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.
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.
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
To some other influential republicans, however, science is already too left, and therefore, not right.
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?
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 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.
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.
Its not even a theory since it is not falsifiable...
BTW I demand you spend equal time to the FSM, invisible pink elephants and every other devine creature some idiot might have thought of.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
And by the way, the Big Bang has not been scientifically proven (hence "theory") and the existence of God has not been scientifically disproved.
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.
Only scientific theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable. Nonscientific theories do not need to be falsifiable. Don't fall into the trap of equating scientific theory with nonscientific theory; they mean very different things.
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.
The problem with religio-political meddling is not the word, "theory." I mean, both evolution and big bang are scientific theories, right alongside the theory of gravity, Newton's theories of the movement of bodies (which have proven so good they are considered scientific "laws," even with their obvious flaws *cough* quantum uncertainty and general relativity *cough*), and the three theories of thermodynamics (also considered laws).
The problem is that the current administration has taken a perfectly good word ("theory") and corrupted it to mean something entirely different. That's a political trick they are quite good at; consider how they have corrupted other perfectly good words to mean something bad, like "liberal" and "fiscal responsibility."
They have redefined "theory" to include things that are *not* scientific, like intelligent design, and the "theory" of the Liberal Global Warming Hoax Conspiracy. By selectively changing the definitions of words, they can couch the debate in a way more favorable to their political ends. In this case, it is a complete discrediting of science as a method of obtaining Truth, when in fact only the Bible has the ability to give us Truth.
Instead of the enlightened viewpoint you express, most of these people are not interested in using science to discover the face of God. Most of them realize if they do that, the world will not be 8,972 years old like they think; the rapture will most likely not happen in our lifetimes; and worse, the difference between good and evil is not so clear-cut as the difference between Us and Them. Oh, and maybe the US isn't God's Chosen Ones. Maybe the whole world is God's Chosen Ones.
And where will that leave them?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
We cannot ignore that the word "theory" is widely misunderstood outside the scientific community, where it means something closer to "wild guess" or "stab in the dark" than a rigourous, well-tested hypothesis that is almost certainly correct, or close to correct.
This yahoo's attempt to insert "theory" after "Big Bang" in press releases is not out of want for scientific rigor; it is the point of a very disturbing wedge, one whose ultimate goal is a society in which everything is subservient to theology, even the physical sciences. We are sliding down the slippery slope, toward Sagan's Demon-Haunted Land.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
"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.
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.
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.
Of course it is. Who is more qualified? (Well, according to TFA, 24-year-old PR hacks.)
...the Big Bang has not been scientifically proven (hence "theory") and the existence of God has not been scientifically disproved.
This statement is doubly flawed.
1) A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can only be disproven. It gains respect when repeated attempts to disprove it fail, but it's never 100% "true."
2) A religious belief cannot be disproven. It cannot be tested. Thus it's always 100% "true." (Or 0%)
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
I think the main problem here is a conflict between two definitions of the word "theory" - from dictionary.com:
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the one that most people are using when they're talking about things like the big bang theory.
6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
AKA guess, hunch, belief. This is the one that ID proponents seem to be using to defend their use of the word. Heck, it confused me when I first encountered the scientific term, but IIRC that was something I learned in school before turning 10, so intentionally misleading people over the definitions is both annoying, and sad in that its so successful.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Without judging what you said (its your beliefs, and you are definitely entitled to those), I'd suggest you look a bit more at the things both parties do, and listen a little bit less to what people say.
Then, to an outside observer, calling any mainstream party in the USA 'left' is just too fucking hilarious. Compared to any real socialist party in any other part of the world, both democrats and republicans are pretty much right-wing to extreme right. I'm not even talking about supposed socialist parties with marxist or maoist affinities, those are not proper socialist parties to begin with, I am talking about the typical social democrat party as found in many western countries.
For an outside observer, the libertarian and green parties in the USA a least look a little bit different still, but never got far enough to let any actions speak for them. Differences between democrats and republicans seem pretty superficial and created only for the purpose of having some difference at all, at least when looking at actions and not at party rhetoric.
At times it makes me wonder how peopel can make an informed choice if all there is is mud slinging, meaningless thetoric, and typical us vs them psychology.
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.
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've heard it said that the repubs don't like scientists because they tend to vote democratic, but they've really brought that on themselves. Their real problem with science - and indeed with Reason in general - is that it often limits their power, which in their minds should be total and absolute now that they have all three branches of government locked up. Their only serious opponent now is Truth, at least until the next elections.
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.
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." Asimov
Exactly. Go back and look at Nixon's platform. I'm serious. If he ran for President today, he'd be further left than most of the Democratic party. (Full disclosure: I'm quite liberal, but not very partisan.)
Education, peace, diplomacy, and public service. No religion, no war, no big business. (He does want smaller government, a more conservative ideal.) Overall, it's startling.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Yes, both parties love spending tax dollars... but at least the red-staters are at least a little more squeamish about it than their more lefty-socialist counterparts.
This is the difference between science and politics.
In politics, the only thing that matters is the impression that you create. People vote for the impression, and live with the result.
In science, we try to keep politics to the minimum, and experimental investigation of empirical reality is one of the primary means of doing so. So a scientist, unaware of the impressions created by the two political parties in the U.S., looking at the data, would conclude that Democrats were the party of fiscal probity and Republicans were the party of spending money like drunken cowboys.
That people continue to trot out this incredible statement that the Republicans are less likely to run up a huge deficit and Democrats are less likely to balance the budget, when for the past twenty years exactly the opposite has been true, is a measure of how alien and anomalous science is in human experience.
This is why science is precious and must be defended. It is the only way we know of getting past impressions to something that at the very least is not the diametric opposite of the truth.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
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...."
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.
But their ongoing proposition isn't to spend less, it's to tax more. That's not the way to grow the economy.
Actually, it does, in a much bigger and more sustainable way over the long run. The premise, as I see it, is to tax the most weathly citizens and redistrubite that wealth as social, environmental, education, infrastrcuture, and law enforcement services to the rest of the people, enabling them to succeed in life. The more people that make money, the more people that spend it, the stronger the economy. My wife and I make a decent living, and what we pay in taxes to Federal and State is over $40,000 a year, so I think I can speak on this. Do I mind paying that much in taxes? Not really. I can open my door and see the police and fire department at work keeping my neighborhood safe, clean well maintained roads, excellent parks, schools, and hospitals. Not to mention, I like to know my tax money goes toward helping others get the same chances I had, or even helping others recover from the same issues I had as a teenager. If it wasn't for the government aid that got me into college, I don't where I would be today.
The 'trickle down' method is a bit different, but revolves around lowering the cost of doing business, so those business can hire more people or pay higher wages, and spending the minimum possible everything else. (except defense) The premise being, less government. I'm not really sure I want, less police when there is crime, less fireman when my house might burn, less road workers, less park rangers, less schools, less help for the poor, less hospitals, less clean air and water. I like those things so, I'm willing to pay. The only thing I want less of is war.
I have a friend who lives in Waynesboro VA. This is out in the middle of nowhere in Virginia, all rural. My wife and I went to visit him and he has a bueatiful stream in his backyard, perfect trout stream. I told him, "Man, do you ever fish in there?". He laughed and said "Shit, that stream hasn't had fish in it since the Dow plant opened up. I looked out my window one day and they were all day, smelled something fiece."
"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.""
As the Blog properly points out, this view is completely contradictory. The Big Bang Theory in no way discounts the "intelligent design by a creator" and even if it did it is exactly NASA's place to be talking about the theory from a scientific perspective, not a religious perspective!