you have some special insight? Seems pretty arrogant and insulting to me. I'm incapable of telling which one is correct, but Mr. Christian is?
It goes both ways.
Blar.
Complexity is by definition reducible. If it can't be split up, it isn't complex, it's called "simple".
Simple things are often irreducible. Complex things are always reducible, at least theoretically.
You guys are nuts! First post is some crackpot claiming that religion is what is killing off America's Technical fields. That is the most assinine thing I have heard! The only REAL science/religion debate I have heard is Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design and the flap over FETAL stem-cells! How is that depressing the Comp Sci's or any other technical/scientific feild!?!? Moron!
Okay, now it is +5 again. Trouble is, that doesn't change my argument one iota.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Rank the following high school students by popularity:
A) Average looking guy who studies a lot and does well in class
B) Average looking guy who plays sports and does poorly in class
C) Average looking guy with good social skills and does OK in class
C) Good looking girl who does poorly in class
D) Good looking guy who cuts class, smokes, drinks, hates school
Who is the most popular? Who is the least? If you were a high school student, where would you spend your efforts?
You get the behavior you reward.
The United States does not reward kids who do well in school while they are in school.
Let's go back in history a little...
Maybe 20 years ago, some powerful politician declared and implemented policy around the idea, "The American economy will be transitioning from a manufacturing economy to a service/information economy."
In principal, it made perfect sense, but in practice service and knowledge can come from anywhere and they do. So, the Mode (Average) American is screwed because they provide no value.
Now, the average quickie-mart capitalist is yelling, "Let Capitalism work its magic and we'll all be better off!" I say to all of them, has capitalism made health care more affordable? Has it made housing more affordable? Is your water cleaner? Instead of making Mode Americans wealthier, capitalism is lowering your wages and delivering medical care and a safe environment only to those who can afford to pay for them.
There is plenty to be said for the overwhelming sense of entitlement and general lack of initiative at the individual level, but I do think the "service/knowledge economy" policy was flawed from the beginning.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
No one will refuse tenure, but when asked to choose most people will take a high salary over tenure. Since when is not being able to fire someone who is not doing a good job a reasonable way to run an organization? Its crazy.
If you want to remove politics from science then we should eliminate government funding for science. science should be about producing useful research not about whatever the current administration feels like funding this week.
The same goes for schools. Schools should be about what parents want for their kids. Not whatever the current administration wants. That means vouchers and more private schools.
Sometimes I think this world needs another regime like that because so many have forgotten how bad they were.
I think it is you who have forgotten how bad they were. How bad were the Nazis? So bad that things can be many times better than the Nazis and still be really, really bad.
WWII should be the ultimate warning about the risks of a Republic descending into Totalitarianism. The extreme evil of the Nazi regime should make you more wary of anything resembling such a descent, not less. Instead it's become the minimum level of badness that raises concern. That's crazily backwards.
There are plenty of valid comparisons between the path of Germany in the Thirties and the U.S. of the Aughts that are obvious if you really do have the first clue about "real Nazis" and their rise to power. Refusing to make this comparison because you believe the result will be less bad than the worst horrors of the last century is the height of foolishness.
The enemies of Democracy are
I believe the correct term is "Intelligent Dirt Pushing."
If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
On a subject like this, I would think that valuable, widely respected opinions would come from a combination of government, academia, and industry. Anyone have any other groups to suggest?
/. would equate government with industry, perhaps largely due to our current administration. Academia can also be suspect, as they're by no means a disinterested party, and University patent revenue is trending rapidly upwards.
3 09100399?OpenDocument
/.' time to being a parent, or a citizen in general, who supports education.
/. on this subject until I have made some contribution toward fixing the problem."
Many here on
As a confirmed secularist (Oxford sense 1), the fact that we're even hearing about religion in this discussion is alarming.
But you have to believe that someone out there is ethical, and thinking about the greater good, or slide into total apathy. That can't be good for you. Humans aren't wired that way.
The authors of the report are people who are probably worth listening to. Go read the press release, at least. Their names and titles are on it.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0
We all know something is amiss. Perhaps we should take a page from the environmentalist playbook. Think Globally, Act Locally. Spend 10% of your 'wanking on
That rallying cry did wonders for the environmentalists. Perhaps it will here as well. One thing's for certain: there is no downside to it. It's all either neutral or up.
There are a lot of Free Software advocates here, right? Believers in a gift economy? OK, STF and give! Make a personal pledge. "I will not want on
My contribution has been electronic and surface mail to my Senators and Congressmen, helping with I think US$13k for the local Boys and Girls Club, and equipment donations to the local school system.
I am not a parent, but I am a citizen of The United States of America. I have responsibilities as well as rights.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
My take on this whole "lose" vs. "loose" thing is that in the United States the importance of winning is so drummed into everyone's head that to some people losing is not only unthinkable but unspellable as well. If people would just loosen up it wouldn't be such a problem.
Error:
Word.
since the 1980's. Then it was the inevitable ascendency of Japan. Japan Inc. was going to "own" America. Uh, huh. The Soviet Union was producing far more scientists than the U.S. The American Century was coming to an end.
Fast forward to the early 21st century and only the cast of characters have changed. Today it is the Chinese and Indians who are the new bogey men. I do not doubt that the rest of the world is getting better but America is holding its own quite well. Just remember the DARPA Grand Challenge that just ended, showing what robotics can do far beyond the expensive toys emanating from Japan. Also remember the X-Prize from a year ago. Just two small, very public examples among thousands detailing that innovation in America is alive and well.
Scientists say government should give more money to science.
Kayne West was so close.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Unless you can provide support that the Sun does revolve around the Earth
or
That in some circumstances, the Sun revolves around the Earth.And that is your opinion. And the opinion of someone who believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth (or does so under certain circumstances) is worth
That does not make that person, or you, any less wrong.
So, why spend the time/effort/money making sure that people like you do not get your emotions hurt?
If you don't like the fact that you're wrong (and no, relativity does NOT say that), then it is up to you to:
a. Get hurt feelings
b. Grow up and deal with it like a mature adult
Depends on what you mean by "value". Value as a human being, yes of course. I give the same respect to all humans, until they show they don't deserve it.
Value as a rocket scientist, maybe, maybe not. Some people are just dumb, were always dumb, and will stay dumb. Born into a good family with all the advantages, and are dumb. Do they have the same rights as anyone else? Yes, they do. But if you're looking for good technical or scientific advice, I would choose the smart person. My landscaper is a nice guy and gerat with shrubs, but otherwise is an idiot.
I still ask him about shrubs, and he's still a valued friend.
You don't have to believe what elite scientists say about Titan, but there aren't many dumb people that can produce pictures of another world.
Everything else I wrote is completely true and self-evident, you just don't have an answer for it.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Many don't believe that humans first appeared 6000 years ago, or that the universe was created in exactly six days. These are most likely metaphores, as is much of the bible.
Ah but many Christians take the Bible literally. Years ago a friend became a "born again" Christian after an experience, er relationship, she had went sour. She frequently quoted her Bible, a King James version, and said what is said was fact. When I tried to point out that for instance the Hebrew word used in Genesis that was translated in English as "day", the world being created in 7 of these, the Hebrew year actually has more than one meaning with one of them I think was "eon" she kept making declarations that about how the tranlations were inspired by "God". Or that during the various councils such as the Councils of Constantinople in 381, 553, and 680-81 the books were chosen to be combined into the Bible while other were left out and the ones so chosen were edited. She wouldn't except any of this or that any translators had any political agendas.
And she wasn't the only one like this, I've talked with others that believed the same. As for me, though I used to believe or had a set of beliefs, after I had a bad accident I lost those beliefs and am now agnostic, "a" without, and gnosys, "knowledge". I am without knowledge of any supreme being or any soul or spirit. I am jealous of those who have faith.
FalconShould there be a Law?
even the so called religions right are NOT anti-science.
Ha! I beg to differ. By not acknowledging evolution, a scientific concept proven up, down and sideways by way of the scientific method, they are stating through their suspension of belief that they think the scientific method is bunk. When they do this, they are stating that they don't believe that any scientific knowledge acquired since 1620, when Francis Bacon first came up with the concept, can be proven. I would call the refusal to acknowledge almost 400 years of science as fact "anti-science". And don't get me started on a grammar nazi rant. . .
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
That's not Erosion, that's God's Will.
;)
God Spoke to President Bush Directly!
Who needs NASA anyways, if you want to know what's in the Heavens,
just read the good book, it's all there. Winged women flyin' round, singing songs and playing music.
We need to get Darwin out of the Classroom and make sure students
understand Moses and the Fluid Dynamics of Parting Large Bodies of Water.
The 'talking snake' fact of Creationism and smartly design is all the science those little rascals need.
Too much Edumication just confuses youngsters. It causes them to question authority!
After all they need to be clear thinking to make change at the cash registers and double check people gets their Biggie fries.
Why those good god fearing kids can stop wasting time on science, the arts, and sports (ceptin football and baseball, none of that U.N. one world government Soccer crap!).
Free from such distractions such as 'accuracy', 'truth', and 'logic', them younin's can focus on their roles in government mandated but totally unfunded NCLB testing centers (formerly called 'schools'.)
Now, that's what I call science fellas! Yee-Ha!
Bring on the Military Recruters!
Holy water on the brain and I'm losing sleep
Holy bible on the night stand next to me
As I'm raped by another monkey circus freak
Trying to take my indignance away from me
Holy water is rusting me
Bloody murder is the best I've heard her scream
Holy devil in the flesh some might believe
And they take thine Majesty so seriously
It's the big lies that are more likely to be believed
Holy water is rusting me
Damn the water if it's life you want to drink
Mnd your mother if it makes you feel at ease
As you're raped by another Monkey circus freak
It's the big lies that are more likely to be believed
Chris Cornell - 1991
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I read things like this all the time, but really why are we surprised? Setting aside the religious right and an anti-geek view of the world, there are simply a lot more foreign scientists than in the past. 50 years ago, North American and European scientists were the only ones who played the game. Places like Japan and Taiwan were only just moving beyond rice farming, and China and India were nowhere in sight. These days countries with a combined population in excess of 2 billion people are making committments to education and producing scientists on par with the rest of the world. Of course the stature of American science is in decline; the entire field is a lot more competitive.
I'm not sure I agree that tenure promotes (big T) Theories.
I agree that removing tenure would raise salaries. It could be argued that really top scientists who can get top salaries will go for the money instead of tenure. So the top scientists who produce Theories will not be tenured.
Einstein didn't have tenure. He was working in an office and doing science on the side. It depends on what you count as science which adds value to society but, the guy who came up with transistors was employed by Texas Instruments and Steve Jobs wasn't tenured either. Thats only a few examples, but I have to wonder if you profiled all the Theories that people have come up with and counted which ones were by tenured people and which ones were from untenured people, what kind of numbers you would come up with. I don't think there is an obvious answer, but I would bet science is helped by high salaries more than tenure. which is a bit confusing statement, since tenure is a form of compensation. But I think raising scientists salaries would be more effective than keeping tenure.
Pretty simple. I am 2 months away from a PhD in biomedical science. I've been in grad school 8 years. First, grad school is a terrible, grueling existance. It weeds out anyone who doesn't absolutely love the field. Second, huge numbers of Indian and Chinese scientists are flooding major US research centers, like where I work. And they are better than us, by and large. This is probably due to the fact that these countries graduate tons more scientists than we do, yet they have miniscule research budgets (thank god). The problem for american scientists is that there just aren't many jobs, the pay is terrible (20-30k for a PhD?), and there is a huge amount of competition from foreigners who think this is a large amount of money. We need more American scientists, but it's a dog eat dog world in science, and we are getting trampled. Very few of my American colleagues plan to remain in science. The future for all of us is uncertain. After 8 years of grad school, we deserve more.
gibbie99 at yahoo.com
A co-worker (at a National Laboratory) who has a pilots license was asked by a Ph.D. in materials science/chemistry from India, "What's the function of the propeller on the front of the plane?" The two of us lesser-educated B.S.'ers were stunned, he was serious, he simply didn't know.
I go home that night and tell the story to my girlfriend (American), a student at a veterinary medicine college, the story. She responded, "Well, what does the propeller do?" I told her it's used to chop-up birds that interfere with the flight path.
Education does not equal intelligence. But I will agree, better science (math and reading as well) education is needed.
Related stories:
I was reviewing a Ph.D's presentation and commented that green arrows on a red diffraction pattern was a bad combination as audience members with red/green color blindness would have trouble viewing that image. The response, "It's fine, they will see the arrows as black arrows."
I don't relate these stories to dismiss the value of Ph.D.'s, I do so to point out that that just because you have been "educated" to some specific level doesn't mean you know all, or most all, or even a small fraction of all things known. The smartest people know the don't know it all but do believe they can learn what is known and discover what is not yet known.
When body disposal becomes a problem at the next Flu pandemic, I'd fully support denying treatment to those that would put their faith in God first, and throw tantrums at Science. They don't believe in medicine so why waste the finite resources on the very people who have stiffled innovation in this country.
Let them choke to death on their own phglem and throw them on the fires.
Okay, now it is +5 again. Trouble is, that doesn't change my argument one iota.
Well, obviously, there's enough morons out there (with mod points ATM) to get you back up to +5. It's ashame I used the last of my points yesterday to mod up more deserving comments.
It still doesn't change the fact that your argument is as dumb as the dumbest religious belief of the people whom you condem.
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Scientists make didly squat when you include the amount of effort required to be a scientist. Years of schooling to make sub-$100K salaries. If you're lucky you MAY get a grant or you MAY be a principal in a biotech firm that actually makes money and your stock options pay up. In the US you can make $100K by working for any UAW auto company. You can make $100K collecting garbage ( I agree, not everyone is cut up for it but it beats 6+ years of schooling + loans, etc ). You can make way more than $100K being a trades man ( carpenter/plumber/electrician, etc. ) with just a high school education. The list goes on and on. You can make millions being a pro athlete or as an entertainer.
CZ
Last year Reason had an interview with Neal Stephenson (author of Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, and other fine novels), where he was asked about the state of science in America. What he said resonated with me quite a bit:
The success of the U.S. has not come from one consistent cause, as far as I can make out. Instead the U.S. will find a way to succeed for a few decades based on one thing, then, when that peters out, move on to another. Sometimes there is trouble during the transitions. So, in the early-to-mid-19th century, it was all about expansion westward and a colossal growth in population. After the Civil War, it was about exploitation of the world's richest resource base: iron, steel, coal, the railways, and later oil.
For much of the 20th century it was about science and technology. The heyday was the Second World War, when we had not just the Manhattan Project but also the Radiation Lab at MIT and a large cryptology industry all cooking along at the same time. The war led into the nuclear arms race and the space race, which led in turn to the revolution in electronics, computers, the Internet, etc. If the emblematic figures of earlier eras were the pioneer with his Kentucky rifle, or the Gilded Age plutocrat, then for the era from, say, 1940 to 2000 it was the engineer, the geek, the scientist. It's no coincidence that this era is also when science fiction has flourished, and in which the whole idea of the Future became current. After all, if you're living in a technocratic society, it seems perfectly reasonable to try to predict the future by extrapolating trends in science and engineering.
It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. is turning away from all of this. It has been the case for quite a while that the cultural left distrusted geeks and their works; the depiction of technical sorts in popular culture has been overwhelmingly negative for at least a generation now. More recently, the cultural right has apparently decided that it doesn't care for some of what scientists have to say. So the technical class is caught in a pincer between these two wings of the so-called culture war. Of course the broad mass of people don't belong to one wing or the other. But science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture.
Think back to your experiences in your science labs in school. If you were a good student, you probably cared about your grade. You probably understood on an intimate level that often experiments don't work properly, that there can be factors contributing to a bad degree of error in your measurements (maybe your ruler is inaccurate? Perhaps that high pressure front is affecting your delicate volume measurement?).
If you were to record measurements which seem to be out of line with the purpose of the lab, you take your grade into your own hands. The lab TAs and science teachers do not want to see accurate work from you - they want to see 'the right answer'. Not the actual answer, mind you. You could do very poorly on the lab assignment for having these spurious numbers reported. It could affect your final grade, which could affect your semester grade, which could affect your GPA, which could affect your future....
So you kowtow to the academic establishment, and you record a fake number that meets the goals of the lab, knowing that it is incorrect but that, in the end, you will get a good grade. Congratulations, you have successfully jumped through another US Science education Hoop (TM).
Until science teachers embrace the ability to discuss Things Going Wrong, or Getting Something Other Than Expected (scientific method? sometimes your hypothesis isn't true? what? What was the point then! Get back in there and prove your hypothesis was right! Or change your hypothesis! And for God's sake, get rid of that terrible data), science will continue to erode in the US. I would not be surprised if this sort of behavior isn't passed on to future scientists, making the majority of 'science', well, rather unscientific.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
(The Beatles)
The left has prevented any nuclear plants from being built in over 20 years. The left has prevented any oil refineries in 30 years. The left has prevented any new highway construction in California of 30 years. Sounds like some sort of power, though I suppose you could argue it's not political.
Is this because they, the people opposing these, are leftists or because they are concerned about the environment? And as far as nuclear power plants, if you get rid of all government subsidies and laws protecting them then nuclear power plants wouldn't be built or wouldn't run, ie if the free market were used nuclear power wouldn't be around. All the laws and subsidies are socialistic.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Outsourcing was good for the US. Dumb asses.
If only it were as easily done as said. I've only got one vote...
Well, obviously, there's enough morons out there (with mod points ATM) to get you back up to +5. It's ashame I used the last of my points yesterday to mod up more deserving comments.
That's okay. Enough people wasted their mod points lowering it. Be thankful that you didn't waste yours too.
It still doesn't change the fact that your argument is as dumb as the dumbest religious belief of the people whom you condem.
Perhaps you could try an argument doesn't start out with a personal attack. Then I might consider debating you like an adult.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Would you ("you" personally), pay 10% more for a product if you knew (really knew, not just saw it as marketing) that:
a. the product was 100% Made in your country
b. the employees of the company that made it were paid a decent wage
c. the executives of that company all made no more than 5 times the salary of the highest paid worker
(Product quality and availability and all other factors are considered to be the same.)
If so, why? Also, how much extra would you pay? 15%? 20%? 25%?
If not, is there a reason other than pure "get the lowest price I can"?
I'm trying to see if there's anything that makes a person actually (as opposed to simple voicing of platitudes) invest more in his/her country/economy rather than his/her own economic advantage.
Here is a survey of recent system engineering articles in the INSPEC database:
graphics: http://faculty.washington.edu/sidles/SPINS/literat ure.gif
numbers: http://faculty.washington.edu/sidles/SPINS (see readme.tex)
We see that most of the system engineering literature already is written in Mandarin; the Chinese engineering community surpassed the US (and Japan) about five years ago.
The Chinese Journal of System Simulation shows the depth and sophistication (and the military focus) of this literature:
http://www.china-simulation.com/esite/preview/absYikes! What to make of this?
The history of the Jamestown Colony is instructive, because the USA treats its scientists and engineers much like the Jamestown colonists. The colonists were told by their British investors to focus mainly on prospecting for gold, not on the mundane tasks of farming. Result: not much gold was found, few crops were raised, and the members of the colony starved.
Similarly, American scientists and engineers are told by their funding agencies and corporate employers to focus on breakthroughs. Result: not too many breakthroughs, very few new commercial products, and the economy is foundering.
The Chinese are quite open about their strategy of balancing research and engineering more equally. And they make no secret of their intent that this strategy will eventually yield, first, economic dominance, then military and cultural dominance, in accord with the classic Chinese strategy "deceive the sky to cross the ocean".
Obligatory "I for one welcome ... " joke omitted, because I've got a son in the USMC.
- Our culture considers science and those who pursue it as "uncool", while glamorizing jocks and sports. - Our schools teach us to be good worker bees, not critical thinkers. - Rampant consumerism seems to drive the economy; critical thinking is antithetical to that. - An educated population practiced in critical thinking is a threat to those in power. If you believe the above, then does it seem that the government (not known for long-term thinking anyway) really has much of an incentive to promote quality education and science? Big business can always offshore, after all. Just keep the public dumbed-down with "bread and circuses". I don't necesarily think there's a concious conspiracy, just a lack of will on the part of our "leaders" to do what's right.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
In my opinion, the point that "intelligent designists" are trying to make is that we are unable to completely explain an objective reality through science. Now, they are trying to make up for this by teaching "alternative ideas." Wouldn't it be much better to explain the meaning of science, it's uses, different views of why it is important, and its philosophical limits? When was the last time your high school or college science teacher sat down and explained that we are limited by perception and that objective reality might be completely different from what we perceive but we wouldn't know it because we will never have experiences outside of our own limited perceptions? People don't realize this. It is very subtle, but important; it's a grain of salt or whatever you want to call it. Einstein must have had a rough second half of his life in dealing with nonlocality and seeming nondeterminance in the universe that is clearly presented by quantum mechanics. We have not been able to explain things on the most fundamental levels yet, but dogmatic liberals would love to tell the right wingers that everything has been figured out, and religion isn't a part of it. Now, I'm a firm believer in the eventual/theoretical ability of science to explain everything completely, but wow, we are far from that. Maybe I'm some kind of idealist, but I think that most non-instrumentalist scientists are as well. However, to think that the most advanced of our understanding is actually to the point of being able to fully refute religion is arrogant, and depending on some wild idea that we are fully to that point is arrogant as well. The fact that reality is so nonintuitive and nonobjective seems like it should be extremely discouraging to both secular and religious dogmatists. Since it isn't, I can conclude that both extreme beliefs are caused by some sort of blind faith and not understanding. Do not tell me that you understand everything. Perhaps you have been able to reconcile everything you know, but you do not understand everything or you would have one some incredible prize. For example, a kid in my math class always told me how all of these magnificent speciations had been observed all over the place but he failed to tell me one of them. I was able to find more speciations on my own without the end goal of making fun of fundamentalists. Sadly, he is the one bashing Religion the hardest. He trusts so much in the scientific community that he feels safe enough to lazily drop any attempt to actually understand anything he so firmly believes in. Religious people do this all of the time. He would believe anything he saw on the cover of Discover without even reading the article. If he read the article and couldn't understand it or it was oversimplified and lacking detail, he would still believe it (I am just using Discover as and example of a simplified version of scientific thinking and am in no way saying it isn't accurate). I guess this could be called dogmatism. Furthermore, labeling anyones beliefs as "magic" implies that you /fully/ understand not only what they believe and why they believe it but also what they believe stems from, and that even after you fully understand all of this you would still ridicule it. If you have felt like saying "how on earth could anyone ever believe that!?" then I would say you probably don't have enough understanding of their belief to credibly ridicule it.
Also, I think we need to separate the engineers from the real scientists ; )
No but seriously, education in America is all about the money. I am so saddened to see all of these people who could care less about the fundamental reasons why things do what they do. Instead, they memorize all of these intricate patterns science has found in reality and use them to be engineers and make money so that they can buy a house and send their kids to college. It is so sad. That's why I love physics so much.
A colony can be split in two and, over time, members the two colonies will not be able to inter-breed with members of the other colony. They have become two different species.
If not so, what criteria would you require to show that it was so?
"America must act now to preserve its strategic and economic security," the panel's chairman, Norman R. Augustine, retired chairman of Lockheed Martin, said in a statement.
I find it quite unfortunate that this necessary call to action must be phrased in terms of "security" in order to get the attention of our politicians.
To create a corps of 10,000 teachers annually, the report called for four-year scholarships, worth up to $20,000 a year, that would help top students obtain bachelor's degrees in science, engineering or math - with parallel certification as K-12 math and science teachers. After graduation, the students would work for at least five years in public schools.
Hmmm, so we train these scientists and engineers, then subject them to spending five years of perhaps the most scientifically & technically productive time of their lives teaching high school. After five years teaching in our underfunded, hooligan-filled high schools, do we honestly expect these people will jump right back into their fields and pick up where they left off after school? This is especially relavant in research-oriented fields that require expensive lab equipment based on rapidly-advancing technology, stuff they certainly won't have access to in the typical American pre-college schools. Instead, why don't require that they teach high-school after retirement? That way, their students would have the benefit of a lifetime of experience in the discipline, and the scholarship recipients can get right out into their fields and start contributing.
International students in the United States who receive doctorates in science, technology, engineering or math should get automatic one-year visa extensions that allow them to seek employment here. If these students get job offers and pass a security screening test, they should automatically get work permits and expedited residence status. If they cannot get a job, their visas should expire.
A good start, but how about we just offer them full citizenship instead. The ones that can't get a job may still be better 90% of what America's schools produce, and who knows what entrepeneurial accomplishments they bring to the table when forced to do so out of necessity. Why the hell are we being so stingy with our citizenship for accomplished people and so generous with it for random border-crossing illegal aliens. Oh, right, there are more votes with the latter group.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
1) China owns a very large chunk of American debt in the form of bonds. This is a problem for both the Chinese who are looking for ROI, and for the US.
From the WP:
"Ever since record budget surpluses turned to yawning deficits, some economists have issued warnings of pending doom that have yet to come true. They predicted that foreign lenders would sour on U.S. government debt as the Treasury Department sold billions of bonds and notes each day. To keep those buyers happy, interest rates would have to rise substantially. Housing, cars and other items bought on credit would turn expensive, and the U.S. economy would slide into recession."
2) As the cost of a college education in the US has skyrocketed, the jobs that those degrees are supposed to acquire are rapidly disappearing, because of lower labor costs and a better educated foreign workforce.
What is the impetus for someone to work for years to get the degree, when their job could get outsourced at any moment?
3) China has a major growing problem in that their wealth distribution is very skewed toward the urban workers. The Chinese Communist Party leadership has acknowledged this, which in itself is a big deal, as they rarely admit a problem.
So I wouldn't say China is completely ready to "take over" R&D, as they know their political situation is tenous at best. The Communist Party will try to avert disaster over this, and it would also behoove the US.
Essentially what this all means is that it is in the best interest of China, India, the EU and the US to keep some economic and scientific parity. If anyone nation or group becomes the overall leader, everyone will suffer, including the nation or group who is the supposed scientific/technical leader.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Its true that a school in a less affluent area will probably not be as good as a school in a more affluent area. But is that any less true right now? Currently we encourage bad teachers by refusing to fire them, and we encourage bad schools by giving them even more money. The only way to get good performance is to reward it. Competition will raise the quality of eduction in bad schools. It also gives poor people who can not afford to live in an affluent neighborhood but can afford to send their kids to a school in an affluent neighborhood a way out. The current system traps poor people in their bad neighborhoods and prevents them from going to better schools nearby. Elite schools who are looking for good students will provide scholarships to poor students in the same way that universities do -- in order to have better statistics to advertise.
I think your worries about a monopoly are unfounded. If another company comes along that can provide a better education at a lower price, then the bad old school will go out of business. As long as there is a profit to be made there will be competition for that profit.
I also think we should pay kids for performance. They would be a lot more interested in school if they made money rather than just got an A. And I mean a real significant salary, not just 50 cents.
Both quotes from Gen 5:5 you provide are totally different than what's in the Bible I have, "The New American Bible". In mine that section and sentence is "The whole lifetime of Adam was nine hundred and thirty years; then he died." Having said that, if it defines "day" as when the sun shines then I'd have to say the right word was used in translation. Maybe I should of used another word, such as "witch". It's my understanding the word used should be translated as "poisoner". While Hebrews back then may of known heathens and pagans I don't know as they knew of those who practiced witchcraft or the wiccan religion.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This Page links to the 8th page of the report where patent reform is discussed (closely followed by a bunch of tax incentives). The text specifically mentions IT patents hurting innovation. This is under the fourth major recommendation section, (D), and the first one listed (D-1) under that section. D-4 might also be of interest to the /. crowd: ubiquitious broad band internet access.
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Actually, I believe that your concept is wrong. Science and religion usually have gotten along wonderfully at least in the eyes of the scientist. Remember Newton was a bible thumping nut
Actually, most military hardware does find it's way into the consumer market. Also, are you telling me that traveling to the moon/mars/whatever is commercially exploitable.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistT
So it was Einstein's second "Theory of Relativity" and it followed his first "Theory of Special Relativity". So, yes, I am familiar with it.No. You're wrong. What it says, simplified, is that a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniform acceleration.
This is a refinement of his "Special Theory of Relativity" which focused on the effects of acceleration on time.Since Einstein did not say that, why should I ask him to support it?
You're the one making the claim. Either you provide support or you retract it.I'm not asking about Newton.
You made a claim that the theory of relativity said that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Support it or retract it.Great. Now you're retreating into "what the meaning of 'is' is".
Thanks for providing the support to my statement.
"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." What could be more simple than simply attibuting everything to God? lol, I'm so getting modded down for this but I've always wanted to use this argument..
It's all upside down. The best and the brightest are attracted to the research universities which will give them the least amount of attention, as the faculty are too busy with "other things".
See http://www.epinions.com/content_73675148932. Many issues raised in that article are verified by in the May 19, 2004, issue of the weekly Stanford Report, written by Ray Delgado:
"Partly due to ever-increasing demands on their time"? You mean like sitting on the board of directors for a company that blows $100 million over seven years?
Likewise the editorial board of the Stanford Daily of May 14, 2004, wrote
"International students in the United States who receive doctorates in science, technology, engineering or math should get automatic one-year visa extensions that allow them to seek employment here. If these students get job offers and pass a security screening test, they should automatically get work permits and expedited residence status. If they cannot get a job, their visas should expire." This is what striked me as something strange. Infact I am amazed at the dual intent of US policy makers when it comes to brain drain. I am talking from an Indian perspective, We have IIT's where the govt. subsidizes the education. What happens to the graduates, they come to US after being paid for by the Indian TAX "RUPEES". The fun part is US pretends in the student VISA interview that the student it applying for a visa on the condition that he will return back to the country after the completion of the education. Yeah right, most of them end up having a job in the US. And even though we produce more engineeres we are no better off. Needless to say India sends its top of the breed to the US however lately the trend with the anti-terrorism has been to question these students in any entry/exit ports as if they had horns.
Perhaps you could try an argument doesn't start out with a personal attack. Then I might consider debating you like an adult.
An adult debate would be a waste of time. You're belief that religion is what is bringing down America's technical ability is just plain wrong. I could debate you but, you obviously have a political adgenda (and not much substance backing up your claim) so, it would be like me debating someone who's belief is that "Bush caused global warming which caused Katrina".
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
... regardless of country of origin. It's a (very effective) way to attract smart people in the States. Admission in a good program is incredibly tough though.
The Raven
Capitalism has a slight case of ADHD, and companies are no longer worth more than the margin of profit you can rake home in between buying it and selling it. Whatever they produce is irrelevant, as are their workers.
Thus, capitalism is killing itself, because it promotes short term goldfish-like behavior. Investors invest in a range of companies, out of which a certain % is doomed beforehand and the loss is regarded as natural.
What does this mean in the long term? well for one thing it stiffles innovation, no incitaments for long term research, those who holds the whip and wrings results out of the peons (scientists and engineers) becomes far more important. In the long term brands are also becoming irrelevant, as the market moves faster and faster and no-one has a personal vested intrest in them they just dont have continuity or stability. Here one day, gone the next.
I'm not too fond of it, either. However, the way the political distribution of "increased education funding" goes that money is like the Colorado River: it disappears into the sand before it reaches its destination.
A better phrasing would be that there's no point in just increasing education funding. At the very least, we need to stop congratulating ourselves purely on how much we spend.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Here's something you need to keep in mind. Correlation is NOT causation. The religious right may like the concept of private and home schooling because it allows them to control what is taught to their children. Not surprisingly this causes them to back voucher systems.
However if you think that it's only the religious right, you are mistaken. High School was a tediously slow process for me. I was not challenged. I could produce mediocre work and make great marks, and I knew it too.
Since then class sizes have gotten bigger. The concept of "Social Promotion" has devastated the learning enviornment. Kids who should be failed and held back a grade are passed on because we don't want to hurt their fragile phsyche. However in the next grade level they are even less prepared, and surprise! The teachers have to dumb down the material even more for the entire class in order to accomodate those individuals. Kids who have special learning needs are kept in the normal classes, but they have no additional assitance. So teachers have to spend more time with them, and less time furthering the knowledge of the other children. Now add to this the standardized tests that every state has. Teachers now teach kids how to pass a test. Passing a test is not thinking!
The school system used to work because classes were smaller. Kids that need special attention got it outside of the regular class room. It was okay to fail a kid, and those who failed were held back. Kids had to think to keep up! Tutoring wasn't uncommon. My Grandma tutored for years because some kids need the extra help, and they had to get it outside of the classroom.
Don't blame the religious right for the sorry state of the school system. My wife resigned from teaching high school, and has vowed that our kids will never go to public school. You know what? I agree with her, and it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has to do with 60 (yes SIX ZERO) kids in the classroom. It has to do with parents who insist their kid didn't cheat even though you can find their little darlings paper in the FIRST hit in a google search! It has to do with kids in high school who CAN'T read! It has to do with administration saying your contract won't be renewed if any of your students fail. Is religion responsible for that? No it isn't. Schools get funding based on how well kids do on standardized tests. They get funding based on how many kids graduate.
What's the insentive to actually fail a kid? To bring attention to a learning problem that needs to be addressed, but no one will take serioiusly since they've been socially promoted for the last ten years anyway? Get real. Religion has very little to do with the state of the US school system.
Science with no room for debate is not science. Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, Evolution and everything else (if you really want to piss of the religious right, this is the way to do it). Above all, teach the kids to THINK! Teach them that there is usually more than one way to answer a question. If you just teach them one thing, well it's no wonder they become mindless automatons regurgitating factoids.
I used say it was all good, after all I still need someone to get those fries for me at McDonald's. But I haven't eaten there in quite a while. It's become too depressing.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
An adult debate would be a waste of time.
...you obviously have a political adgenda
Really? You mean there isn't an adult on that end of the keyboard?
Pity.
You're belief that religion is what is bringing down America's technical ability is just plain wrong.
Now you have taken the route of mischaraterizing my statements to support your own weak argument?
I never said religion itself was the reason for the decline of America's technical ability.
I said the religious right was responsible for the decline.
Are you claiming the religious right represents all religious people in America?
I could debate you but,
No you can't otherwise you would have started your initial post with a debatable point. Instead you immediately launched into a personal attack.
Yeah, I don't like religion taught as science.
Funny, that.
(and not much substance backing up your claim)
Coming from someone who has provided NO substance, that isn't much of an insult.
You'll have to try harder.
so, it would be like me debating someone who's belief is that "Bush caused global warming which caused Katrina".
You really believe Bush created global warming?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Well, let's take it out of the lofty realm of religion and quasi religious economic and political ideologies for a moment.
The question for our politicians is: what aims should the US government's policy pursue?
Suppose it is better for the world economy if the US loses its preeminence in science and technology to countries where the brains are cheaper; and that attempts to maintain the US lead in these areas would be an overallocation relative to the perfect Market result.
I'd say, then, it's uncommonly altruistic for us to slip into economic and cultural obscurity for the sake of the efficent workig of markets. That is, until you realize that certain parties -- namely those whose productive assets are the most mobile and easily shifted across national borders, stand to reap all of the immediate benefits.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You make a claim that seems to contradict what I understand
Saying that any reference frame can be taken as stationary (for items in that frame) does not support your statement that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Since you haven't been able to support your claim, but you feel the need to keep repeating it
I think we actually agree. Neither is science! So if they're going to speculate to students about how life came into being, might as well mention that God could be as good a reason as comet (which just moves the problem off planet). But maybe I'm missing the point about the whole school controversy.
The controversy is that supporters of ID are trying to take over the teaching of science with mumbo jumbo. Saying evolution can't explain complex organisms and that some Intelligent Designer is needed isn't science. If the people who want to teach this then they can teach it in a philosophy or comparative religion class. If they want to teach that though then they need to teach other views as well. Here's one I like, The Navajo Creation Story. Or how about the Zuni Creation Cycle.
FalconShould there be a Law?
not just the outright thefts, like tyco and refco, and attempted at worldCON. all these interlocking board members get in their meeting in grand cayman, or hawaii, or bermuda, vote special stock dividends and options packages to the top bananas and board members, and run another thousand worker bees out the door to pay for it. getting to be the only retirement plan you can count on is guns and ammo.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
He was also the one who f***ed our country the most by passing the Federal Reserve Act!
That %$%@$#$%$^!!
Thats what I just said - the Bush administration (and the Clinton one before him, to a lesser degree) are business oriented and support commercial and military research (to stupidly ridiculou degrees, if you ask me - public money funds research that private companies get to hold patents on), but are less interested in pure science, which gives only long term commercial results if any at all. NASA is a partial exception, although it might be worth considering the new push for the weaponization of space is affecting the willingess to fund space exploration.
What could be more simple than simply attibuting everything to God?
Gosh, I wish I recalled how it went but in "Contact" Jodie Foster when talking about Occam's Razor says something along the lines of if God exists then why didn't isn't there evidence. I'd add evidence that has only one explanation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Majority does care.
l #keepcool
If i'd say you're asshole you would be a bit harder to listen for the rest of my words.
For most people emotions are more weightful than logic.
You, personally, would not notice, if i call Your asshole? That's because Your emotion, willing to find the truth is overcoming emotion, unplesance to hear my rude words. But i do not think that would be the same for majority.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
Read this section and the next one. Does it suit You? fine! but not the majority, believe me.
PS: BTW scientists are usually not that fone refined rationale minds.
Many new ideas in hostory met quite wild reaction, when some basics of mainstream were questioned by new ideas. Axioms is what we choose to believe, yes? Since we rarely have time to rejustify axioms, they became a kind of religion to us. Feeling oneself as a part of a big, great Science makes it easy to ignore attacks to yourself, but you might take very personal any attack to the well-knowns of that Science.
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.
-------------------------------------------------
There's nothing in the laws of physics requiring that lawbooks or the people who use them be located within the jurisdiction they apply to. Plenty of legal work is outsourced now -- how do you think all those bizarre patents get written up and filed? And more to come. Think about who administers your Workers' Compensation claims.
A pharmacist in India could fill your prescription in Poughkippsie. A layer of telecom for reading the prescription, and running the machine that picks the pills off the shelf and bottles and labels them before dropping them into the delivery slot.
Most health plan authorization decisions are being made now by some low-paid worker with some English language competence, with a rulebook and no medical training, just comparing the diagnosis number on the examination report with the health plan's list of lowest-cost average-person treatments.
I know a doctor who, working in an emergency room, gets chewed out all the time by the ER staffing company manager (there are only a few, it's all outsourced) -- because he insists on seeing that the lab or X-ray reports he ordered come back and are properly interpreted before he sends people home.
His manager looks better with a much faster turnaround time and more bodies moved through. And if the treatment was wrong, maybe they'll come back, and that's a whole 'nother round of billings.
See:
American Academy of Emergency Medicine
http://www.aaem.org/
The Rape of Emergency Medicine. PDF, online and Palm (PDB) versions.
The outsourced ER management company routinely does triage on the people in the ER waiting room -- according to how many pricey examinations their plan will pay for -- and sees them first. While on the other end of the phone line is that health plan worker trying to approve the fewest tests. It's a race to maximize mediocrity.
Speaking of which, was anyone able to see what the 20 proposed steps were that the panel proposed that the US can do to get out of this problem?
One of the things that I hear christians complaining about is how christianity is now the target of discrimination in public schools. I've experienced this for myself.
I've experienced the opposite. I've experienced having a ruler applied my hands as well as have seen it happen to other students' hands for refusing to say the Pledge of Alliance with the phrase "under god" in a public elementary school.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Policies which sound good on paper but may not be so great in practice?
I don't think what the general public thinks has any effect on scientific progress whatsoever in the long term. Intelligent Design may gut the future of biology in this country, but that bill isn't due for a long time yet. Excepting a few areas such as stem cell research, I don't think religious conservatism is much of a driving force at all in science policy. They can be (to use an offensive and stupid stereotype) as ignorant and anti-intellectual as they want, but it has no short term effect until somebody makes a policy or draws up a budget.
Economic conservatism however, is a different kettle of fish. Economic conservatism can flex its ideological might in the post cold war era in a way it couldn't even under conservative adminstrations before.
It's early to say, but I suspect the conservative program for research may be headed for trouble. It's important to acknowledge Bush administration, going by raw numbers, isn't bad from the science funding perspective. But against a background of global competition, US companies are slashing research, so that overall US spending on research is dropping although the public sector picture isn't so bad. So we have a situation where pulblicly funded commercially applicable research is out of favor, but contrary to expectations private investment is collapsing at an unprecedented rate. This is probably mostly because of other conservative programs such as trade liberalization. But it may also be due to a doctrinaire and economically naive view of how technology is developed. I hear this all the time "the government should not decide on what technology should be developed" etc., as if technology was a ball that the private and public sectors tussle over. What's at stake is the development of national research capacity, which attracts investment because the people, companies, services and infrastructure are there.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"I'm from the United States. Sorry about our government."
It worked well as an introduction.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
I think something a lot of posters here are forgetting about is the coming "robot takeover". We continually see robots of all stripes becoming more adept at movement, visual and audio recognition, and last but not least, thier own AI. It's only a matter of time until most if not all tasks that can be done by a robot, will be done by a robot. Human workers and their unions, as well as environmental restrictions will be swept aside as robots will be able to perform tasks that human workers wouldn't dream of doing.
Vast numbers of workers, at first the lower skilled and then moving up the skill level, will be displaced as robot workers will become "commodified" and bring a greater ROI to the "Enterprise", who will more and more in the future be guided by AI-like software making business decisions better than any American mangers could...
This current phase will probably last the next few decades until robots are more capable and affordable.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
But the original poster isn't referring to scientists. The idea is to remove tenure for K-12 teachers so the crappy ones can be weeded out easier.
Disclaimer: I was educated in Africa, attended college in the US...
I completed my undergraduate studies in the US and worked for a year on an OPT permit. My employer subsequently assisted with an H1B application, which was ultimately approved. Part of the H1B application process involved verifying that I was not earning below the market wage for my position, and not taking a job from an equally qualified American etc. A close college buddy of mine was denied an OPT permit based on a (IMHO) minor technicality with his F1 (student) visa. He had to return home. I have also heard one other case of a foreign student being denied OPT.
While at college I spent my elective classes on the hard sciences because I enjoyed them. I was a business major* and was not required pay much attention to sciences (or math for that matter!) The vast majority of the American students in classes with me were there because the classes were required in their majors. Most students were delighted when the professors (allegedly under duress from the administrators) curved them into passing grades and permitted them to move along in the curriculum. The sad part is that much (85-95%) of the material in the first couple classes (eg. Chem 101&102 and/or PHYS 101&102) was remedial - topics that I had covered in high school. However, it was completely new and challenging to my American classmates. I covered these topics in REGULAR 11th and 12th grade classes and it was REQUIRED knowledge for acceptance into most of the science related programs at our universities. According to my high school friends who studies at home, these topics were never re-taught AT ALL in their under-grad curriculum. It was assumed that the students had already mastered the material.
And so let me end this blusterous post with a question: What the hell do the American students learn in their high school science classes (and here I'm focusing on chemistry and physics - my apologies to biology etc.) if not the foundations of the science? Why don't they know about mols, atomic masses or (run and hide) stoichiometry? What about angular momentum? What about the magic of Ohms Law and the handy "FBI finger" trick? What were they learning instead?!?
* I chose to be a business major because it was much, much easier to find a job with a business degree than it would have been to find one with an engineering/science qualification. This fact is part of the problem, but I might elaborate in a different post.
I can't say I agree funamentalists of any stripe however I think the economic and legal climate of the US means that only the most naive people are still recommending science as a road to success. A lot of this can be put down to what might be termed the "Gates Effect" where a certain well-known billionaire conclusively proved that the early bird only gets the worm if a bigger bird doesn't come along and steal it. I used to love developing software and always harboured a dream of producing something the whole world will use (which I have done). Would I recommend to my child to become a software developer? Not a chance. My buddy who dropped out of high school works as a glorified cashier for the government and makes twice what I do and was doing so the whole time I was racking up debt through university. Now with the invention of IP, most scientists are in the same boat as musicians: producing basic work-for-hire with no recognition or compensation. Additionally, there is a call to see these underpaid workers be held liable for, not only their own work, but also the decisions made by their corporate masters. The private guy is in even worse shape: between arbitrary patents, DMCA and plain old litigation, he is VERY likely to be driven out of business the moment his ideas start to pay off.
And for what? How do you plan to better the world? Invent a cure for cancer? Not bloody likely when there is so much money to be made treating it. Stop global warming? Not bloody likely when there's so much money to be made creating it.
This is a simple systems problem and as unstoppable a force of nature as a hurricane. I just hope the Americans don't take the rest of the world with them...
Let's think about this aloud for a moment; the "religious right" as it were has been a prominent political force for, how long? Maybe 10 years? And the hullabaloo over ID is, what, about 5 years old max? Really gaining speed lately but rather novel just the same.
Continuing, our problem with science education is how old? 5 years? 10 years? more?
The fact is American education, generally, has been in decline for over 40 years; go back and read about what they were saying in the early to mid-80s: that our education system was in crisis. Etc etc etc. And that same system has declined even further in the years since then: causing science, math, & engineering grad programs to have 1 international student on average for every US citizen (the top programs anyway). Clearly our kids are not applying or if they are, they're not sufficiently competive candidates.
Now, time for synthesis. Let's be conservative and say that the "science education problem" -- its effects -- is about 10 years old (note: that it is better for anti-religious-right advocates that this problem be YOUNGER since they can more easily pin the blame on that movement in that case).
When do you think the problem -- its source -- started? Should this be some time period relative to when its effects were seen? After all we don't think these type of seismic shifts happen overnight, do they? Let's say the source of the problem originated about 5 - 10 years (at least) before its effects were visible and incontrovertible.
What we have conjectured, then, is that it is actually impossible that the religious right--a movement that really didn't gain any sort of recognizable force or stature til about 10 years ago--is responsible for a problem that has its roots at least 20 years ago and likely more.
Anyway it's fascinating that those who have absorbed 1/2 the real estate for this story's replies apparently have little of the analytical thinking skills critical for scientific advancement. Or, giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, they possess these skills but haven't yet acquired the discipline / character necessary to apply them uniformly: in spite of prejudice.
I know, currently it is set as an issue about Church and State because of the clause "one nation, under God".
But if it is framed in terms of Loyalty vs Liberty, it removes all the Church knee-jerk reactions (both for and against).
Not that it would clear the issue. You'd still have the positive and negative arch-types for each side.
We are a victim of our own success. Not a novel occurrence in history. Become wealthier, more liberalized --> become softer, less familiar with struggle, delay of instant gratification etc.
I believe this is at heart a cultural problem. I don't think the NEA is without blame but nor do I think they are the only party blameworthy.
Make no mistake; I am not advocating abolition of private property nor am I convinced that wealth in fact necessarily implies a certain softening.
So, think about this. You are a student studying Computer Science. You have a Masters Degree. You are thinking about getting a PHD. However, you know that getting a PHD really hurts your chances of getting a job. But, you could get a job being a professor. The one career path that you could do then, is try to get tenure and do that whole bit. But let's say, hypothetically, that there was no tenure... Let's say that I am a school. I have a finite budget. I notice that I tend to give people raises over time. So, people who are newer in the department cost less money. Hence, it is economically, in my best interest to not keep people for a long time, in order to save money. Or at least, there is some short-sighted financial pressure that would make me think so. Now, back to the computer science graduate student... As a computer science graduate student, seeing all of this, I am not going to want to get a PHD, because it does not present a very compelling way to ensure my job security.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
At my college, we've recently had an invasion of 'diverse' proportions. It's absolutely appalling the 'students' that gallivant around my campus now, degrading the academic sanctity of my formerly respectable institution. I can't conceive of being a freshman now, having to dwell within and linger amongst the all-encompassing academic corrosion that saturates my campus. Here is what I propose: You want the best students? Give them an environment conducive to learning! I don't care about quotas, Affirmative Action, or any other plutocratic nonsense to appease the masses. If you want world-class students, you've must stop letting in illegitimate semi-retards because of their racial 'disposition.' This is an issue of racial diversity (which constitues environment), nothing more. If you want the best, let credibility be the killer app. [...spoken from a man that is living the dream]
Ah... You're going to double their pay (or halve the class size) also?
Teachers are LEAVING the profession. After investing years in preparation, they are leaving when they find out the system they are expected to work with. There's no trouble getting rid of the bad ones, they don't want to stick around either.
The feds have designed a "testing" system that guarantees that all schools will fail, because they must do better each year than they did the previous year. This can only be done for a few years, and it's already claimed a huge number of casualties. Some of which are students that nobody wants to take, because they don't want to risk dragging their scores down. In programming something much milder than this is known as a "death march".
Currently the only people even considering becoming teachers either have no alternative, or have blinded themselves as to what they are getting into.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
American corporations are basically whores that are exporting overseas anything and everything to lower the bottom line. When you export highly trained positions like engineering and software you are not only exporting people, you are also exporting knowledge. Ultimately, you end up a hollow shell and the places you exported to end up kicking your butt because the people that actually know how to create new products live there and can form their own companies. No one here wants to get educated in these disciplines because they don't see a future in it. I had to laugh when I saw an article blaming Google for a scarcity of top notch software people, like several years of a dead job market while all these companies pooted software operations overseas had nothing to do with it. Personally, I doubt its fixable and fully expect American corporations to ride this horse until they find themselves on the ground and the horse is biting their ass.
You'd be surprised. A full professor is pretty well paid at the moment anyway. A lot of them have explicitly chosen to stay in academia because they prefer the assurance of being essentially unsackable rather than a huge pay packet. If tenure was removed, you'd have to radically increase professor's salaries. Yes, tenure sometimes means unproductive dead wood is kept around, but it also means that academics can't get sacked purely because their research discovers conclusions that the university finds unpalatable.
And you think business is capable of funding that kind of thing? For most businesses, if it's not going to produce a marketable product within five years, maybe even three, they're not interested. Business doesn't fund basic research. The few farsighted ones that do are essentially doing so for two reasons - as a bribe to get good researchers to work for them and also do some applied research that will make them money, and philanthropy. Few businesses have ever gotten to directly exploit their basic research (Xerox and AT&T being classic examples of research labs that have made other companies a lot of money). Then there is private philanthropy, but that makes up a miniscule part of research funding and is disproportionately skewed to medical research.
To a certain extent. What if those parents want to teach their kids that their religion demands holy war against infidels?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
This "religious attack on science" is at most five years old, and guess what, it's not the fourth graders that are the dropping the ball. It's gen-x and gen-y. No one wants to work hard for altuistic reasons here any more. Einstien wasn't looking for the next must-have-wunder-gadget so that he could retire at 35. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we don't really understand what it is to be in need.
We are all just people.
Yes, tenure sometimes means unproductive dead wood is kept around, but it also means that academics can't get sacked purely because their research discovers conclusions that the university finds unpalatable.
A researcher who is supported by private funds, can sell his ideas elsewhere. A researcher who is supported by government funds is at the whim of the politicians.
If business doesn't fund "basic research" then I am not sure why anyone else should. If your idea is not profitable, I, as a taxpayer, don't see why I should pay for it. If its not worth any money, then its worthless and we shouldn't spend any money on it.
Remeber that Islam is what it is right now because they too abandoned science in the 13th century...how ironic.
I think it is important to look at this alleged erosion beyond "fundie rightwing nuts hate science." I mean, lets face it that's always been true. When it wasn't ID it was creationism proper. One thing that may be happening here is just that Asian countries like China, Korea and India have started engaging in more science and technology (all those graduates aren't just answering Dell's phone calls you know), and in so doing have joined the US, Europe and Japan. The "comparative advantage" or "privileged position" of the US can then erode even with no actual decline in the absolute quality or quantity of work. This can only be a good thing - why should anyone worry that more countries are now doing research?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that the NAS's report didn't recommend teaching more intelligent design in biology class. ID is supposed to be the latest, cutting-edge stuff, no? What about all those lucrative ID research programs that US school kids can fill upon graduation?
;-)
Frist, Santorum, and Bush all seem to think ID is scientific; they wouldn't lie to us would they?
I love science and engineering, and my friends from high school who went into those fields think I would have been good there. I don't know if they're right, but I'm pretty sure that I've had a better career in law. And much as I love law and lawyers, I suspect that a country that makes law a more rewarding career than science and engineering is likely to wind up with more and better lawyers than it has scientists and engineeers.
UPDATE: Reader Sabrina Chase emails:
I can confirm your suspicion -- more US scientists would be available if they could find work. I have a PhD in experimental physics, did some of the early research on C60 (buckyballs) as a grad student and postdoc, and I could not find a *bad* permanent job, let alone a good one. I don't think my colleagues have exorbitant salary demands (unlike lawyers -- sorry, couldn't resist!) but the positions simply weren't there. My graduate education was partially financed by taxpayers, too, and it irks me that they are not getting much return on their investment. I'm working in the software industry now, which has better hours, better pay, and a much reduced risk of getting irradiated or electrocuted, but I wish I had had the opportunity to keep doing the fundamental research I loved.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Scientist-reader Walker White emails that people are missing the real story, which is more about management than ideology:
I noticed that you posted on the article about our "eroding position in science" and a link to the Slashdot discussion. As a practicing scientist, I thought I would bring your attention to the one feature about that discussion that is not getting any attention right now: the grant situation (indeed, Chris Mooney specifically says he did not consider it important in his book, though it is the topic of most concern to us scientists).
There has been quite a bit of press on the cuts in the NSF after an initial increase in 2002.
However, the real issue has been the change in focus of the NSF under this administration. Not anti-science, but anti-foundational science. In its submissions, the NSF is now requiring that the results of the research have some form of application in the short term. The NSF was supposed to be different from organizational grants, like DOD or NIH, in that it could support foundational research -- the type that will not economically pay off for years or even decades.
There is a strong argument that the unique level of support the U.S. gave to foundational research is what made us such a world-wide leader. For example, engineering research at European universities has historically been funded by businesses. They worked on specific, classified projects and the results were not published or otherwise shared with other researchers. The graduate students had no way of proving their worth to the research community and had a hard time getting academic jobs. The openness of our research community attracted many overseas students here, and the best remained to become faculty; the dearth of funding opportunities with the universities in their home countries made their job prospects limited. With the rise of the EU, Europeans now have in place a central body with a lot of capital that can distribute grant money to encourage quality, publicly-available research. Asia is also now developing similar programs.
As a result, academic positions in other countries are becoming competitive with the U.S. And as other countries increase funding, we are continuing to cut back. I understand small government, but I have worked with business enough to know that -- unless they are doing it for philanthropic reasons -- they will not fund science that does not have immediate or short term applications. Only government or noncompetitive monopolies (like the original Bell labs) have ever funded foundational research (Microsoft's recent competition from Google has forced them to retool their R&D division to make it more short term). And considering your job, you should know tha
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
In my post I generally presented a case for tenure. (at the university level; since without it most professors wouldn't continue at the job.) You build an abstract reality where tenure no longer exists (presumably as a case supporting the abolition of tenure) and then illustrate that you would not get a PhD nor take the job. Which seems to support my original case for the presence of tenure.
Are we in agreement that tenure is a good thing at Universities? (Given present economics. If the economics of universities offered salaries competitive with industry then I would agree that, in the student's best interest, tenure should be abolished and the system should move towards merit rather than seniority.)
You accurately paint certain aspects of university economics: 1) finite budget and 2) tend to give people raises over time. It will be difficult to address the first but progress can be made on the second. First realize that tenure is not the same as pay rate. Tenure is simply a mutual commitment to be employed together permanently [and some would argue without regard to future performance]. Tenured people don't have to be awarded more pay or benefits.
However, an economic problem exists that makes it nearly impossible to deny pay raises to incompetent instructors and steer that finite resource to better instructors and thereby encourage, attract and promote excellence in the instructor. I generally call this economic condition by the proper noun "Union". Teachers in K-12 and higher education have labor unions strong enough to rival the UAW or teamsters. (I choose not to belong.)
The result is worse than you may realize. Unions are supported more by non-tenure track people than by tenure track. the union primarily fights to reduce salary "gaps" between employees and give equal benefits to all instructors; non-tenure as well as tenure track. This means that I generally feel that unions do not serve my best interests (because I am tenure track, have generally higher benefits and responsibilities and have my security guaranteed through non-union measures such as tenure [a benefit which have been started by unions, I don't know].
Anyhow, realize that non-tenure track individuals at my institution are appointed for three year periods. If they are not re-appointed because of lack of positions then we must re-appoint them when a position becomes available again; you cannot hire a different, more competent replacement. It is nearly impossible to terminate the employment of a non-tenure track instructor. To those that think tenure is some holy grail keep this in mind... a tenure track person is appointed for only a year and can be permanently released at any time prior to tenure for any reason. So basically for a six year tenure-probational period the non-tenure track people have more job security and the unions constantly fight for these people to make as much as the tenured individuals. Tenured instructors can also be let go at any time due to lack of positions (though you would have to release all the non-tenured people first) Tenure is not always easy. At research level institutions tenure is a nightmare to acheive and probably servers to maintain excellence. Far more people fail at it than succeed at places like UC berkeley or MIT. On the other hand/extreme we have the K-12 institutions where, as far as I know, tenure is a certainty based on length of service. My institution is somewhere in between. It's not guaranteed, you have to show work and progress, but the tenure rate is rather high.
Should you find an exceptional tenure track or non-tenure track person there is no allowance for merit pay or additional benefits. I think this is the real injustice. I think that benefits should be proportional to merit not "equality". I don't believe people are all equal when placed in a specific environment. I could never be a police sketch arti
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
How could we disregard all of that important research being done but our high school science depts!
We are all just people.
Outsourcing isn't a 'cultural phenomenon' or a 'fad,' it is a result of unrestrained capitalism. It's just appaling that here the United States is, on the literal brink of economic collapse, and people still argue the 'merits' of globalization. I now study Computer Science as an interest, because an entry level graduate competing against jobless veterans in this field is laughable at best. That is the state of affairs in America. If an Indian can code sorting algoritms every bit as well as I can, at a tenth the cost, why hire the American? This nation has been sold out, and our 'leaders' let it happen.
What about every engineer in the world? Or are only professors, scientists? I think professors get a really great salary. The benefits are incredible -- for one thing they can never be fired. They work 6 months a year. One month of for christmas. An office on a beautiful campus. Compare that with pumping gas!? You've got to be kidding. I'd take the professor's salary and benefits any day. Thats got to be a $40,000 gap (wild guess). People take jobs as professors, because they can make money that doing it.
Get the science hating, superstitous republicans 100% the hell out of Washington!
Till then, see research grant money, schools and science education or promotion of science of ANY KIND slowly dissapear altogeather!
What happens when a couple major oil fields dry up? We are going to have real badthings happening.
Which is why I'd rather the government support alternative and renewable sources of energy rather than more oil drilling. That is if it's going to support anything, however I'd rather the federal government stop doing a lot of what it does do. Now, I do like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's million roofs campaign and would like to see other state pick up on it. In Florida for instance it can be very successful. I also like his, Schwarzenegger's, Hydrogen Economy. The US could be a world leader in it however Iceland is the leader. As an interium I support Biodiesel, especially as made from hemp.
But more specifically about money going poof- when the banks closed up, people's savings just disappeared. Mostly it was just money disappearing.
Again, the money didn't disappear, There isn't a black hole the money disappears into never to be seen again. It just ends up in someone else's hands. Or it's wasted but even then it still doesn't disappear.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No scientist in his right mind is at all discouraged from his or her career by right wing (or for that matter, left wing) whackos who howl when ideologies and data collide.
We are discouraged from our careers by the simple fact that our salaries are lower than that of alternative careers for bright people, such as medicine, law, or busines.
A lawyer finishes school at age 25, starts at a salary of $70k, has good job stability, has tremendous upside potential for huge salaries, and has lots of options concerning where he or she wants to work (big town, small town, etc). A scientist doesn't finish his or her series of post-docs until around age 30 (or later!), will start with a similar salary to what the lawyer was making five years before, has less upside potential (few scientists are rich, and if they are, it is business, not science), is under serious competition from low-cost alternatives in India, China, etc, and is relatively limited in his or her choice of job location.
Which would you choose?
Legal and cultural climates which encourage and incentivize innovation are relatively rare in human history and can easily disappear. To survive, they require the right mix of public curiosity, access to knowledge, economic vibrancy, and comfort with challenging social hiearchies. The simple fact is that it is easier for people to stick with the solutions they already have than to attempt innovation. The innovator faces not only the looming prospect of failure - after all, most innovations fail - but the opposition of the status quo, whose power rests on people sticking to the old way of doing things.
Traditionally, America has been a friendly climate to technological and scientific innovation for two reasons. First, although American culture has been staunchly anti-intellectual, this has been more than compensated for by its openness to immigrants from societies where such a stigma is not placed on academic achievement. Secondly, the American economy has been relatively open to recieving and implementing effective technological solutions. However, what happens when America becomes less friendly towards its foreigners, and when its foreigners find that there are better places to go? Moreover, what happens when America's corporate culture, compacent in their assumption that its ways will overtake the world, decides that its RnD departments no longer feed the bottom line? What happens when our legal climate provides discentives for innovation by punishing someone who stumbles across an idea which has previously been patented? What happens when security professionals are thrown in jail for discovering and publicizing flaws in some big corporation's software? What happens when an engineer with a doctorate, who spent 10 years in living conditions which could most charitably be described as monastic, finds he is making a fraction of the salary of some bullshit artist in marketing who happened to shake the right hands? Comfortable in its imperial hubris, America is telling its more curious and inquisitive citizens, "Thanks, but we won't be needing you anymore." Which is pretty much what every great civilization has announced before the inevitable.
In the scientific fields, America is competing with older civilizations such as India or China. Although they were remarkably advanced a millenium ago - India in the theoretical sciences such as algebra and formal linguistics, China in applied technology - they became complacent. The real power lay in the hands of beaurocrats, priests, and mandarins - the ancient equivalent of our lawyers, MBA's, and marketing executives - who announced that they knew all they needed to know. It was too late when Western imperialism taught them a bitter and humiliating lesson. These civilizations learned the hard way that giving up on scientific and technological innovation leads to weakness and eventually subjugation.
I don't want to post this on a site where most people are seriously dependent on their computers, as so am I, but I have never seen it come up on these issue. I think the reason why science is eroding in the U.S. is the average Americans dependancy on computers. Without the computer, people find that they cannot do their work, live, etc. Modern day American society depends on the computer. Because the computer usually makes lives easier, people start to lose perseverence and creativity. People stop wanting to do hard work. I'm sure someone has told you this in your lifetime, but here it comes again.
are a significant component to the problems facing today's U.S. scientists. Other components that factor into this equation include the right-wing leadership of our governement and the little beady-eyed word-smiths AKA LAWYERS who craft such documents to advance the profits of the companies at the expense of the American economy and American Dream. I am a scientist at Pfizer Global Research and Development WHO IS A MANPOWER CONTRACTOR: I do the same work as a Pfizer colleague at less than half a colleague's salary, I have no health benefits, no retirement benefits, and I have student loans for both undergraduate and graduate school. I attend departmental and interdepartmental scientific meetings within the company to help advance drug discovery research. Pfizer is even so kind as to advance my professional development by educating me in very different areas of pharmaceutical research - I'm a prime candidate for employment with its competitors. Pfizer recently implemented its "Adapting to Scale" initiative, i.e. DOWNSIZING it's corporate expenses by terminating permanent colleague positions and replacing them with more contracted personnel. The range of terminations included leading scientists with Ph.D.s to bench level scientists at the bachelors and masters degreed levels, service personnel, mail room personnel, shipping department personnel, and other supporting personnel who deliver supplies to scientists. Pfizer openingly acknowledged in its company town hall meetings that its corporate goal is to outsource as much as possible to reduce expenditures. Clinical research is currently being moved to India. Knowing vast organic synthesis is no longer considered to be crucial to corporate trade secrets and competiveness, however, engineering medicines of the future from its vast compound libraries is extremely important. This means that nearly all of Pfizer's medicinal/organic chemists will likely loose their jobs to outsourcing within the next 10 years. The first transition will be to make these personnel on-site contracted resources, then moving as much as possible off-site to other companies by forming strategic alliances, with Pfizer's interests protected by the afore mentioned word-smiths.
Things to consider when reading this:
1. Pfizer's NET PROFIT MARGIN IS GREATER THAN 30% - that means after all expenses are paid.
2. Pfizer is self-insured - it is so large that it just pays the medical expenses of its employees.
3. This contracting thing is going to get much worse in the future - believe me, it happens little by little, but at a slowly accelerating rate.
4. Considering the cost of a college education in this country, the rise of energy prices, the increasing use of contract workers in positions that NOT TEMPORARY BUT FULL-TIME POSITIONS, why would anyone want to go into science? You can't make enough money to live, ya' know, like breaking even at the end of the month.
5. Businesses are amoral - they are in business to make money, not employ people or make good products or services available for the betterment of mankind. Companies are populations of people with select talents exercising their craft. The free market (supply & demand, competition, and political clout/connections/networking) determines "fair" market prices.
6. Pfizer, other drug companies, and all big bussinesses (Walmart comes to mind) are GREEDY.
With republicans leading the congress, executive branch, and now tipping the scales of the judicial branch in its favor, this country is in for some rough times ahead. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that things are pretty fucked-up in America when so many companies are filing for chapter 11 bancruptcy protection, demanding that workers take decreases in salaries and healthcare benefits while lining the pockets of management with larger bonuses and severence packages, claiming that these must be done for the survival of the company (increasing executive salaries while retaining/attracting good leadership). Sounds like bull
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
This has already turned into a religion versus science debate, but in reality I think this has more to do with other countries "catching" up the the US rather than the US falling behind. A lot of research still goes on in the US, but a lot of countries not formerly known (at least not for a long time) are starting to make some noise with their innovation and tech. Get used to it. This is apt to continue. As other countries increase their standards of living and research levels, they are going to make discoveries and advance. The US does not have a monopoly on science and development. Has religion held up some research, almost certainly in some areas like biology, but other research goes on and does produce results.
The US may not so much lose it's No. 1 status in science so much as have to share it. And that is actually a good thing.
I'll help the original poster out, though, much as he wishes this could be reduced to yet another partisan squabble: the distinction is not between Democratic Christians and Republican Christians; the distinction is between evangelical Christians and others. There are of course still exceptions but that's the real fault line.
I think the current young generation of US is generally not interested in Science.
In 19th century, the scientist used to be the rock stars of those days with their own house-full shows. these days they have been given a derogatory term 'geek'. yes, I believe geek is a derogatory term.
in US, a smart high schoold senior worries more about losing virginity than about taking science or engineering in college. while in a developing country like India, even a smart high school freshman starts preparing for the qualifying exam for engineering.
Yep. There's a website somewhere that has lists of who is on the Board of Directors for which companies, and considering how many megabillions of dollars they're ultimately in charge of, it's a VERY short list, with most of 'em sitting on the Board for a number of corporations, plus most are major shareholders. And the sad thing is, these aren't stupid people -- they know *exactly* where all this is headed, but they've already "got theirs", so who needs all those costly workers and annoying customers??!
:/
Sadly relevant sig you've got there
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
In fact, the definition of liberty is one of the most frequently debated elements of the U.S. Constitution. I find the Preamble to be a little more insightful as to the intended meaning, myself. It reads "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." I read this as the G-d given (what other meaning does Blessing have?) 'right' to avoid oppresive restriction.
Quick definitions (blessing)
Of the six definitions of "blessings" above six aren't religious in nature, so to your question, the use of the word doesn't necessarily need to invoke religion or "God". Myself, I prefer in the form "Brightest Blessings".
FalconShould there be a Law?
Tell that to the Enron/WorldCom investors or the S&L scammed folk who to this day haven't seen their money.
I know as I lost a lot from both Enron and WorldCom, tens of thousands of dollars. But the money didn't disappear. Instead corporate insiders, executives, stole it. The money still exists, it was just stolen, and went to things like multimillion dollar mansions.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Like stfu. We're soooooo tired of your ranting. Gosh!
used to be you could come here and find discussions about interesting things, now every story somehow turns into a religious debate.
discussing religion with a religious person is like talking to a brick wall.
discussing religion with a non religious person is like talking to a brick wall.
By the time i hit my age (39) i relized neither side will ever change thier views so why bother.
Now lets get back to interesting things like the number of electrons that have to move to ping a computer in new york from california.
Nuclear power plants are far, far less polluting than coal-fired plants, and they conveniently store *all* of their pollution in spent fuel rods rather than tossing it willy-nilly into the atmosphere.
And those fuel rods still need to be stored somewhere, millions of years and not the 10,000 the government says, before they aren't dangerous. And disposal of them is just one of the ways the government subsidizes the nuclear power industry.
Hydropower is even less polluting than that, but it commits the blaspheming act of *altering the environment to satisfy human needs*, an unforgivable crime in environmental circles.
Hydro power can does do that but it also can do much more. Because of China's Three River Gorge Dam millions are being forcibly relocated. Dam projects in India are forcing others to be relocated as well. The World Bank which finances or financed many dams has found that they can have significant social impacts. Dams may provide benefits, the WB admits however without proper provisions being made, these dams can also cause considerable damage to upstream and downstream ecosystems.
Environmentalists go on and on about "alternative" sources of energy, conveniently ignoring the fact that it isn't possible to power the entire economy on solar or wind, nor is it practical in many places
You're right, there are places solar or wind isn't possible but where one isn't the other may be. Where neither are feasible there are other possibilities, clean coal perhaps being one. Biodiesel and hydrogen may work as well. While it may be some years before hydrogen and fuel cells are ready, biodiesel is here now. Rudolph Diesel designed his diesel engine to run on most any vegetable and seed oil. On his Iron Mountain Estate Henry Ford designed and built a car that both used hemp in it's construction and was fueled by methanol made from hemp.
solar cells have an extremely dirty and poisonous manufacturing process, something greenies never seem to think is worth mentioning
This is something I've been thinking about for some tyme, but I have yet to come to any conclusion. Maybe the waste from the manufacture of PV cells can be used as input for another manufacturer.
Hell, even wind power is being blasted by some environmentalists because wind farms occasionally kill birds.
Older wind genies earned the rep for killing birds, however many of those spun relatively fast whereas new wind genie designs are proving to generate as much power at slower blade speeds than older ones and at slower speeds birds aren't at as high a risk of being killed. Other measures are being taken to reduce the hazzard to birds as well. There's also the NAMBY factor.
And if there were a true 'free market' in power generation, the plants would be even cheaper. And less safe, as well. But certainly cheaper than an equal power production capacity in gas, oil, or coal. Transportation savings alone would be enormous.
Even if they do prove safer, the new designs may not necessarily be cheaper. By the reckoning of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has just produced a new analysis of the economics of nuclear power*, the capital cost for today's nuclear designs runs at about $2,000 per kW, against about $1,200 per kW for coal and just $500 per kW for a combined-cycle gas plant. History also suggests that not everything goes as planned when turning clever paper designs into real-life nuclear plants. What is more, the debts of any new plants, unlike the debts of existing plants, will not be written off. In fact, the t
Should there be a Law?
Is it just me or does it seem that _no_one_ outside of federal goverment says anything positive about No Child Left Behind. It's really wierd. Teachers hate it. Parents hate it. Students hate it. State governments hate it. The news investigations show schools getting worse under it (e.g., being punished for mission one metric--it's all or nothing!).
Yes, professors spend about 80% of their time grubbing for grants, but you can be assured that the money does get spent by their research group (mostly graduate student stipends/post-doc salaries and equipment, with some extra for conferences), not the football stadium.
How much is classified? None that I have ever seen - and I have worked on military projects. In any case, so what if it is?
and don't believe there is a whit's worth of difference between "basic" and "applied" research. Also, any discovery in modern science is built upon hundreds, if not thousands, of previous discoveries, which were funded by just about every type of organization imaginable. This does not imply that without one particular source of funding, the new research would have been impossible because its foundations would no longer exist. Rather, the foundational work just would have been done by someone else.
The private and public sectors spend approximately the same fraction of their total income on R&D. Hence, the government has little net impact on the total R&D performed.
application, in any time frame. If you can't come up with a bad excuse as to why your research is important and write a one page bullshit blurb at the beginning of your proposal defending such, then your research almost certainly is worthless.
[...] "listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global lead."
#21: Nuke Kansas.
of why the Democrats lost the last election. Lots of people have stupid ideas, you and I included. Screaming "I have the facts" and insulting people is never going to advance your argument or change anyone's minds.
Respect is the first step in having a fruitful discussion.
If you go to a nice surburban school with lots of AP classes.
Try going to a poor rural or inner city school, or any small school, and you will quickly learn that there is not enough money or bright kids to fill an AP class.
In any case, you are also forgetting about grades K-10, when everyone is together most of the time.
I do feel that our efforts to help our worst students hinder our efforts to build our best students, who are often given a free pass to perform merely adequately. Teachers overwhelmed with keeping order among the hoodlums rarely have time to challenge the geniuses.
Instead of creationism and its "wedge", ID, it was the soviet brand of Lamarckism, Lysenkoism. As Lysenko was buddy-buddy with Big Daddy Stalin he was able to impose his crackpot ideas just as the fundies buddies of the Hick in the White House are trying to do with their fundamentalist beliefs. The results of the substitution of Darwinism with Lamarckism were dire for the URSS, so dire that they were not even able to feed their own people and had to buy their bread from their worst rival and enemy, the USA. I personnally think that that fatal error has much more to do with the demise of the soviet regime than the polish Pope and such. Now that's happening for the USA. Even here in Spain we are welcoming back scientists that are unable to keep up their line of work in the USA... despite the much higher pay in the States. And not only in the field of stem cell research a big tabu for the fundies. Other issues like the Crusade on Drugs histeria are also hampering research. A good example is Manuel Guzmán. While working in the US he discovered that THC (as in pot, marijuana) could be helpful in treating cancer. In the US research that could prove that an illegal drug has some beneficial effect is not only politically incorrect but simply not allowed, so he had to go back to Spain to follow his investigation. And now he is getting results... in Spain, not in the US... At first it would seem that could benefit us European quite a bit as we do not share these religious prejudices and we will benefit from the fugue of brains from the US. But I certainly do *not* want to see the world's first power side with theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia in certain areas... For me the solution is simple: politics and beliefs should not mingle with science. Easier to say than to do ;-)
...and I've actually dealt with industrial partnerships with universities. If you think most businesses will fund anything that takes more than three years to pay off (and a lot of research takes a lot longer than that do so so), you're kidding yourself.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Oh, lets have some fun counter examples.
How about GE's wind division? Hell, just about all the chemical and petro companies are pouring R&D into alternative energy, which is at least a decade from becoming a blip on the bottom line. Or how about GM? It's been working on fuel cells for years, and they are STILL a decade away.
The length of time is irrelevant. All that matters is the ultimate payoff, adjusted for interest and risk. If you can convince a company that your research will turn $500,000 today into $5,000,000 (inflation adjusted) fifty years from now with high certainty, you will get your research money.
I've done university/industrial partnerships, too. Unlike my PhD work, they got results, and have been applied in the real world, and are making people money while providing a better product. My PhD work will be read by a few dozen people and promptly forgotten.
Honestly, most PhD projects are nothing more than "well, no one has tried it before". Usually, there is a damned good reason for that...
Um, I think the whole religious what people believe has nothing to do with it. The transition form studding core curriculum to studding humanities is what has done it. Also, we have depended a long time on scientist from around the world. As other countries such as China and India get better economies the great minds of these countries are staying home more often.
The transition of our schools to factories for the influx of boomers, and liberal arts degrees are killing science in this country. Simply put, we need to demand our colleges stop giving out degrees in useless fields of study, at taxpayer expense no less.
-- Richard Zeien
Many undergraduate and graduate science students aren't coming to the U.S. because it's become so difficult to do so. They have to pay a yearly fee to be monitored by the government. Even if they do come, traveling in and out of the country is a pain. Fewer scientists from abroad aren't looking for posts in the U.S. for the same reason. Many scientific associations are avoiding having their conferences in the States because people get harassed as they go across the border. One friend who was born in Tehran gets pulled aside for a "random check" every time he goes to the states. He now refuses to go to conferences here. Add on top of this most universities have been paring down because of reduced budgets because of reduced state budgets, and the issue is further impacted.
Create positive learning experiences for young kids to get them excited about science, provide scientists, engineers and professors they can look up to as role models, and get them away from their parents, local social clubs and tv.
The 6000 year old earthers will eventually die and leave less damage behind them if you disconnect them.
The problem is that the church is so strong in the U.S. that an ultimately cynical demagogue like Bush simply plays to the populace. It is undoubtedly a common political thing.
Another thing, we should take some of the money spent on music, tv, advertising, guns and so on, and spend it on creating real educational experiences for smart kids seeking an oasis. We have the net now, we should be able to fund development of freely distributable educational packages and score them on the net, plus provide engineers, scientists or professors that kids can look up to, and tell kids how to reach them, over the net.
Also I would say that if you have an environment that is detrimental to science learning and personal development, drastically change the environment. Partition the classes, grade localities on their education and how many successful science people come out of it, whatever you have to do. Pour money where you have to, and create useful resources and oases for smart kids.
And don't worry, Bush and his stupid administration won't hear your cries for better educational program. He's only interested in protectiong corporate interests (oil and military tech).
But where does the money come from to fund this brillian 20-step program?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Something like MIT's OpenCourseware, only better utilization of our information infrastucture.
I took a technical writing class at a vocational college;
That class's teacher was an hour drive away.
I was kinda scared on the first day cause it was so 1984 like I had a flashback!
4 screens in the front, 4 in the back. But it worked!
And believe it or not one teacher can teach countless students, with everybody participating.
Obviously the students must have a certain level of independance.
This style would be more unidirectional where as in my class stu.body.A could talk to stu.body.B.
So FREE BOOKS & FREE COLLEGE!
I know it sounds rediculous.
PBS where the hell are you!
I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
And saving is not nearly as speculative as you seem to think. Ever hear of CDs? They won't make you rich, but they're still better than inflation.
It's obvious that most yuppies who don't save are suffering from short attention spans, not an absence of cash or fear of marketplace whimsy. When companies make their employees fill out a lot of forms and choose investment options to get their 401Ks, typically 10% go through the trouble. But when companies tell their employees, "We're going to open a 401K in your name, and put 10% of your pay into it, unless you you tell us not to," as many as 90% shrug and say, "That's cool."
Oh yeah, and the money you put into a 401K reduces your income tax. You like paying taxes?
Now that I understand what you're talking about :) I think I agree with you, at least in general.
I still think that "intelligent design", and other flavors of creationism, deserve to be in philosophy classes and not in science classes. But I also think you are absolutely right that good science can always benefit from criticism.
Incidentally, Unitarian Universalist churches teach that evolution is a observable fact, and that science and religion are 100% compatible as long as both follow reasonable ethical guidelines (c.g. human sacrifice and human vivisection are equally repugnant).
Interesting; I didn't realize that! I thought they used brute force to reduce the volume of air until it liquified, and then drew off specific fractions once the liquids stratified.