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_
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)
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 *-*
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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...."
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.
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
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)
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.