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
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.
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.
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"
I believe in the divine creation of the Universe, and I also believe in the big bang. The idea that such vast (approaching infinity) amount of matter could be produced from a single point of space/time to expand outwards at such a rate as to neither collapse back upon itself (too slow) nor stretch out into nothingness (too fast) but instead develop into planets, stars, comets, galaxies, nebulae, et al is nothing less than the definition of a miracle.
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
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.
You have to remember that to these morons, a "theory" isn't a well-defined scientific term... it's code to their followers (who don't understand science) that implies "this is stuff the scientists made up."
Like anytime the theory of evolution is mentioned, you hear these idiots screaming "IT'S JUST A THEORY!!!"
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
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.
"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.
But, the Big Bang *IS* a theory. NPOV would require it be referred to as a theory. Wikipedia calls it a theory; are they a tool of the Religious Right?
I'm an atheist and this doesn't sound wrong to me; it's a theory. What's the big deal in insisting it be called such? Is the truth so damaging to somebody's agenda here?
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.
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 *-*
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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
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
That was one of the more intelligent posts I've seen on slashdot to date.