Slashdot Mirror
NASA Science Under Attack
The Bad Astronomer writes "The New York Times is reporting that NASA science is being harassed and even sometimes suppressed by presidential political appointees. The article details how NASA scientists dealing with such topics as global warming and the Big Bang are under attack for ideological and religious reasons." The submitter also has a running commentary summarizing a bit of the background of the story on his blog.
NASA's Science programs have been under attack since the Mercury missions... First by scientists and such. They were never popular in the science community then. But now being attacked by ideological people? I find this a little disturbing. As science is the search for truth... And me, as a republican, I think science needs to be left alone for the most part. We need to go back to the moon, and on to Mars.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
A week after NASA's top climate scientist complained that the space agency's public-affairs office was trying to silence his statements on global warming, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement yesterday calling for "scientific openness" throughout the agency.
Not His Own Words
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him (January 29, 2006)
"It is not the job of public-affairs officers," Dr. Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency's 19,000 employees, "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff."
The statement came six days after The New York Times quoted the scientist, James E. Hansen, as saying he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters.
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists and public-affairs employees came forward this week to say that beyond Dr. Hansen's case, there were several other instances in which political appointees had sought to control the flow of scientific information from the agency.
They called or e-mailed The Times and sent documents showing that news releases were delayed or altered to mesh with Bush administration policies.
In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
And in December 2004, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory complained to the agency that he had been pressured to say in a news release that his oceanic research would help advance the administration's goal of space exploration.
On Thursday night and Friday, The Times sent some of the documents to Dr. Griffin and senior public-affairs officials requesting a response.
While Dr. Griffin did not respond directly, he issued the "statement of scientific openness" to agency employees, saying, "NASA has always been, is and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public."
Because NASA encompasses a nationwide network of research centers on everything from cosmology to climate, Dr. Griffin said, some central coordination was necessary. But he added that changes in the public-affairs office's procedures "can and will be made," and that a revised policy would "be disseminated throughout the agency."
Asked if the statement came in response to the new documents and the furor over Dr. Hansen's complaints, Dr. Griffin's press secretary, Dean Acosta, replied by e-mail:
"From time to time, the administrator communicates with NASA employees on policy and issues. Today was one of those days. I hope this helps. Have a good weekend."
Climate science has been a thorny issue for the administration since 2001, when Mr. Bush abandoned a campaign pledge to restrict power plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, and said the United States would not join the Kyoto Protocol, the first climate treaty requiring reductions.
But the accusations of political interference with the language of news releases and other public information on science go beyond climate change.
In interviews this week, more than a dozen public-affairs officials, along with half a dozen agency scientists, spoke of growing efforts by political appointees to control the flow of scientific information.
In the months before the 2004 election, according to interviews and some documents, these appointees sought to review news releases and to approve or deny news media requests to interview NASA scientists.
Repeatedly that year, public-affairs directo
cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
The article doesn't mention whether this has happenend in previous administrations. Although I guess I'm not quite that surprised that it is happening now. It's really too bad.
Wait, aren't you speaking about comrade Lysenko?
You see, Orwell's books were not fiction, but a thinly veiled image of the then-present state of Russia. The US is still far away from this, but don't worry, it's well on it's way...
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
His memo reads:
Religious issues at NASA. I only wish this were some loony story, but it appears legit.
Given his young age (twenty four), you might imagine George Deutsch having an impeccable resume. He graduated in 2003 from Texas A&M with a degree in journalism, then in 2004 was an intern in the Bush-Cheney re-election "war room". Here is a link to some of his articles he wrote while at the Texas A&M Battalion.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
such a young life, wasted
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
you have to feel pity , that such a young person (24) can have have such a magnitude of delusion and be in a position to corrupt others with their issues
What's going on can be seen in the "refocus on space exploration" mentioned in the article. Relatively speaking, the most expensive part of NASA is manned space exploration, and it is economically the least efficient way to find out about the world around us. Human trips to the Moon and to Mars can tell us plenty of things about those planets that unmanned spacecraft cannot. But they're also hugely expensive, and a lot of that money goes to the massive engineering effort needed to bring the mission about -- read, a lot of money goes into the hands of a few private firms that are on good terms with the Bush administration.
On the other hand, "scientific research" at NASA is a problem. Here we have a prominent government research facility that does all kinds of research: research that requires large teams, or specialized equipment, or a permanent base beyond what the worlds' research universities can supply. And, unfortunately, much of the information it puts out, particularly in the sublunar spheres, tends to be either insignificant in terms of Lockheed Martin's participation, or contrary to the government's stated policy on environmental issues or the imminent second coming of Christ.
This administration has exercised tighter control over the bureaucratic aspects of government than any other in recent memory -- just look at what's happening in the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. The one constant has been the apparent demand for "Good News" that corroborates and does not falsify the central administration's gospel. Is it any surprise they'd go after NASA as well?
Or you can get usernames and passwords here.
May the Maths Be with you!
If indeed the administration and the political glitterati wish to filter what (non-quack) scientists have to tell us, then I believe we are being done a disservice.
I (very strongly) feel that science should not be seen through the rose-colored glasses of contemporary ideological/religious beliefs. It wasn't too many years ago that excellent medical scientists were treated as village idiots because the scientists' beliefs were not in-line with ideology. Before that, if a scientist had suggested giving processed mold to people with infections, the scientist would have been burned at the stake in some rural village square.
It is incumbent on the individual to discern whether or not the results of clean, unbiased science has implications on beliefs and value systems. It is not the job of ideologues to decide on our behalf.
A Passionate Independent Musician
Don't NASA have enough to deal with. Any good scientist will tell you that science cannot disprove the existence of God or gods no matter what you discover. Even with the heretical writings of Galileo and Copernicus freely available to all ~90% of the worlds population still believe in a higher order of sprirtuality. There are many reasons to force NASA to do things differently. Religion or ideology should never, ever be those reasons. When will the hardcore religious faithful who try to influence these things realise that science poses no danger to their beliefs. Their actions only perpetuate a growing distaste for religious involvment among so many people worldwide.
No, but it does surprise me you would post such a "preachy" item while doing literally the same thing yourself. You sound like this: "The NYT is liberal media, they talk bad about Bush and never say anything nice. FoxNews does the same thing in reverse." Did you even think that the news might be legitimate. Is there some degree of bias in media? Yes. However, the fact is that it is not as widespread and blatant as everyone makes it out to be.
Go read The Washington Post and see if you can name which way it leans. If you read it for a few weeks you might find yourself rather confused on that question. I have heard just about everyone say it leans each possible direction. I have found the people who say it is right-leaning are often people who are on the left and do not like what the paper is telling them. The opposite is true for those who say it is left-leaning because they are right and do not agree with what the paper is telling them.
The problem is not the media being right or left and who listens to it, so much as it is people not agreeing with what they are hearing, so they attach labels to justify their own ignorance of the facts. Surely G.W. cannot be wrong if we say the sources are "leftist media", and surely G.W. cannot be right if we say the sources are "rightist media".
But of course, I hope you have an open enough mind to challenge your view on traditional media because right now you do not sound much better then the "right wing nuts" and "left wing loonies" to which you refer.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
For the sake of journalistic balance can we please not refer to God but to "God theory" instead. Thank you.
For the record, not all religious people ignore empirical evidence. The Bush administration is NOT the thinking Christian's wet dream.
This is the sort of nonsense that real conservatives should stand up against. I'm talking about the conservatives who share more in common with libertarians, rather than liberals. The sort of people who realize that a strong economy is built around knowledge, which is directly derived from science, regardless of religion. Then again, such people have been purged from the ranks of the Republican Party over the last while.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
this guy is a hack and defintly has an agenda
d eutsch.html
more info on this guy here
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_
such a young life, wasted
Wasted?! This sycophant is probably earning a six figure salary and hob-nobs with ultramarine-blue bloods every fortnight. All at the tender age of 24.
The only loser here is his misfortunate young wife, who's had her salad days cut short so she can stay at home and raise this monstrosities offspring and service him sexually wherever and whenever he chooses.
Now that's a wasted life.
May the Maths Be with you!
Try it.
After reading the NYT article, I think a lot of this was over blown. Basically the accusations boil down throwing the word theory after big bang, NASA press releases trying to tie absolutely everything to the presidential vision, and earth sciences taking a hit.
Throwing the word "theory" after big bang is technically the right treatment for the word. It is a theory. It is a pretty damn strong theory, but theory none the less.
As far as the PR office stuffing a reference to the presidential vision on space exploration in every single press release, while irritating, really isn't much of a crime in my opinion. Press releases are not scientific journals; they are the PR office at work. Part of the PR offices job is to drum up support for various initiatives. Claiming everything under the sun could help the study of other plants is probably technically correct. The NASA earth scientist are really just pissed that they got their work mentioned in the context that it could do something good for the presidential vision. NASA earth science and the rest of NASA have always had a problem with each other. I am not terribly surprised to see them feuding over the wording of press releases.
As far as earth sciences taking a hit and going under major restructuring, this shouldn't come as a surprise. The president pretty explicitly stated that NASA was to be realigned to focus on manned missions to space. Unsurprisingly, the means cuts in everything unrelated. Now, you might very well disagree with this, but it is certainly not secret sinister plot.
The only thing "scary" going on that the NYT article brought up is that they let some 24 year old idiot who clearly has no idea what he is doing into NASA's PR office. This "gem" shows pretty clearly that his head is deeply implanted up his ass.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
Now yes, the big bang theory IS a theory and should e called as such. That said, it isn't called a theory for religious reasons. Further, this fucking moron seems to be under the delusion that the big bang theory is something that religious folks don't like. Most Christians absolutely LOVE the big bang theory as it upset the long held scientific belief that the universe was forever and stats that the universe has a beginning.
Honestly, I think the news story here is that an idiot 24 year old kid got appointed into a job way over his head and acted like a moron.
Being non-USian I'm very happy with this kind of things, because it means the start of the decline of USA in science and technology. A few years of this and the table will a little more leveled...
Cheers!
Och
(Sarcastic mood. Sorry)
Oh they've dissapeared all right... Then everyone that knew them dissapeared, so no one was left except a few hobos and a coffee shop owner, well.. he was a coffeeshop owner, now he's in rehab.
The Big Bang Theory is not invalidated by a few anomalies. Let us not forget, the idea of Big Bang came about from Hubble's observation that the further away a galaxy is from us, the faster it's moving away from us. It's called Hubble's Law.
Once again we see people jamming crowbars into the cracks in our knowledge so they can supernatural deities in there. That's just sad.
I see our weekly dose of science vs religion wars has got an early start this week. I don't know how I ever got by without this load of flotsam in the past.
The reason the "big bang" wont be taught in school is because it has major flaws. They say that the light thats just now reaching us from the furthest stars, is from back when the universe was created. RIGHT!! Ok then, Tell me that if it all began at the same point, how did earth and the sun and all the others get to where they are now? how long did that take surely we were not flying from the creation point faster then light.. even if we did, it still would have taken us time to fly here, thus the light that we are seeing from the stars could not possibly be from the creation of the universe...
The position that IDers' "Teach kids the controversy" position was a slippery slope has just been vindicated, again. Deutsch is right, his position is "more than a science issue." No matter what the area of discussion, he's going to bounce things off his religious beliefs. The thing is, his religious beliefs aren't about truth or morality or justice; they're about reinforcing human authority to speak for God with absolute authority. If it's convenient to cast doubt on a murder conviction because it'll fan the spectacular claims of rampant satanic cults running loose in America, so be it. That helps keep the flock in line. Good deal, write it up George.
In a theocracy, religion gets inserted into every area of life, with the aim being to reinforce the power of those in charge. That's what these people want. They want scientists to be running scared from the local party representative. It's their very own Cultural Revolution, albeit with different idols to worship. And it can happen, even here.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I know the group-think is that Mr. Deutch is out of line, a right-wing religious political hack. And that's accurate, I think.
On the other hand, "The Big Bang is a theory, like relativity. It's there because it explains something in a workable way, until someone comes along with something better. That needs to be noted in NASA's work if we want to be credible." Deutch should have said that, but he didn't. Anyone attending a scientific conference knows that the Big Bang is a theory.
The real trouble isn't trying to balance NASA's coverage of the origins of the universe, but editing the individual works of other people. It's one thing to edit a web site, but it's over the line when you start editing conference presentations.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I am not trying to a troll but I think that this guys is a bit over reacting. The kid did something stupid in actually explaing why he requested the web design to change the site. No matter what this kids motives are or who he works for, it is still true. Placing the word "Theory" in the Website is not going to lead to the mass corruption of the nations youth. The more kids that getting into science the better. I come from a religous background and I love science. I am an electrical engineer and my zeal to understand technology and science that relates to it is just as much as the next person. To say that if someone does not believe in Evolution, stem cell research or global warming has nothing to give to science is ridiculous. Many religous sciences and engineers have great determination and zeal because science explains characteristics about the "god" that created the world. And many of the great scientists in history were religous people.
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
how long did that take surely we were not flying from the creation point faster then light.. even if we did, it still would have taken us time to fly here, thus the light that we are seeing from the stars could not possibly be from the creation of the universe...
Nice try. You forgot about time dilation. Those far away stars and galaxies are flying away from us at such a high speed that relative to us, they are expieriencing time dialation.
Thus while 13 billion years have passed in our own time frame, only a fraction of that will have passed in a galaxy that is travelling fast enough relative to use.
Of course, according to that galaxy, 13 billion years have passed for them, and only a fraction of that for use. If you can't wrap your head around this, you can either read books to educate yourself, or just pray and continue to wallow in your own ignorence.
May the Maths Be with you!
Ok, normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'm not quite through my first coffee of the day, so what the heck...
First off, the observations of the CMB and the Hubble flow demonstrate that the Universe was smaller and hotter in the past. It's pretty simple physics, I'm sure you can figure it out without hurting yourself.
Second, you must be channelling Halton Arp: he tends to pull numbers out of his *ss without any data to back them up. He also tends to point at random line-of-sight alignments of objects at different distances and make weird claims about how those objects support his bogus claim of the day.
Third, superluminal motions are a geometric effect and do not show real 'faster than light' motions. This was explained in the 60s.
Fourth, time for more coffee.
Have a nice day!
#include "cunning_plan.h"
re:"When will the hardcore religious faithful who try to influence these things realise that science poses no danger to their beliefs. Their actions only perpetuate a growing distaste for religious involvment among so many people worldwide."
Unfortuanately, although you might expect such rational thought to enter into the equation - religion has never been rational, and the righteous never admit to making a mistake.
Which is sad really because if there was a mechanism - or one single thing - that would enable people to drop god and get on with business on planet earth, value the people that surround them, and realize that there's going to be a short time that they're going to exist - then I'd be very proactive in supporting efforts to disseminate "it" as widely and to as many as possible.
Are you kidding me? While I don't think it can be said definitively that it is "The Administration," many of the worlds top microbiologists have been murdered since 2001 - many of them with ties to the US military/intelligence research community (DynCorp and other US MIC entities).
The first stories appeared at the end of 2001 with 5 top microbiologists dying within approximately one month of each other, all were murdered or died suspiciously. By 3/2002 14 "world class" microbiologists had died in similar "muggings," murders or freak accidents.
By the beginning of 2005 the number had grown to over 40. It's not just people who worked in the field, these are prominent scientists, many with connections to biowarfare, the engineering of viruses, and the MIC.
Every year there are several watchdog type books and publications which list and rank the top censored or buried news stories of each year. This story has been among the top "censored" news stories almost every year since 2002.
If you doubt this information, check it out for yourself.
These political goons are screwing this country over for years to come with every action they take to impede scientific progress. What's worse, these people don't appear to know the first thing about science. Apparently, it doesn't take much to get into NASA these days. From the article:
"Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,' Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, 'It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.'"
If the Big Bang is merely an opinion, then the last ~100 years of scientific progress have been for naught. Thank you, Mr. Douche, for setting a great example for the children of tomorrow.
My opinion is that people in the US should bite more to defend their freedoms there. I mean, I know about a statistic that says about only half the voting population actually votes? Distressing...
/. folks that are going to turn the thing around, as most people here can and do think for themselves. But maybe some more action could do some good. Like convincing others to vote too, and not just "vote for the suit that seemed to have won the debate".
:)
I know it's not the
Try to figure out what they're about. I know it's hard, it's their _job_ to lie and steal, but it has to be done.
When the racket coming out of a democracy starts getting to the noise level of Cuba or China, and their presidents hollers out stuff like "they hate the america! they hate freedom! they hate newborn babies!" and people buy it, well.... just let the downmods come.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
What does the minimum inhibitory concentration have to do with anything? Or are you referring to some other possible interpretation of that abbreviation?
I support the Bush Administration's care and attention to detail in this matter. George W. Bush has shown unusual insight and respect of the scientific process. I did not think we'd see a president so careful of these proprieties he'd actually refer to the "theory of God" or "Jesus-theory" in his speeches, but it seems in this man we have--- what?
Oh. Well, that's just not gonna work, now is it?
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Because societies hold those in the sciences with great regard, it only makes sense that politicians and governments in need of substantiation cling to them. Scientist, in turn, are often willing participants in the symbiotic relationship, feeding off the money and influence that flow from the bosom of the rich and powerful. This isn't limited to politics; it happens in pharmaceuticals, educational institutions, the food industry, and nearly every other human endeavor that requires smart people to prove something right or wrong and announce their findings.
It is difficult to consider any science independent if its existence is funded by purveyors of mind control, greed, or world domination. I wish there were a way for science to be funded without the overarching control of the funding organization, but we all know that's just not going to happen. Therefore, we must challenge every conclusion by looking at it from different perspectives and "funding models", be it other governments, democrat/republican funding, different religions, etc.
I consider myself religious and somewhat political, but I will never ask my preacher what I should blindly think about evolution or fully embrace un-reviewed science from a government entity.
Big Bang is an hypothesis
Wrong Big Bang is a Theory. A theory is a hypothesis with evidence pointing to that fact. While theorys may not be what is happening it seems to fit the data well, in the experements. A Law which are quite rare in science is when something is proven without a doubt.
People need to learn these basic concepts to understand science. Science is more of a processes of finding fact vs. soldid fact itself.
The more evidence you have for your theory the better your theory is and more widly excepted as truth as we know it.
Back in time truth was considered the sun went around the earth, and anyone who said otherwise without the evidence would be considered wrong/evil (as it was the style at the time), and in general they would be wrong sciencetificly because there would be no proof that he was indeed correct. This was finally change when we had the ability to map the other planets movements to realize their orbits would be simpler if they went around the sun with us as well. Thus the new truth was the sun was the center of our solar system.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang."
So, did he say the same thing about the theory of gravity or theory of relativity?
A Law which are quite rare in science is when something is proven without a doubt.
You're right about hypotheses versus theories, but a law is not something "higher up" in the ladder of proof, it is something else entirely - whilst a theory is a large model to explain something, a law is a simple observation (eg, in the form of an equation). Whilst laws are often considered absolutely correct, this is not always so - eg, there are doubts as to the strength of the force of gravity, and we know that the gas laws are certainly only an approximation.
Scientific theory and colloquial "theory" are not the same thing.
Of course, anybody who goes to the dictionary to prove something has no argument whatsoever.
The really funny thing is that in recent years the Roman Catholic Church suddenly seems to have realised that they should be proud of Galileo. How long before a movement starts to canonise Geordano Bruno?
Pining for the fjords
All I ever wanted to do when I was growing up was to be a scientist and to make a positive contribution to mankind's knowledge and to society at large. In many ways, I was a success in pursuing these goals. I spent eight years working at a major national laboratory while I pursued my Ph.D. I went on to become a professor at a major university. I published papers and I released free software---some of which was even used in the field of astronomy. I thoroughly enjoyed teaching. I even had NSF funding for my work.
However, all of that changed with the selection of the Bush regime. First and foremost, I simply couldn't believe that my fellow citizens would elect someone like this (hell, even Reagan looks moderate by comparison). Rational thinking certainly suffered a huge blow with that one. Since then, all I have seen is an administration increasingly under the influence of intolerant Christian fanatics and frankly, I'm not even sure if it's limited to just the administration. Everywhere I look, I see people turning to religion and superstitition. If it isn't evangeligal Christianity, then it's a bunch of new-age hocus pocus and astrology. Even in my own family, I have become an outcast as other members of the family have turned to various forms of religion. The fact that the administration is trying to manipulate scientific results is only icing on the cake---and not at all surprising. One thing is certain though---science is under attack everywhere I look.
Sadly, all of this has really made me re-evaluate why I went into science in the first place. I will always love science, but what actual incentive is there for doing it anymore? The administration attacks it and my fellow citizens would rather build churches than support it. At some point, you just reach a point where you have to ask yourself "why am I working so hard to help these people and *this* society?"
In my case, I didn't have an answer. I often thought of ways I could voice a dissenting opinion. Do I protest? Do I write articles? Do I send money? Do I sell out? Do I stay and fight? If I take a stand, will anyone be listening? Or will they just continue shouting at each other? In my case, I quietly withdrew into myself. I stopped publishing and I stopped caring about everything I had worked so hard to achieve. In the end, I could not reconcile my desire to help mankind with my unwillingness to help a society largely populated by hostile religious fanatics. Thus, I simply left my academic position and dropped out of science altogether. To hell with it, "the people are going to get what they deserve in the end" I thought.
Today, I'm still interested in science, but it's mostly just a private affair--I keep it to myself and underground. Mostly, I'm waiting to see what happens with the next few years. Maybe the pendulum will swing back to the left and we'll return to some level of sanity. If that happens, I might consider re-entering public service. If things keep going as they are though, I'll probably just pack it up and leave altogether. It was fun while it lasted---I guess.
I suppose that many will say that "dropping out" is not a solution. I would largely agree with that, but I'd also add that I think everyone has a breaking point. I certainly reached mine and did what I felt I had to do to maintain my sanity. On the other hand, maybe this is how the administration really intends to kill science. I just don't know.
Of course, according to that galaxy, 13 billion years have passed for them, and only a fraction of that for use. If you can't wrap your head around this, you can either read books to educate yourself, or just pray and continue to wallow in your own ignorence.
Well, to be fair, time dilation (note spelling) is one of the more difficult concepts to wrap one's head around in modern physics...
My father is a physicist, and I considered becoming one (became a computer geek instead), and I still have trouble with it.
I mean, the guy's not too bright, but claiming that anyone who can't wrap their head around time dilation should just give up and never try to think again would eliminate about 99.8% of the population of the world. It would be like writing off everyone who can't write a Slashdot post with perfect spelling and grammar...
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Fortunately, climatologists and meteorologists have a slightly better grasp of the difference between climate and weather than the parent post.
English is easier said than done.
Let's all agree: everything is a theory. Thus, you will be speaking about "the secession war theory", (has anybody alive seen it happen? Where are the proofs? those uniforms can be faked, come on! Slaves were happy, they were praying god! Only left-wing nuts taught us tales of nasty slavery, to destroy our nation), the "gravity theory" (has anybody seen a "force"? sounds evil), the "round earth theory" and so on
Big Bang is an hypothesis
Wrong Big Bang is a Theory. A theory is a hypothesis with evidence pointing to that fact. While theorys may not be what is happening it seems to fit the data well, in the experements. A Law which are quite rare in science is when something is proven without a doubt.
Agreed that Big Bang is a Theory. However, in science a Law is slightly different. A Law is something observable; e.g., you can demonstrate Newton's Laws, Hook's Law, Bernoulli's Law, etc., and describe them mathematically, without actually understanding why they are true. A Theory is the explanation of the Law.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection explains the observable fact that species evolve. This fact was known long before Charles Darwin, but the mechanism for the observed facts was not understood. Darwin and Wallace provided an explanation that fit the observations and was verifiable, and thus was admitted to science as a Theory.
People need to learn these basic concepts to understand science. Science is more of a processes of finding fact vs. soldid fact itself. The more evidence you have for your theory the better your theory is and more widly excepted as truth as we know it.
Science is not about answers. Science is a way of asking questions. (Not original with me).
So...religious fundamentalists ignore science again and try to use their political clout to silence views opposed to theirs? This has been fairly obvious for a great deal of time... Remember that whole Scopes Monkey Trial thing? Want to go back further, I seem to remember some fairly important intellectuals getting executed for saying that Earth WASN'T the center of the universe! How is this news? What is this, Slashdot?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Big brains and open minds are welcome in Victoria, Australia and we don't suffer from the extremes of religiosity that divide so many other places.
We don't have the huge budgets of some countries, however the CSIRO still does world class science.
http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/ViewPage.acti on
I know you are saying its top censored, but somehow you must have gotten this data.
Any pointers?
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
Best. Post. Ever.
ZEN is a prime number in base-36
Top 100 NASA primes for 1998 (Clinton): http://www.spacelawstation.com/top100.html.
Top 100 NASA primes for 2003 (Bush): http://www.spacelawstation.com/top2003.html.
First, the money is not allocated to friends of the Bush administration. Second, the firms are almost all public.
And whose job is it to act on this research? The politicians who are trying to silence it or the industry heads who stand to lose a lot of money if they change their policies?
Yeah, the scientist are biased. Biased by their better understanding of the situation.
Help a student gain some exp. http://www.halovariants.com/touchup/index.php
"The big bang theory" is a technically correct way of referring to the big bang theory and "The big bang fact" would technically be incorrect.
However being forced to add the word theory to every mention of the phrase "big bang" provides no real benefit in delivering clear and understandable explanations of scientific discoveries or ideas. Simply using the phrase "big bang" does not give anyone the false impression we are discussing an absolute fact, you would hope most people would be educated well enough to have at least some grasp of the underlying science and the way language is used and be able to avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Instead you would have to suspect that anyone advocating this policy has an ulterior motive and in this case the muppet involved has been so kind as to outline his motive for us. Surprisingly from someone who would seem to be in a position where he was supposed to help scientists present their work clearly and coherently to the public he is instead more concerned with pushing his own private religious agenda than the job he is, presuambly, supposed to be doing.
I don't know the guy but already I don't like him. Whether I like him or not is irrelevant however, I think there is enough evidence here of him abusing his position for him to do the honourable thing and resign, or be fired.
The exact statement from the NASA administrator is available on NASA's website:
n ce.html
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_scie
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Does the minister of your local church teach the controversy? Or does he teach that ID is right and everything else is wrong? Should he be forced to teach the controvercy and not impose any particular idea?
A minister of a church can teach whatever idea he wants, including ID, because it is an institution of religious philosophy and that is what they do.
On the other hand, NASA is an institute of science. What they do there is science research. They will refer to all sorts of scientific ideas there because it is part of their job. Discussing ID is not part of their job because it is not relevent to what they are doing. So they shorthand the word "theory" out for brevity and convenience.
So:
1. Which institutions should be allowed to stick to their basic reason for existance and be allowed to narrowly focus on that topic (be it theology or research)?
2. which institutions should be forced to "teach the controvercy" even though it may not be relevent to them?
Should churches be forced to "teach the controvercy" rather than just teach genesis? Or is "teaching the controvercy" only something the other side should? Should they be allowed to shorten their discussions so they focus only on those aspects that are important and relevant to them?
I'm not looking for right or wrong. I'm looking for consistency. If you have a rule, apply it the same everywhere, not just where it is most convenient to one point of view.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Now yes, the big bang theory IS a theory and should be called as such. That said, it isn't called a theory for religious reasons.
More to the point, it is completely unacceptable that someone insist that it only be refered to as a theory when that person (as is common) evidently considers "theory" to be synonymous with "opinion" in a science context.
I think the news story here is that an idiot 24 year old kid got appointed into a job way over his head and acted like a moron.
While I'll agree that the described actions are moronic, they are also in complete accord with the President's evident personal evangelistic religious agenda, and impeding the work of serious science and science education. It's also not the first time we've seen evidence that Bush has appointed a political ally to a sensitive position who later proved grossly underqualified. I suspect a terrorist group might find it worth the time investment to study a list of Bush appointees and their resumes as a guide for target selection.
This is a PROBLEM.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
What do you mean, it's not their job to suggest action? Why not? That's just silly; who better is qualified to make a suggestion? Is it in any way illogical to say "Research indicates that CO2 is causing global warming. We should reduce emissions of CO2"?
An analogy: if I take my car to the mechanic and he says that my defrobinator is broken, but won't suggest a course of action, I'll never go to him again. I expect my mechanic to not only find the problem but also *fix* it.
I'd be concerned about the scientist's biases if he were suggesting a course of action counter to what the research indicated, but if his thoughts follow that research, what's the concern? That he's biased towards facts and away from myth?
Progress is the job of a scientist. Improving the human condition and furthering our knowledge of universe. 'Presenting research' is the method, not the goal.
Older people need not apply. That's right from the link you posted.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I found this to be a be angrymaking. I think it'd be a good idea to think about this a while before sending a well thought out letter to Mr. Deutsch about democracy, censorship, science, etc. I also think it might be helpful if I am not the only one sharing my opinion with Mr. Deutsch.
george.deutsch-1@nasa.gov
from http://science.hq.nasa.gov/press/contacts.html
Warning: I do not know for sure if this is the same George Deutsch as in the articles, but it does seem likely.
Of course it is. Who is more qualified? (Well, according to TFA, 24-year-old PR hacks.)
Puts political fund raisers in charge of Corporation For Public Broadcasting because a politically independent organization just can't be trusted to be unbiased.
Puts Haliburton in charge of Iraq reconstruction. We're still there, the electricity still doesn't work very often.
Puts 24 year old campaign worker in charge of PR at NASA. ROFL! If it wasn't so creepy and pathetic it would be funny.
Ignorance and incompetence. The only question is how much more damage we'll take before 2008? As a Republican I'm joining with independents and Democrats to run all these fuckers out of office, then, hopefully, we can start engaging in meaningful discussions during the years we're going to spend cleaning up the mess that's going to be left behind.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Myself, I can see the new NASA astrology gift store making some coin off the American people.
Galileo also was warned by a Pope not to inquire too deeply into the nature of God's creation. Using a telescope, which he had constructed, Galileo had been able to confirm by observation that Copernicus had concluded correctly that the earth orbits the sun, and not the opposite as had been assumed during the dark ages.
But the Church had difficulty in accepting pluralism in Galileo's time. In 1542 Pope Paul III created The Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition. This institution was authorised to interrogate, if necessary by torture, and prosecute people for heresy. Galileo was never tortured, but in 1633 he was shown the instruments of torture twice.[ii]
As a result of his treatment Galileo recanted his support for Copernicus, and so avoided such torture on the rack, which might well have physically disconnected his mind and brain from his body. He was allowed to retire to his villa where he died a virtual prisoner in 1642. Sir Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day the same year.
The trial and conviction of Galileo sent a warning to scholars across Europe. It was unsafe to study the handiwork of God by direct observation, and doubly unsafe to draw inferences from such observations.
The original poster seems to have it in his mind that there is a pre-existing space, in which at some point (0,0,0) at time 0 there was an explosion, and from which since then all the matter in the Universe has been receding. It's a common misconception. Certainly he is correct in his view that, if this is the case, then therefore the glow of the Big Bang, as seen by Penzias and Wilson and later by COBE and WMAP, ought to be racing out ahead of us all, a shell of light further out than the shell of matter, and quite invisible to us.
The mistake is in the initial assumptions. The Big Bang is not an explosion IN space, it is an explosion OF space.
Here's a gross oversimplification for purposes of visualisation: let us picture a toy Universe with only one space dimension and one time dimension, containing twelve galaxies. The space dimension curves around on itself, like the face of a clock. For someone living in this Clockland, the directions around the circle constitute Space, while the directions toward or away from the centre constitures Time. The twelve galaxies sit at the twelve hour points.
Now, let's expand this Universe. Enlarge the clock face. What happens? All twelve galaxies stay right where they are in space, right on the hour marks. They have not moved around the clock at all. But, because the face has become larger overall, the distance between them has increased.
An intelligent observer in this Universe would notice the other galaxies receding away from him, and if he were of Einstein-level intellect he might well deduce that this was down to an overall expansion of all of space. Should Clockland also contain a Hubble, they might then realise that by back-tracking the expansion, they could estimate a date at which all twelve galaxies were together at the centre, and at which all points in space were equivalent.
Now, we might ask, which point in Clockland was the location of the Big Bang? Where is the centre of expansion? Nowhere. Or everywhere. From our vantage point we can see that the centre of expansion is the centre of the clock face, that's easy - but that's not a point in Clockland's space. It is, however, a point in the past of every part of Clockland. In a sense, everywhere in Clockland can claim to have been the location of the Big Bang, because at that time, the whole of Clockland was the same place - right at the centre.
And had a flash of light been emitted at some point in Clockland's past, as the hot gas that filled the universe became transparent, it would not escape and run ahead of the galaxies. It would remain within the circle of the world, but would gradually become redshifted, as the expansion of space stretched out its wavelength.
This is something like what's happening with the Big Bang. The galaxies aren't moving significantly through space (though they do drift somewhat); space is expanding between them. No point in the Universe of space is the centre of expansion.
It's an absolute bugger to get your head around, I admit, but that's general relativity for you. I should also add that the Clockland analogy is also potentially misleading: we don't know if the Universe curves back on itself like this, and indeed we have good reason to think it does not. Things work out similarly with an infinite, open universe - but that's even harder to picture :)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Something to do with their nukes, perhaps?
I was born and raised in the United States of America. I have traveled to other parts of the world and all in all hold everyone in respect. That said, having someone refer to me as a USian is a bit of a pet peeve. The name of our country is not technically the "United States." That defines the make up of our country named "America." The nation just happens to have the same name as the continent pair that it is on. I suppose everyone on these two continents can call themselves Americans in the way that a German can call him or herself a European or people from China can refer to themselves as Asians. Those of us in the USA have no other name to call ourselves. Our nation and continent share the same name, and calling ourselves Americans does not detract from the fact that other people live on these lands.
Here's a local long form list of names of countries in the Americas:
Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Republica de Guatemala
Republica de Honduras
Republica de El Salvador
Republica de Nicaragua
Republica de Costa Rica
Republica de Panama
Republica de Colombia
Republica del Ecuador
Republica del Peru
Republica de Bolivia
Republica de Chile
Republica Argentina
Republica del Paraguay
Republica Oriental del Uruguay
Republica Federativa do Brasil
Republiek Suriname
Co-operative Republic of Guyana
Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Belize
Canada
United States of America
It makes as much sense to call someone from the USA a USian as it does to call a Mexican a EUian, or someone from Guyana a CRian, or the vast majority of people from these countries Republicans.
"United States" is just administrative details to our name America.
I mean no ill will though. This is more of an open rant than anything against what you said.
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
Yes! Bring it all back! The inquisition! Clamps on free thought! An end to funding of that eeeevil physics stuff! Public executions of Witches! Decriminalisation of murder of Gays, Heathens and Single Mothers! A theocratic president telling you how to think! The whole enchilada!
But meanwhile, over here in England, we'll be watching, waiting for the inevitable collapse of your economic and social systems, and then, under the inspired leadership of Good King Harry, we'll load up the warships and TAKE BACK THE COLONIES!
Pat Buchanan will be promoted to Court Jester! New York will be renamed Chittingfold-on-Sea! Tea will be the only drink available in Boston! Everyone in Florida will be forced to wear knotted hankies on their heads and complain about the heat! Automobile production lines will be retooled to build Morris Minors! Beer will be served at slightly above room temperature! The decimal currency system will be replaced with a sensible system using mixed base-12 and base-20 arithmetic! Bowler hats will be available on the National Health!
Land of Hope and Gloryyyy, Mother of the Free....
</rant>
Sorry about that. We now return you to your regular programming...
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
You could guess about which science is getting censored by the government, solely from your ideological preconceptions, and then say its "more likely" that your preconceptions are being confirmed.
Or you could actually look at how the government is censoring science that conflicts with its policies, when those policies are based solely on politics and corporate bribes^Wcontributions, as dictated by their ideological preconceptions.
You clearly have chosen the politically correct path, not the scientifically correct path.
--
make install -not war
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Science is not about answers. Science is a way of asking questions.
That sounds nice, but it's silly. Science is a way of asking and then answering questions so that the answers are reliably, reproduceably, and objectively true. To say that the answers are not important is foolish.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play. "
They didn't say it, but they sure act that way.
When your five-year-old has an Imaginary Friend whom they blame for their own wrongdoings -- the I.F. either did it, or made them do it -- then it's time for Mr and Mrs Spank to pay a visit to Bottyville.
So why do we put up with adults having Imaginary Friends, if their Imaginary Friend is called "God" ?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA.
In other news: NASA announces that per Presidential order, its new sole mandate is 'to carry men closer to the heavens, that they may touch the face of their Creator'.
So, can we expect just another two years of this creeping stupidity and madness... or another six? Or ten? Or...
You must think in Russian.
(Note: I'm not affiliated with CafePress or venganza.org -- this is a genuine suggestion...)
Why not bop over to CafePress and send a Flying Spaghetti Monster mug to George Deutsch? You can get his contact information with "finger george.deutsch@hq.nasa.gov", but I'll list it here. Please don't send anything obnoxious. On the other hand, Mr. Deutsch sounds like a man who could use a few dozen Flying Spaghetti Monster mugs (or perhaps a "This mug holds coffee and pisses off Jesus" mug or two).
name: gdeutsch
George Deutsch
postal address: NASA Headquarters
300 E ST SW
Washington DC 20546-0001
postal code: 20546-0001
room number: Building: HQ, Room: 3C54
surname: Deutsch
telephone: +1 202 358-1324
title: Public Affairs Officer, Science Mission Directorate
Thank you! You give me hope for humanity.
:)
You are putting the finger on a very important problem: that opinons which should be (at least presently) regarded as more or less obvious (in this case that it is a scientific theory which implies that it is not (yet at least) absolutist "fact" (if one even wants to argue that anything ever can be said to anything such) suddenly becomes extremely contentious if someone one doesn't like/agree with in other matters is saying it. It's only human and we all fall into that trap from time to time but it really is something we would all benefit from trying to avoid: we would drastically reduce the amount of noise to signal in any discussion (and as such improve the efficiency and intelligence of such even if those involved end up agreeing to disagree -- nothing wrong with that).
Now I'm a pro-Bush religious (no organised religion) norwegian but in the posts I've read so far I've seen various arguments against this and that person within NASA etc. blaiming them for misusing the agency for political aims and so forth and those allegations might be perfectly true and correct (I don't have enough info to decide) and if so such actions are absolutely wrong imho but I would hope and encourage people to take your stance instead of letting their opinons on the theory of the big bang be clouded by politics.
If those being criticized act(ed) like they're said to do there should be plenty of other things to criticize them for rather than wanting the inclusion of the categorisation 'theory' in conjunction with any mention of the Big Bang. Doing so might even garner broader support since it clarifies the objectable issues! And even better; if the case it might also make the persons guilty of such understand the criticism, perhaps even modify themselves...
Sorry for the overly verbose reply but you simply made my day, thanks
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
I don't blame them, but then again they might be digging themselves into a deeper hole with all the commotion this has caused.
Science is a collection of techniques which provide means to model the behavior of the universe, and provide as close a match to observed physical reality as our abilities allow. This provides us with mathematical models accurate enough to do reliable engineering. . .
The Vatican are wise to do so. Big reason: they screwed up horribly over Galileo, they took way too long to catch on to the whole Darwin thing, and they don't want to look like fools again. The Vatican is therefore keen to show the world that religion can coexist with a rational understanding of the universe.
So: they are interested in scientific research, especially when it treads on ground that used to be exclusively God's. They loved the Big Bang; it's a singular creation event of absolutely enormous glory and power. Relativity and cosmology all come down, in the end, to something not far from Let there be light! No wonder the Vatican are happy. That's a tremendously impressive god, with a fabulous sense of style.
And how about evolution? How much cleverer of God to set up the system such that life can build itself! And on such a simple principle, too. That's the work of not just an intelligent designer, but a competent one. Much better than the clumsy, cack-handed work of a god who has to do everything himself.
Now, if you're an ancient religious organisation, planning to still be around and relevant a thousand years from now, isn't this the way you'd go about it? You don't fight against the discoveries made about the world by reason; Augustine understood that. You incorporate them. You show that they're fully consistent with what you've taught all along - if only you take a larger, more enlightened view of things. A view so much closer to God's, don't you think? And how better to understand God than to understand his works?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
As in everything else, a healthy dose of skepticism keeps science honest, just like all other fields of human activity. . .
hate to pick a nit, but when you look at the state-wide budget, there are vastly more red states than blue states which take more in federal money than they contribute! My state got $0.61 for every $1.00 it sent to the IRS!
Of course 'red' vs 'blue' is kind of a lame division...but I think it is a telling comparison.
Blar.
The gas laws hold up fairly well actually ..... they break down where the assumption on which they are founded {which is, that the molecules themselves are negligible compared to the space between them} breaks down. In other words, high pressures {when you have lots of molecules crammed into not much space} and low temperatures {when the vibration of the molecules due to temperature is not enough to overcome the attractive force between molecules}.
Under these conditions, gases tend to stop being gases.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If it wasn't such a serious problem, I would find it amusing the way the right-wing loonies under Bush are so actively borrowing ideas from Chairman Mao. It's unfortunate that the social and economic axies have been conflated in the U.S. Most of the Soviet and Chinese abuses that trouble Americans are related to their authoritarianism rather than their leftism. The only real difference is that Mao's religeon was Communism.
The Republican party is slowly but surely becoming just as authoritarian as those hated leftist bogeymen. Taking the average of republicans in power and Democrats in power on a 2D graph, the republicans are closer to Stalin and Mao than the Democrats. Of course, with the current anti-terrorism terror within the U.S. government, many of the Democrats seem to be trying hard to close that gap.
Of course, Leftism was always a red herring in U.S. politics. The Authroitarians in the U.S. have always assigned the name 'Leftist' to the authoritarian abuses that Americans find truly abhorrant meanwhile painting themselves as their opposite while truly opposing only their economic policies.
It would seem that the days of Republicans pushing for a smaller government that stays out of people's lives is a relic of the past.
Sounds like democracy is being limited in 'the home of the free'. Maybe their should be another dictator on trial, namely George W. Bush. I know a nice place in my country where we could do that. It's called The Hague (Den Haag). Ah well, maybe slashdot will be ordered now to delete this post.
A poster self identifies as a republican and you launch an ad-hominem attack upon him, accusing him of being a "fundy" when nothing in his post gave any reason to jump to that conclusion.
If I told you that my grandfather was German, would you immediately assume that he was an escaped Nazi war criminal? If I told you he was Russian would you assume he was one of Stalin's NKVD tortue specialists? If I told you he was of italian extraction and used to live in New York city, would you assume he was John Gotti?
It is clear that you don't know the difference between a mainstream Republican and a christian fundamentalist. The two are hardly similar to anyone actually familiar with then. If you can't tell the difference it is only because you are an extremist yourself. Only an extremest is unable discern differences in those they are ideologically opposed to.
I'm an agnostic libertarian who votes Republican, does that make me a "fundy" as well?
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I am not a cosmologist, but that book is 15 years old and there are good reasons it is not taken seriously. See here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.ht ml
"The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently
Why don't they actually stop using the word ideology and just say they hate him because he is a Christian?
I know a few christians who want to push their religion onto others with any means at their disposal. I know a lot of christians who think that is a really stupid idea.
Your president belongs to the first group, not the second. It would not be fair to al the nice and decent christians out there to hate them because a not too smart president keeps calling himself a christian also.
No, there's quite likely some political gaming going on. Pretend you're getting persecuted (i.e. "censored") and you'll get a lot of undeserved attention and sympathy. Talentless artists do that sort of thing all the time, i.e. "Piss Christ." The media never wises up to the trick.
And the fact that the story is coming from a newspaper as heavily ideologically tilted as the NY Times backs up these suspicions.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
Sounds like a fine idea to me.
You miss my point. What happened wasn't an organized effort to disrupt NASA. What happened was an idiot was appointed to a position that he should not have been appointed to. The hype around OMFG Bush hates science utterly misses the real crime. The crime was that he, or more likely idiot in his administration, appointed a moron. The issue isn't science taking a hit. The issue is shitty civil servant appointments.
In fact, I think you put it best. They appointed a 24 year old. I don't know about you, but if I had an evil conspiracy to take down NASA, I wouldn't appoint a 24 year old to do it. I am pretty damn sure I could find someone older and with more experience. The issue is that somewhere along the line they appointed an idiot to civil servant position, not that they were trying to use that appointment to affect NASA.
The article implies that what happened was that a civil servant position was intentionally used to manipulate NASA. I am saying that what really happened was that they utterly failed to appoint competent civil servant.
What it boils down to was, where they being evil, or were they being stupid. From what the NYT article describes happens, it looks like they were just being stupid. Like the old saying goes, don't attribute to evil what you can attribute to stupidity or incompetence.
I have no idea if this is true, and suspect that it's not. But it does seem odd that no one has ever figured out where the post-9/11 anthrax attacks came from, and (more importantly) that there no longer appears to be any on-going investigation. The last I heard, several years ago, the spores had been traced to an Army lab at Fort Detrick, MD, but then the media just abruptly dropped the subject.
This guy's not a troll, he's just ignorant. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. It states that different combinations of genes produce different (if only slightly) animals, and that the combinations that are successful at getting passed on are (ahem) more likely to be passed on.
Note that most nerds' genes won't be passed on. Intelligence isn't what gets your genes passed on, FUCKING GETS YOUR GENES PASSED ON (losers).
Yes, THIS post is a troll. Losers.
And the decline of an economical/cultural power is beneficial to other powers how ?
I think you misspelled "military."
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
You need lots of money to reach an office and you can get that money (and office) if you crawl in bed with corporations
It's worth mentioning that "corporations" can't donate more than a little cash to a particular candidate's campaign, and can't instruct their employees to each pony up, either. But you're also glossing over the enormous impact of the money thrown around by individuals (like George Soros - willing to spend millions to impact elections his way) and non-profits (like labor unions, trial lawyer associations, trade groups, environmental organizations... the moveon.org types, etc). You sound like you'd prefer maybe that a retired person to have a stronger voice in the election, but when they join a group that donates just as much money as a corporation does, what then? Is that better? Worse?
I certainly don't want my tax dollars to support every candidate that fills in the right forms. I'd rather put my money behind campaigns that actually represent what I think. As for your point about the more parlimentary approach to things - I'm not sure that the squabbling that takes place (look at the last election in Germany) allows the country to actually do anything when it really has to. There's no pleasing everybody, but certain actions (or choices not to act) are all the more frustrating when the party actually making the decision only really got 12% of the vote.
This is one of the reasons why USA is so hated around the world, their simplistic worldview does not coincide with the rest of the world's worldview.
You're right. We should be more like Denmark. See? They're only hated around the world because they allow freedom of the press. Hell, those embassies needed to be rebuilt anyway.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Are you an American? If so, he's your President too. If not, why are you commenting?
I'm not, and why am I commenting? because I have an opinion about it. Being able to see what is happening there doesn't take havign a specific nationality really.
As far as knowing a lot of Christians who want to push religion on others...I know of quite a few Atheists and Agnostics who do the same. Atheists in my opinion have tried to take away the idea of a Merry Christmas from me for years.
Did you even try to understand what I wrote, or for that matter, read it?
I said I know A FEW who try to push their religion onto others, and many who don't.
I never ever suggested there are many Christians who try to push their religion onto others, but I did say there are some, and also that mr. G. W. Bush is one of them.
Don't treat someone as the enemy just because you disagree with them.
So, don't act as you do, act as you say eh?
However, I guess everytime I Jehova's witness knocks on my door I should start screaming that they are trying to push their religion on me. (your words, not mine)
Why scream about it? Usually they have no problem with you politely telling them you are not interested.
With all respect, it is you who is getting all upset and responding like anyone who says something you don't like being the enemy, so much that it prevents you from reading, let alone understanding what someone else is saying.
That would make a good campaign slogan for the GOP...
Given that theories have to be testable and repeatable, is the Big Bang really a scientific theory? Unless there's something about the Big Bang that I'm missing, isn't it more accurately a conjecture?
In which case, Mr. Duetsch is doubly stupid for insisting it be called a "theory".
I must say the Big Bang (whether theory or conjecture) is way more plausible as an explanation of the universe as we see it, than the notion that $DEITY created the whole shebang just last Tuesday with the appearance of age...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Certain personalities keep a persecution complex their entire lives - it usually goes back to grade school. They think everyone hates them and is out to make them look bad. It's their excuse for every failure and inadequacy... they would all be certified champions, if only others would stop holding them down!
Same people believe the Columbine rampage was somehow justified.....
I suggest you read Slashdot
Neither is Pat Robertson. Christ warned us about people like them. "Beware wolves in sheeps' clothing" I believe is the actual quote.
Christians follow Christ. Christians forgive. Christians don't sign execution warrants as Bush did as Governor, nor send teenagers to kill and be killed. KILLING IS A SIN, no exceptions. Period.
As to Mr. Robertson, Christians don't suggest that we should "take out" (kill) heads of state... OR ANYBODY ELSE.
Christians don't hate Jews, Muslims, gays, blacks, drug addicts, or anybody else.
Read your fucking bible. The book of Matthew alone should show you what the people who rule the US (and the world) really are.
I certainly don't want my tax dollars to support every candidate that fills in the right forms. I'd rather put my money behind campaigns that actually represent what I think.
Well, I can understand that point of view, but I'd like to give you some things to think about..
In my opinion, it is more important to maintain a democratic system then to maintain a specific candidate or party. Because of that, I want my tax money to first of all be used to keep the democratic system working, even if that means part of the money will fund campeigns that I do not support.
Also, when parties get their campeign money from their supporters directly, that just results in concentrating power there where the money is, ie, people or corporations wiht a lot of money can directly buy influence. That is not how a one man one vote system is supposed to work, there the money is supposed to be of no relevance at all.
I don't have the perfect solution, but to me tax money being used to fund a democratic system and the parties in it seems a better guarantee for a democratic system then effectively letting people buy power and cover it with a thin veil of elections.
A question: If we replaced Republican with, say, Jew, and fundy with, say, kike, what exactly would be the difference between your rant and that of some bedsheet-wearing neanderthal?
You, sir, are nothing more than a bigot who has selected a Politically Correct target to focus your bigotry upon.
Regards;
Ah, lyinwhitey. I see that if you discuss a controversial subject on slashdot, some jackass (you) will share their opinion no matter how dumb it is. You can always be counted on to be the consumate idiot and jackass.
NASA's science is building rockets (aka "Rocket Science"), which they haven't done for almost 30 years. You might as well listen to the personal opinions of actors on politics, politicians on history, or poets on mathematics as the bureaucrats at NASA on such religious issues.
God's theory too. There's no proof at all other than a book, some guy asking you for money to make you feel better about yourself and some TV movies so we should add the word theory at any mention of the bible or religion as none of it's provable.
Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
I saw this one comming when Phil Gram, in response to possible EPA sanctions against Dallas, in 1995 said, "We need a new Science". But on a larger scale... Scientific research being denouced on religious and political levels? Hmmm, that sounds familiar... but I can't place my finger on it... I think I've heard of some other region in the world doing this... But I just can't remember where. After all, who in their right mind would favor religious dogma over established, enlightened reasoning!!!! Sorry for the bad news here, but to paraphrase Nietzsche, "2000 years and no new God, 2000 more years of humanity". Man kind has not changed, only his technology. It will probably only change when there is a nuclear exchange.
"Of course it is. Who is more qualified?"
Why is it that the same stupid question gets modded insighful?
THAT'S NOT THE POINT, JACKASS.
The question isn't "who is more qualified" no matter how much you choose to rely on this moronic fallacy.
The question is, why is a researcher who is responsible for RESEARCH discussing POLICY.
Whether he's qualified or not, IT'S NOT HIS FUCKING JOB.
His job is to do the RESEARCH. THAT'S ALL.
God I hate people like you.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
That your life is so pathetic and empty that you have to FOLLOW ME FROM POST TO POST in order to comment as an AC!
How con your life be so empty and meaningless, yet you've still not killed yourself?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
RESEARCH DOESN'T INDICATE COURSES OF ACTION.
Research simply says "this is what is happening" and draws no other conclusions.
Er, no. Research can also say "this is happening because...." and therefore it can say "this will stop happening if...."
Wait until the fundamentalist wackos in this country get their way. Wait until they succeed at getting religion taught in public schools as "Intelligent Design," and wait until they are successful in using religion as a guiding force in setting research agendas at scientific institutions. You think we're far away from people killing other people in the streets for drawing a picture of Jesus in a cartoon? We're a lot closer than you think. Something needs to be done about these wackos and FAST!
*sigh* Why was this modded insightful instead of flamebait? Are animals "liberated" from research facilities by "idiot fundies"? Is it idiot fundies that want to ban testing of consumer products on animals? Is it idiot fundies that have an irrational fear of nuclear power? The first two examples are the result of ethical concerns. The last is an example of ignorance.
Everyone has ethical concerns about science. For example, most people don't think new drugs should be tested on humans until they've been thoroughly tested on animals, and it is determined that the risk is acceptably low. You could call this the FDA interfering with the progress of science. As another example, at my university, you have to get permission to do any experiments involving animals, even mice, to make sure that you're not unnecessarily sacrificing them. You could argue that waiting for this permission slows the progress of research.
How about not reading too much into people comments in the future. It's idiot leftist commies like you that prevent rational discussion.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
'' As far as knowing a lot of Christians who want to push religion on others...I know of quite a few Atheists and Agnostics who do the same. Atheists in my opinion have tried to take away the idea of a Merry Christmas from me for years. ''
To my best knowledge, atheists spend lots of money on christmas presents, christmas trees and decorations, good food, and having a good time with their families and friends, just like most everybody else.
Are you maybe confusing atheists with politically correct idiots?
In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger was launched in freezing weather conditions. Engineers suggested that the materials used for the booster rockets would not perform properly at these temperatures. Indeed, evidence suggested that failure was narrowly avoided in previous launches at temperatures between 40 and 60 degrees Farenheit. Nevertheless, NASA administrators insisted that the launch go on. It has been suggested that the pressure to launch was greater because the school teacher aboard was to speak during the President's State of the Union address that evening.
Six astronauts and one school teacher died.
This account is based on a chapter in "Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative" by Edward R. Tufte, in which evidence from the Congressional hearings on the Challenger accident is presented.
I not surprise by this. The administration survives by its ability to control the flow information to the public and relies on spin heavily. George Bush is a walking diaster but with spin at worst he looks like an average president. His administration backed out of Kyoto and deregulated several industries with respect to emission guidelines all the while spouting that global warming needs more study. Now, it would not look good on his part if NASA says global warming is a reality and its getting worst. So, politicians tone down anything that gets to the press and leans on anyone that will leak any contradiction. All the while, the winters are warmer, the hurricanes are getting stronger (remember New Orleans), and energy costs are skyrocketing (I guess the deregulation savings don't get passed on to the consumer).
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Face it, Bush isn't just some wandering naif, he plays ideological hardball with the religious right as his relief pitcher. He doesn't get attacked because he's Christian, but because he makes stupid policy decisions while trying to stay in the religious right's good graces. He also gets attacked because he's a thoughtless, awkward speaker, a hypocrite of the first order, lies, launches major wars and then declares "Mission Accomplished" before it's over all the while dressed as a soldier, which the civilian leader of the armed forces should never do. I attack Bush because he pretends Christianity while his new budget hurts the poor to help the rich, because he promises environmental legislation and never delivers, and because he pretends he's a Texan, when he was born in Connecticut and went to Harvard and Yale.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
And now? It's so-called "protestants" who are trying to go back to religious fundamentalism and wilful obscurantism, and the Catholic Church that is rethinking its intellectual foundations.
Pining for the fjords
And yet among all the puerile abuse, you never answered the question:
SO WHO IS MORE QUALIFIED JACKASS?
Well, fun as that was, perhaps you should study the policy-making process. You'll find that it's composed of committees who call experts and ASK THEM FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. Of course, they often go ahead and ignore them, nevertheless, it IS the duty of a scientist to make sure his research is understood and acted upon appropriately. It's not just an academic game.
"The big bang theory" is a technically correct way of referring to the big bang theory and "The big bang fact" would technically be incorrect.
It is a fact that the universe was smaller in the past. It is a fact that it receeded from itself very rapidly in the early epochs. It is a fact that the popular name for this event is the Big Bang. There is much investigation into the genesis (snicker) of this event, but there is no controversy about whether the event occured.
Edith Keeler Must Die
You know what it is, the "Wedge Strategy?"
This is from a document, put together by the Discovery Institute, called "The Wedge Strategy":
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
The wedge document is several years old now. If a new version was produced, the accomplishments section would now include:
Stefan
James Hansen is the man getting headline news for his claims that Bush is supressing scientific data. This is the same James Hansen that attacked President Bush with a speech one week prior to the presidential elections in the key state of Iowa. Besides taking the unusal step of making a climate policy speech under the employment of the Federal Government right before the election he also recieved $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation, run by Mrs. Kerry. He claimed he was speaking as a private citizen because he paid his own way to the event. Apparently the 250k didn't count.
But of course, that's a straw man if what he says is true. Mr. Hansen said this in 2003's Natural Science Journal http://www.naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns _jeh.html
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate...scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.
That seems reasonable except he implies it's ok to exagerrate one's findings when the percieved awareness of policy makers is lacking. This fits in with Mr. Hansen's predictions on Global warming when he initially predicted higher warming trends and has revised those predictions to lower increases recently (at the low end of IPCC model).
In summary, I'd take the "Father of Global Warming" a lot more seriously if he weren't so political himself. They say that passion is poison to science but it seems like the only people that get paid attention to are those that pour passion in to their results.
And the Catholic Church did not official change its idea about the Earth revolving around the Sun until the 1980's or 90's. Luckily they stopped persecuting people that believed so some time before that.
And if you read the above years as being in the late twentieth century, you read it right.
I'd recommend keeping it civil, thoughtful, polite, on topic, etc., and leaving the vitriol on Slashdot, where it belongs. ;-)
Having people prove you wrong isn't persecution.
Having people hunt you down and kill you because of what you believe, is. Since this hasn't happened to christians in america, ever, at all, I think it's time the other members of my faith started shutting up and showing their faith and values through the most effective means of all: by example.
I feel most of us feel the same way, but the few of us that are loudly calling for the derailment of everyone who thinks differently, they are by far the loudest voices.
The key is to ignore them.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Rather than give money to the CANDIDATE, it should be given to the PARTY and they should finance the campaign and use the money given to them as they see fit. The problem here is that it's not eklection of political parties or ideas or programmes, but elections of individuals who have a multitude of political ideas that ranges from the insane to the downright laughable and very often is different from the party they are dandidating for.
Politics in USA is an individual sport whereas in, ley's say, Europe, is a team sport. Plus, you have no repsonsibility in politics. When was the last time you saw, let's say, Secretary of State in studio of a news channel, having to answer unfiltered difficult questions and on a regular basis? Same goes for the rest of the American nobility, esp the Lords and Ladies of the Senate. The lower part of the nobility in Congress are more kean on getting facetime on Tv for their often insane ideas. Add to that a president who is as religiously deranged as the iranian president and the cup is full. Oh, and don't for a second think that things would be better with Democrats. It doesn't matter whether it is R or D, they are both doing the same dance.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
This message was sent to NASA employees:
Point of Contact: Dean Acosta, Public Affairs, (202) 358-1400
Statement on Scientific Openness
I want to make sure that NASA employees hear directly from me on how I view
the issue of scientific openness and the role of public affairs within the
agency. First, NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed
to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public. The
basis for this principle is codified in the Space Act of 1958, which
requires NASA to "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate
dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results
thereof."
Second, the job of the Office of Public Affairs, at every level in NASA, is
to convey the work done at NASA to our stakeholders in an intelligible way.
It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust
engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff. To
ensure timely release of information, there must be cooperation and
coordination between our scientific and engineering community and our public
affairs officers.
Third, we have identified a number of areas in which clarification and
improvements to the standard operating procedures of the Office of Public
Affairs can and will be made. The revised policy, when complete, will be
disseminated throughout the agency.
I want to encourage employees to discuss this issue and bring their concerns
to management so we can work together to ensure that NASA's policies and
procedures appropriately support our commitment to openness.
Mike Griffin
NASA Administrator
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
This is good entertainment... I wish some people would realize this is entertainment, not reality... either that or install earplugs in their tinfoil hats.
Okay. Besides being dreary, how is that substantially different from my definition?
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Because sometimes policy and research cross paths. Galileo anyone? They suggest options on the basis of their research, the politicians can ignore ( like this administration ) or they can act on them.
m r14/buckyball.html
Everytime I hear a scientist announce something new, lets say bonding copper to silicon, they don't say: we did it... neat huh... come back next time!. They suggest ways to use it.
from and article on buckyballs:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v10/
Buckyballs are seen as having many valuable uses. Scott said one potential application is in the manufacture of lightweight superconductors that could provide significant savings in energy.
biochemists have seen a use for C60 in the treatment of AIDS, particularly in shutting down an enzyme required by HIV, the virus that causes the disease, he said.
Who better to suggest uses and fixes then those who understand it the most... unless of course you want your mechanic doing open heart surgery on you. Or maybe your lawyer, 'cuase thats what you'd get with your view!
Hmm.. I believe you replied to the wrong post... :)
Newton's "Universal Law of Gravitation" is incorrect. It gets the orbit of Mercury wrong.
Einstein's "Theory of General Relativity" corrects Newton's Law of Gravitation.
The Universal Gas Law, PV = nRT, isn't quite correct. You need to correct for the size of gas molecules, and Van der Waal's forces.
So what is the relationship between a theory and a law? Laws are mostly 19th century and before. Now it is all theory.
So a wet behind the ears 24 year old opens his mouth and puts his foot in it at work as well as over-stepping his boundaries in his 2nd or so job as an adult. So what? This was an internal e-mail message. I fail to see how this represents NASA, the government, Republicans, Democrats religion, education or anything else. How is this anything other than an inexperienced PR person inappropriately injecting their personal views in an internal e-mail that was leaked to the press? Inappropriate airing of both right, left, atheistic and religious opinions happens constantly in every workplace I've ever been. I do not see this representing anything other than fuel for troll fires, public villification and temporary destruction of this young man's career.
-- IV
http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/02/20060203 _a_main.asp covered this in considerable detail.
You're right. We should be more like Denmark. See? They're only hated around the world because they allow freedom of the press. Hell, those embassies needed to be rebuilt anyway.
And that for a country that at least to American standards has implemented a socialist system...
It is easy to lose sight of who is responsible to whom and for what.
... 'Presenting research' is the method, not the goal. But the scientist in the article did not present just research. The research was the state of the climate and possible causes. A suggestion for the cure was an opinion.
a) Employer: NASA is "paid by the taxpayer" but is responsible to the people through the government. Strictly speaking the employees really don't have the right to spout their personal opinions unless it is clear and obvious that it is their own opinion. The minute you come out with a personal opinion on government letterhead (figuratively or otherwise) then you are now perceived as presenting the government opinion. And since the government may have to answer to that opinion on your behalf is it surprising that they show a very keen interest in what you might say?;
b) Employee: some of the examples of government interference such as putting "theory" after every occurence of "Big Bang" seem absurdly benign. The "Big Bang" is a theory. If the government is legally embroiled with issues of "theory", such as Intelligent Design, obviously it is only a lawyer away from being told that it is misrepresenting its own theories by not labelling them as such. Instead of viewing this example as a religious zealot trying to stick it to the scientists, maybe it's a case of a bureaucrat being keenly aware of the potential legal ramifications of careless wording; and
c) Responsibility: Don't scientists have a responsibility to think about what their limitations are? A car mechanic providing a recommendation does so with the thorough knowledge of a system that a climatologist, or any scientist doing deep research, does not. Furthermore, scientists and most people in general have little clue how to get their ideas across to the media. This is why governments and companies have Public Relations staff. The latter have a keen knowledge of the impact of communications that is lost on most people. Most accusations of "altering" levied against PR depts that I have personally encountered are cases of technical staff being pedantic, quibbling over nuances of words while the PR folk try to explain that the public/communication target will not understand a "precise" statement.
It is easy to be alarmist but if you start with the hypothesis that the government is populated by mostly good people trying to do a decent job, you can come up with many plausible and valid reasons why some things happen.
And by the way, Progress is the job of a scientist
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
If they label themselves Republican and act in this manner, then they are Republican regardless of your disqalification. Also, the people voting for Republicans are not the in the same same set as those in office. The parent post refers to the latter, and not to you personally.
Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
US bravely marches from Democracy towards Military / Religious State
Paint yourself into a corner, burn the bridges!, and you will feel the liberty of a man who has nothing to lose!
I'm not trying to start a fight or be controversial, but really want to know what you think on this. If there is no moral compass, no right and wrong, then why should anyone give a sh*t about anything? Why is it anything more than personal preference whether Anabaptists, witches, or anyone else is killed?
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
While you may be right about those few loud voices, it is a big mistake to ignore them.
While you are ignoring those few loud voices, other are listening and believing. Those loud voices are gathering adherents and getting louder and stronger. One day, you may wake up to find that those voices are no longer the few but the many and they have taken over.
Ignore those voices and one may wake up one day in the United Christian States of America, where religous freedom is extended to all who believe in Christ, abortion and evolution are outlawed, and homosexuality is a crime.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
...but no mod points today. I would bet that a decent percentage of any voting population does exactly what you described (like yer northern neighbours, eh?).
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
"Yes! Bring it all back! The inquisition! [...]"
Nobody expects the American Inquisition!
Middle Ages are considered dark ages only by stereotypes. Please go to your local library and get a recent historical essay on the matter.
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
However being forced to add the word theory to every mention of the phrase "big bang" provides no real benefit in delivering clear and understandable explanations of scientific discoveries or ideas.
Hmmm... I think I respectfully disagree. For myself, I find that I can get intellectually lazy and start thinking of things as facts if the word 'theory' is not added to the end of the label. It is likely that others could be so "lazy" as well. It is certainly clear that leaving off the word "theory" gives ammunition to the freaks who would pollute our brains with crap.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
The key is to leave the government near broke. It will keep them out of trouble.
Nobody with eyes and ears can claim the corporation for public broadcasting was unbiased before 2000.
Nore that the Clinton admin was particularly good at anything (besides protecting themselves).
We just have to make sure none of these bastards get any more of our money.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Politicians will always have the power of the purse strings to things like NASA, public-funded research into biotech advances, etc. This is right and good, because our money should not be spent without accountability to us. And if the people vote for candidates that have a weird agenda, well, tought shit -- that's democracy. People are stupid sometimes, and you just have to live with the consequences unless you're arrogant enough to think that you just happen to be better than them and they should all bow to your tyrannical will -- because you say so.
In other words, it is unfair for public money to be spent in an "unpopular" way. As Americans, it has been our duty since 1775 to kill anyone who demands to tax us without representation. ;-)
And yet, this is utterly inappropriate for science. It is sick and twisted and illogical for people to be "voting" on whether global warming is happening, whether chimps and humans have a common ancestor, or whether stem cells have biotech applications. Yet voting must happen with public money.
The only way out of the dilemma is to get the government out of the game. Quit spending tax money on science, and let's shift over to volunary funding. (This actually applies to many things that government does in our names, but science is today's topic...)
Let us vote with our dollars, in a fair way. I'll vote for what I want, you vote for what you want. I think that even if over half the country votes for fundamentalists or industry-corrupted pawns, there are still enough of us to get the important stuff funded. But as long as you say, "I must have my NASA, so fuck you all," then someone else is going to use the same arrogant argument to help themselves to your wallet, diverting funds away from the very things that you value. Can I do my part if you keep taxing me for your stuff? Can you afford to pay for what's important to you, if I keep taxing you for my stuff? No. So let's stop that crap.
And the way to do it is to vote -- not just with dollars, but in the voting booth -- for people who promise they will disband most of the federal government. It's scary, but it's also right. So trust yourself, trust us all, and do the right thing. And then nobody in Washington will have the power to retard the progress of science, because they will no longer be the middleman with control of the money.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think the real issue is the misunderstanding of the word "theory", as opposed to supposition, hypothesis, conjecture or WAG
Joe Andersen http://physicsguide.blogspot.com
Censorship in this reference doesn't imply that the information is unavailable...You can google the terms ("microbiologist deaths" is one example) and will find a ton of information from diverse sources.
In the reference to "top censored stories" I am referring to specific publications (if you're interested I can give you the names) regarding the list of the top stories that were buried, covered and then quickly dropped, not reported on in a manner befitting their importance (I.E> a blurb on a back page of the newspaper), or not reported on at all.
In America the general public in most of cases just wont believe anything unless it's covered in the mainstream press. This is well known to those who would manipulate public opinion.
I have read and heard from many sources about where the Anthrax strain originated - it's no surprise that the story was dropped. If you suspect that the story about the microbiologists is untrue and are interested you may want to look into it. I guarantee you that it is indeed true. These weren't unknown people, and many of the stories have names, etc.
Well here I go and believe me I agonize to place these few social projects down because I would like to believe that less government would be better.
Social (Meaning Government controlled programs), helped to build almost all major Infrastructure.
Roads, highways freeways and toll roads
Parks and natural reserves
Telephone and Airports none of these would have been possible without public tax money being used to pay for them.
I know there are more but these are the obvious ones, without government regulation taxation and control many of these projects would never have been attempted.
But on top of these obvious failures, is the most amazing:
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." [...] "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
Rely on us for FACTUAL INFORMATION?! It's almost nonsensical -- 'big bang is opinion; we can't discount ID because people rely on us for facts!' WTF?
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I still can't understand how the scientists can tolerate the intrusion of religion. OK, there is pressure, but, we're supposed to ignore them whatever they say. If they want to remind us that there are alternatives to our "theories", or that our theories are theories, why should we give a fuck?
We don't give a fuck about them, they can keep talking and even make up pseudo-scientifical theories, we don't give a fuck about them, because they're not doing science.
Well that's how it should be..
You just got troll'd!
Nobody with eyes and ears can claim the corporation for public broadcasting was unbiased before 2000.
Bill Moyers has both eyes and ears and claimed the CPB was unbiased before 2000. I know you aren't one that's careful with his speech, but it's worth pointing out. You might be working with a different understanding of what unbiased means (on-topic, like the controversy revolving around what theory means).
Google Bill Moyers, CPB, "National Conference on Media Reform", St. Louis, Missouri. http://www.freepress.net/news/8120
Anyway, I make no assertions about your other points (big government does suck; if they can't control their spending, we need to control their budget). Cheers!
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why do people continue to think of the political "spectrum" as simply left/right or one dimensional?
At the minimum it is really two-dimensional?
View this image for a better explination:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php
Libertas in infinitum
I agree..
But both sides however do have a (small) minority out to "disprove" the other side.
There are a lot of simple-minded Christians who want to ban all science and/or secular teachings and ensure everyone gets an education only from church.
On the other hand there are many biased scienteists and scholars who are devout atheists and absolutely want to erradicate Christianity (and/or other religions) from the planet.
Both should have a more classically liberal open minded attitude about things. Science and faith (notice I didn't say religion) are NOT mutually exclusive. I wish more people would realize this.
Libertas in infinitum
And they have a sexy accent.
Of course so do those from the American South, the UK, and former Soviet Bloc countries in Eastern Europe.
Libertas in infinitum
He also answers that page on his site.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
To the rest of you, thanks for the posts on hypothesis/theory/law, it's been interesting reading them.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
None of the things that you mention are facts. They are observed phenomenon that may have alternate explanations. For instance, it might not be that our universe is getting larger, we may be getting smaller. For more information concerning why it is impossible to verify this, consult Descartes. The first meditation pretty much sums it up.
And you think you know the basic concepts??? You don't even know how to spell the plural of Theory... It's theories by the way...
also, the big bang theory is rediculous...
The real question I have, is why haven't they been repeated? If the original perpetrator has not been caught, why haven't they sent out more anthrax? Did they just exhaust the original supply? If one goal of Al Qaida is to disrupt the U.S. economy, surely they could do so by mailing more anthrax letters. But they haven't done so. Very suspicious.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
'I think I respectfully disagree'
/. readers I would have liked to you to add ' although I realise that others may agree' to that statement.
In fairness and so as to prevent confusion for some of the stupider
'It is likely that others could be so "lazy" as well'
You should really point out that although you think it might be likely others may not think so and in fact the actual likleyness of this scenario is in fact untested and simply a hypothesis.
'It is certainly clear that leaving off the word "theory" gives ammunition to the freaks who would pollute our brains with crap'
Again I would like to some indication that this statement is in fact simply an idea and that there is no conclusive evidence to back it up.
The fact is, I don't pretend to have great knowledge of about every single fscking thing in science.
I'm honest about myself. You people stick to the Slashdot "I have never read a single line about it, but I'm already an expert". crowd.
hate him because he is a Christian
Awwww....
The poor helpless wittle Christians are being oppressed by the big bad Jews and Atheists and Muslims.
Yep, you nailed it. Bush got a 37% approval rating because 63% of Americans persecute Christians.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I googled, and its scary.
:)
The problem is that most references come in between sensacionalist historys.
I tried to PM you, but either im dumb or this place doesnt suport it.
Send me an email mynick@mynick.net , obvious, replace with mynick
Cheers: Z
(tinfoil hat mode on)
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
When I majored in science in college, I learned that science cannot "prove" anything. That while more and more evidence can accumulate in favor of a theory, it always remains a "theory". Because it is and will always be subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
This is not a disadvantage of science, it's the primary advantage of science. There is always room for doubt, and all ideas are subject to agreement with the evidence.
This advantage is why the human condition has improved so rapidly, in so many ways, since scientific thinking -- and the reliable technology it made possible -- became prevalent.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
...if there's a spike in the "forest" for NGC 7319 in its quasar's spectrum, I can't see it. That's why detractors blather on about "fortuitous voids" and other question-begging deux ex machinae instead of simply pointing to the Lyman notches and pronouncing "I told you so!" (can you see them missing the chance if they had one?).
You might also want to grab a copy of this image, drop it into a graphics editor (here is a free one) and have fun with the intensity curves (Layer, Curves, drag the centre of the curve left to 50,160 (scale 0-255), then grab the curve where it crosses the 25% mark and drag that to 27,36). Now think about what you see, as you toy with that curve.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So I'd go one step further than you. Let there be NO party control of campaign finances. All contributions should go towards a federal election committee who gives equal amounts to both candidates. All money spent towards campaigning should come from that fund -- if an incumbent spends party money or his own money for election purposes, he's booted out of office immediately, no questions asked.
As it is, we've got Karl Rove threatening to blacklist any senator who votes against Bush on the NSA spying illegality issue. How is that justice?
Wasn't that what Reagan said after the first shuttle accident? IIRC, he said something like, "Sometimes when men reach for the face of God, they fall short". Didn't think he was being literal, however.
i remember when the republican colorcode was blue & the dems were red (as in commie;-) but at some time the media reversed the coding...so when u point out that clinton:
>(a) recognizing that deficits matter,
this was traditionally a republican complaint when the dems ran congress...
>(b)making the politically hard choice to raise taxes in 1993
this was always the dems s.o.p;-)
>(c) holding the line on overall spending
again, something the repubs always moaned about the dems not doing...
maybe the color-coding reversal was an acknowledgement of the new reality;-}
You made a very good point about stereotyping people. And you're a brave man admitting to voting republican. I'm sorry you're getting so roasted over this.
But I do want to make the point that if you voted republican in 2004, you're neither agnostic nor libertarian. In that case, you cowed to the extremists and fundamentalists the same that that your average, decent muslim is cowed by the extremists when s/he doesn't speak out against them for fear of reprisal.
Some people actually believe that pure market solutions aren't always optimal. Shocking, isn't it? These loopy liberal loons go on to claim that subsidizing (and sometimes even taking over production of) things that get overpriced by the market (like public goods, education, etc.) can actually stimulate economic growth! Sounds CRAZY, doesn't it?
It's so good to see that there are people like you out there who know better...
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
The John Deutsch's of the world are only leaping in to fill the vacuum created by the absence of religious discussion wrt advances in scientific knowledge. Everyone of us asks 'how did we get here?' and 'where did I come from' but there is very little meaningful public dialog. Ironically, the Big Bang seems far more like the act of a 'creator' than it does the random action of a chaotic universe but apparently Intelligent Designer types like Deutsch think otherwise. Whatever. The most important thing is to bring out ideas and talk about them, to overturn mental rocks and let the sun shine underneath. We live in a computerized internet-rich world with more communication media than ever before in history and yet there is less *serious* discussion about NEW ideas than there was in the 1400s. Everything now is wrapped in dogma, litmus tests of beliefs, and rigid ideological thinking. How did this happen to us? If Copernicus were alive today, his sun-centered theory would be shouted down by islamic fundamentalists, christian fundamentalists, right/left-wing politicians, and global-warming scientists who would all be convinced that it threatened their institutions and the status quo.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing