A Conversation with Alan Lightman

An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience has an interview with Physicist, novelist, and science writer, Alan Lightman with regards to the future of science and what the next "big" discoveries might be. From the article: "Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again."

Comments

Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the people in Hollywood, who lack High School Dimplomas and common sense, have taken the term intellectual and applied it to themselves. We need to define intellectual...

Uhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Lightwho?

Re:Uhhhhh

[HermanAB]

Yup, he must be very famous, since I have never heard of him.

RE

[Alex P Keaton in da]

From TFA: "In the next 100 years we will have some organisms that are half human and half machine."
Half defined how? By mass? By function? There are hybrid man machines now- mechanical hearts, knees, and implanted erection pumps.
For the hubub about attacking science, is there really that much innovation being stifled? The loudest people get the media coverage. That is why, despite the fact that everyone knows they are nuts, PETA is always on the news. And why when anti-science groups go after science, they are on the news.

Re:RE

[Daniel_Staal]

I'd say by any definition. No matter how you slice it, there will be half-man, half-machines in the next 100 years.

We're fairly close to that already on a couple different slices.

Re:RE

[geekoid]

I define it has being made out of corn chips.

Re:RE

[jonwil]

Why dont we see groups on the other side of the coin making huge piles of noise too?

For example, we see the anti-gay movement making big noise about how gay relationships and gay marage and gay people adopting kids and stuff is all bad, why doesnt the other side make just as much noise arguing the opposite.
Why dont we see the groups like the farmers here in australia being attacked by PETA for "mistreating" their sheep fighting back with just as much noise (i.e. getting out there into the media with just as much "no we are not mistreating these sheep" noise?

Why arent we seeing the euthanasia movements worldwide making big amounts of noise in support of voluntary euthanasia (which is something I support)
Why arent we seeing as much noise from the pro-abortion groups (which I also support) as from the anti-abortion groups?

Re:RE

[aardvarkjoe]

What planet are you from where the extremists in support of all the causes you mentioned aren't just as loudmouthed as the ones who aren't? (Well, except for the mistreated sheep thing, which I haven't heard anything about either way.)

Re:RE

[somersault]

well for the farmer thing, maybe just because they'd rather be working than wasting lots of time getting publicity for something that they are still allowed to do. PETA complaining wouldnt make a difference unless it caused a new law to be passed, I presume? And before a new law is passed, farmers would be able to have their say, when it mattered, not just making a noise on the news.

Anti-intellectual?

[DarkHand]

I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again.

Anti-intellectual? The US is more pro-intellectual than it has been in a very long time. It's finally cool to be smart, to an extent. If anything, the pendulum is only just beginning to swing back in our favor. It may not look like it now, but we just need to give the pendulum more time.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Crowhead]

No kidding. This Kansas evolution/intelligent design stuff has been going on for years and years. However, in present day it is convenient ammo for anti-republican rhetoric.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[CoderBob]

It's getting better, but it still isn't back into a "pro-intellectual" period. Ignore the people around you- the ones you have to worry about in terms of being an "intellectual" state would be the people in the government- and they could be more supportive.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's referring to the moral issues people have with biology these days. The American government isn't supporting any sort of research that it thinks is anti-Christian, and places like England are taking the lead.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Mahou]

the government has no use for a large population of intelligent citizens. businesses have no use for a large population of intelligent consumers. intelligence is far too dangerous to establishment.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[HardCase]

Ignore the people around you- the ones you have to worry about in terms of being an "intellectual" state would be the people in the government- and they could be more supportive.

Seriously? US federal, state and local governments are promoting more science and math instruction, then this sort of thing comes along.

-h-

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[BCSEiny]

Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectual. Being Anti-intellectual is not about whether it is cool to be smart. It is whether or not being an authority in the field allows me to have credibility. For instance if am a political science PH.D. with a minor in economics and I talk about foreign policy and the effect on the economy you would be anti-intellectual if you said: "my opinion is just as important and I am right," assuming you aren't a political science PH.D. with a minor in economics as well. Essentially intellectualism is allowing people who are experts in an area to have authority in statement about that which they are an authority over. So consequently a lot of people (who have no authority) nowadays say things like 'I think we should stop trading with China', and the point is that the government should not listen to them (if it is being intellectual). The best example of anti-intellectualism in the government I can think of is global warming. They just don't care and take any crackpot who will agree with them as fact. But I disgress....

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[ZipR]

Can't say I agree with you. Look at our recent elections -- winners have won through largely anti-intellectual platforms. Of course, they haven't done it overtly, but through portraying themselves as common, simple people and by portraying intelluctuals as untrustworthy.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[smorpheus]

Actually, no, the fact that these cases are now coming to court, and that the Kansas Board quite recently decided to include ID in the classroom is why the issue has come to a forefront of media coverage.

These are titantic anti-intellecutal events that go signficantly beyond "anti-republican rhetoric."

Let's not forget recent events at NASA which seem more concerned with crippling science in order to avoid hurting creationist's feelings. The scientists (i.e. IMO, intellectuals), won that battle, but they shouldn't have even had to have fought it in the first place.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Peter Trepan]

Anti-intellectual? The US is more pro-intellectual than it has been in a very long time. It's finally cool to be smart, to an extent. If anything, the pendulum is only just beginning to swing back in our favor. It may not look like it now, but we just need to give the pendulum more time.

If you're basing this on the newfound popularity of computer geeks, I'd argue that it's not cool to be intellectual, but to be percieved as potentially rich and powerful. If anything, I'd say American society is trending toward complete apathy.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[0xABADC0DA]

But don't pretend that the pendulum is swinging back, or is going to anytime soon. We've been resting on our laurels and are complacent. A lot of us don't know how to read, and the ones that do don't even grok grammar. lol. In short we're going to get beaten to all hell by globalism (despite our 'free trade' treaties where we actually try to forestall it). And when you can't compete on competence or skill or qualifications you have two choices a) pretend you are 'all that' anyway and keep sinking or b) get depressed about it, and maybe do something about it.

People these days don't want to face the reality. It's hard work just to say "we're fucked and we need to do something about it". We'd rather just take a chill pill and follow. This is what I sardonically call malignorance, the willful, malignant ignorance of those anti-intellectuals that active go out of their way not to learn. This administration is a prime example.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? most presidential elections for the past decade have been devoid of any intellectual ideas from both major parties.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is more pro-intellectual than it has been in a very long time. It's finally cool to be smart, to an extent.

In terms of "coolness", the dot-com era was the high point for people who were smart about technology. In terms of government support, these days it's the military personnel and their families that are being described as heros.

From wikipedia:

An intellectual is a person who uses his or her intellect to study, reflect, or speculate on a variety of different ideas.

Fundamentally, the tone that is being set by the current US government is not so much "anti-intellectual" directly as it is "agressive self interest". That is, the Bush administration promotes a single-minded world view where "fair" is the same as "we get what we want". Indirectly, however, this creates a conflict with intellectuals who recognize that their are a variety of different ideas about what is fair and that fair is not at all the same as "we get what we want".

In particular, the Bush administration starts with a single-minded conclusion where they get what they want and then they present "facts" that support this conclusion. This puts them in conflict with intellectuals who would rather start with facts that are agreed upon and observable and only then draw those conclusions that are supported by these facts recognizing that these conclusions are unlikely to coincide with the Bush administration getting exactly what they want.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming is the opposite of what you're talking about. Both the people who say that global warming is caused by emissions and the people who discount it claim the ability do so based on credentials, purporting to be experts. I haven't seen anyone saying, "This average Joe on the street doesn't believe that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions; therefore it isn't." There is quite a bit of gathering experts on both sides, and acknowledgement that it is important to be a trained scientist in order to ascertain the truth. That doesn't say anything about the quality of the credentials or the number of people on either side, but those are irrelevant. The fact is that global warming *is* an intellectual debate. You just have an axe to grind and you argued yourself into a corner. The only response you can come up with now is that people who discount global warming concerns aren't smart enough and you know more than they do. I hope you are an expert in the debate. Otherwise, how could you tell who's right?

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, the pendulum is only just beginning to swing back in our favor.

Hummm. So, you are the intellectuals? What makes you think that you belong? Typically, a nation counts as intellectuals those that create new directions and mind sets rather than trying to bring a nation back to where it was. For example, Einstein was an intellectual, as was JFK. So is Alan Kay. OTH, Bill gates would not be an intellual by most standards (what has he created?). Likewise, GWB is probably not. Those that back Creationism as science, do not accept global warming as happening (while there can be debate about what is causing it, anybody who thinks that the globe is NOT warming is simply blind), and consider "acceptable" deficits are most certainly not. So where are you in this pack? Did you create HTML? Did you create the internet? Perhaps you have contributed to the guts of something new.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Trespass]

There's a big difference between pro-intellectual and pro-technically skilled. A useful metaphor might be the difference between science and technology.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[w1ll0w]

How would any of that hurt creationist's feelings? Anyone who cares already knows it's a theory, and any who doesn't won't be able to distinguish from proven science to theories anyway. He might have wanted to jab at the evolutionists but in the end it was just being politically correct by naming a theory a theory. The censoring of climate data was the only real issue there.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[smorpheus]

Let's read specifically what the NASA PR guy wrote:

"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.""

Sounds to me like he doesn't want to upset creationists. What does it sound like to you?

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[mellon]

Are you kidding? It's really hard to find intelligent people to run businesses these days. No joke!

Re: Anti-intellectual?

[Black Parrot]

> Can't say I agree with you. Look at our recent elections -- winners have won through largely anti-intellectual platforms. Of course, they haven't done it overtly, but through portraying themselves as common, simple people and by portraying intelluctuals as untrustworthy.

Actually, at the Federal level the current anti-intellectual clique holds power by a pretty slim margin, and IMO they didn't get it by portraying intellectuals as untrustworty, but by sucking up to specific special interest groups {big business, religious right} with interests that call for public policy decisions that go against the decisions recommended by good science. Their anti-science stance on various hot issues is nothing more than self interest and/or reward for their supporters.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[PCM2]

On the contrary; you seem to be confusing intellectuals with engineers. There are a great many intellectuals who don't do anything but ponder things. Bill Gates might very well be an intellectual. I don't know, I've never been to a cocktail party with him. People who consider different kinds of deficits are likely to be intellectuals. Your comments seem to be a veiled accusation of snobbery or elitism on the part of the parent, but in truth you appear to be the worse offender.

Re: Anti-intellectual?

[Black Parrot]

> In short we're going to get beaten to all hell by globalism

Earlier this week the news reported that the US trade deficit was $750,000,000,000 - the fourth record year in a row.

We're going to squander our way to third-world status.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[toddbu]

Of course, they haven't done it overtly, but through portraying themselves as common, simple people and by portraying intelluctuals as untrustworthy.

I don't get why this has to be an either-or proposition. I consider myself an intellectual, yet I live a simple life. In fact, I find most pure intellectuals to be very simple people. They eat simply, don't get very involved in politics, and generally keep to things that interest them. I find those who portray themselves as being sophisiticated to be generally dishonest, because they take things that they know little about and pretend as though they're experts.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[geekoid]

" A lot of us don't know how to read, and the ones that do don't even grok grammar. lol. "

Is that irony? why yes, I think it is.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[w1ll0w]

I'm sure it would have hurt some creationists' feelings; my point was the people it would offend would have been offended by just the words "Big Bang." Anyone who knows much about science knows it's a theory and anyone who doesn't know wouldn't pick up on the word anyway. The fact remains it's really a non-issue compared to the censoring of data, which is what was said to have happened to the climate data. Complaining the word "theory" was tacked onto a theory would be like me complaining that my manager used spell-checker on a document I sent him and fixed a spelling error. It's the same realm of censorship.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[That's Unpossible!]

Actually they won by portraying OTHER POLITICIANS are untrustworthy.

To call a politician an intellectual is a bit of a stretch. I can count intellectual politicians on one hand and still have a finger left to pick my nose.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[abigor]

Can you explain how a "theory" differs from "proven science"?

Here's why I ask: you don't prove theories. They are simply the best explanations available for all the available data. So far, relativity, evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory, quantum electrodynamics, and so on have held up in a stellar fashion. Calling something a "theory" in the scientific sense elevates it to the highest degree of certainty there can be. The only controversy around them involves tweaking them as new data appears, and attempting to cloud their acceptance by saying they are "only theories".

So I'd be interested in hearing about this "proven science".

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Mahou]

which is why i included the two words 'large' and 'consumers'

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[0xABADC0DA]

You have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Oh wait, that's sarcasm.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[w1ll0w]

Forgive me for my ignorance; you are correct. I was caught up with the media hype. It is a theory and does show a clear beginning to the universe, which creationists should enjoy thoroughly. The only thing I can think of that the NASA scientists in question didn't like was that the big bang shows something from nothing. Then having theory tacked on would make it a more credible. Oh well, don't I look the fool. Thanks for the correcting slap on the back of the head.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you are saying is, that the intellectual government takes action based on what better qualified people have to say about it than what the average person has to say about it...

Sounds like we have moved TOWARD an intellectual government rather than away from one, since Democrats are for democracy (1 person = 1 vote) and Republicans are for republics (elected leaders decide based on what their constituents need as a whole, asking their own experts, rather than do what their voters desire on case by case, poll by poll of the general public)

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[MooUK]

From work I've done myself, including work from raw data, I've reached my own conclusions on this issue. Yet even then I know that they might be wrong.

(I personally feel that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence in one direction, but that means little if I'm completely misinterpreting it.)

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Pseudonym]

On the contrary; you seem to be confusing intellectuals with engineers. There are a great many intellectuals who don't do anything but ponder things.

I think the OP is confusing those issues, yes. But some of the confusion arises precisely because the overwhelming majority of experts (e.g. engineers and scientists) are so busy building and doing things that they don't comment on matters of public interest. IMO, an intellectual in this sense is an expert who contributes to public debate. The wikipeda entry calles these people public intellectuals.

My favourite example (and not least because he is a man whom I truly, truly admire) is David Lorge Parnas. He's a computer scientist and software engineer of the highest order, but is also a true intellectual. He is never shy to comment on any area of public policy which falls within his area of expertise. For example, he publically resigned from the advisory board of the Star Wars missile defence system, and became one of its most vocal critics.

Every time Bruce Schneier speaks, someone on slashdot berates him for being a media whore. This, believe it or not, is a symptom of anti-intellectualism. Schneier is a true expert who involves himself in public debate, and is therefore a public intellectual, whether you agree with him or not. (He's also a media whore, but if you ever want "our side" heard in public debate on security systems, somebody has to be.)

Other modern-day public intellectuals who regularly turn up on slashdot include Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felten and Vint Cerf.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Ninjaesque One]

I can count living intellectual politicians on one finger and still have 10 left.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[ThousandStars]

If anything, I'd say American society is trending toward complete apathy.

I'd write a reasoned response disagreeing, but I just don't care.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Anti-intellectual? The US is more pro-intellectual than it has been in a very long time. It's finally cool to be smart, to an extent. If anything, the pendulum is only just beginning to swing back in our favor. It may not look like it now, but we just need to give the pendulum more time.

What happy world do you live in? I'm 16 and have been going to college for three years (I decided to be homeschooled after 7th grade after dealing with roughly 5 years of non-learning in public schools. At that time, we discovered that IUPUI has a dual-credit program in which you can get high-school AND college credit at the same time, thus enabling me to pretty much take high school in college.), and I can tell you now that it is NOT cool to be smart.

If anything, Japan is a much more intellectual place. In Japan, if you bring down the class average, you get beat up. In America, if you're put in advanced math you get beat up.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is quite a bit of gathering experts on both sides

No, in fact, there isn't. If one were to only look at debates on the hill and on talking heads television shows, one would get the impression that there are large numbers of experts on boths sides.

But that simply isn't true. There is an overrwhelming number of scientists on one side and a relatively small number of experts on the other. And additionally, many people on one particular side of the issue are recieving lots of funding from the petrolium industy. In fact, I couldn't name a single expert against global warming who isn't being payed by big oil in some manner. I'm not saying that te anti global warming experts are all liars, but ah ... draw your own conclusions.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[geekoid]

Incorrect, sarcasm requires wit. Am I being pendantic? why yes, yes I am.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[geekoid]

If nerds were cool, then the poster might have something, but geeks have nothing to do with intelligence. No matter what they think of their wide collection of Tee shirts may say.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[geekoid]

meh

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[tompaulco]

Can you explain how a "theory" differs from "proven science"?
That's easy. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.
"Proven science" does not exist. Science is an attempt to explain how the natural world works. It does so by refining, tuning, and occasionally tossing out ever more and more precise rules of thumb. Science never has the "right" answer. It has an answer that is correct taking into account always more and more variables, but there are always more variables available that we don't take into consideration.
We can put rockets in space and calculate their orbits precisely, but we would be idiots to send them up without the ability to correct course deviations.
No, there is no "proven science" but there are very usable, highly accurate, yet still infinitessimally incorrect rules of thumb.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Its not so much that it is anti intellectual...I think what grandparent meant is that it is swinging to the religious, anti-scientific end of things. I know plenty of intellectual religious people...of course I think they're fools for believing in god, but thats their problem.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Lord_Dweomer]

"If you're basing this on the newfound popularity of computer geeks, I'd argue that it's not cool to be intellectual, but to be percieved as potentially rich and powerful. If anything, I'd say American society is trending toward complete apathy."

I disagree. I think that geeks are becoming recognized as less shallow, more intellectually satisfying and more interesting than non-geeks. What is my basis for this? Mainstream media.

Take a look at recent hits...the movie Garden State....Beauty and the Geek....Seth from The O.C.....the list goes on. Girls are starting to realize that hey...once we clean up and dress well and learn to talk to them, we are actually way more interesting and fun to be around than Joe Fratboy who only knows how to go to the bar and do keg stands.

Society as a whole is looking for deeper emotional and intellectual fulfillment, and geeks are some of the best people around to provide that.

And we have better odds at being rich....but that was before we all got outsourced to India.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[mOdQuArK!]

And when you can't compete on competence or skill or qualifications you have two choices a) pretend you are 'all that' anyway and keep sinking or b) get depressed about it, and maybe do something about it.

Or you can take the only thing effective that you have left, a military grown bloated by decades of massive military-industrial-complex spending, and use it in a vain attempt to bring back the "glory days", thereby ensuring collapse of a lot of global infrastructure.

Hey, if we can't beat them, then drag them back down to our level, right?

(You think I'm cynical? Why do you say that? :P)

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Starcub]

Can you explain how a "theory" differs from "proven science"?

This is really pretty simple, and the fact that this seems to be lost on the current generation is, I suspect, afirmation of the author's theory that intellectualism is generally under attack in this country today.

A theory is constructed based on scientific observation. Theories, such as some of those you mentioned, often attempt to explain or predict phenomenon that extend beyond the boundaries of that which is actually observed. This is different from "proven science" which restricts itself to observed results. Take for example the 'flat earth' theory that was widely held up until about 500-600 years ago. New observations, or data aquired in extended boundaries are capable of effecting major revisions in theories.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you obviously didn't even read that post...

That doesn't say anything about... the number of people on either side

The point was that both sides claim to have an intellectual argument, even if you don't believe that both sides actually have one. If go back and read the GP and Parent to your post and follow the reasoning you'll see you have no support for saying only one side of the argument is striving to be intellectual. I do think that the no-global-warming people would do much better to call into doubt the ability of intellectuals to determine that there is global warming on scientific grounds. Their case is weak precisely because they are striving to be intellectual without the support of the majority of intellectuals. They are very intent on gathering experts, and in so doing they recognize this as a strictly intellectual problem. On the other hand, Joe Blow on the street doesn't know the scientific issues, and never will, and will only be able to question whether scientists are capable of finding the answer. That is anti-intellectualism. It doesn't play into climate debates, although it might affect which side gets the votes. Note that Joe Blow on the street is not making policy. Also note that logical positivism has been rejected by many well-respected intellectuals (philosophers), even though scientists rely on that kind of reasoning (theory supported by experimentation and observation) for their claims to be true.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd say American society is trending toward complete apathy."

We're not already there? ... well i'm scared.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Frazbin]

Science *always* attempts to explain or predict phenomenon that extend beyond the boundaries of that which is actually observed. Even if it's as simple as saying "if I pee on the snow and it melts today, then if I pee on the snow tomorrow, it will melt". I think you're making a bullshit arbitrary distinction. Science is inductive-- you're saying that, at some level of removal from the empirical results (defined by you, I guess), induction stops being "proven science" and starts being... "theory". How is that a useful distinction? You're using induction either way, but now that you've divided science into two categories, you no longer have a continuum that spans from reasonable, obvious, induction, to unreasonable, farfetched induction. Seems like an artificially simple way to look at a complex situation-- which, of course, is a favorite tactic of pseudo-science and quackery.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Frazbin]

I think when they say "simple" they mean simple like "Boy howdy! I may not know too much about math, but I can drive a truck real good!". That kind of thing. Less "the simple life", and more "the simpleton". "Maybe I laust my daug, but I steel haev jaebus!" Simple. Like they're not gonna trick you by being too smart or anything.
  I agree with you about jackass sophisticates-- they can decieve some people, but generally you can look somebody in the eyes and tell pretty quickly if the wheels are spinning back there.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[toddbu]

"Maybe I laust my daug, but I steel haev jaebus!"

I know a few folks like this, and while most people wouldn't consider them intellectuals, I sure do. They can tell you more about cows then you'd care to know, and they don't need weather radar to tell you when it's going to rain.

On a related note: I watch my fair share of NASCAR, and while it definitely caters to the southern, Republican, Bible-belt crowd (tell me one other sport where they pray before the event), it's really a lot more sophisticated than people think. Most folks consider NASCAR to be all axle-grease, but every team on the circuit has really sharp people who know lots about aerodynamics and mechanics. But even with all their intelligence, I'm sure they'd be laughed out of a room of elite intellectuals who think that in order to be really smart you have to enjoy opera and the arts. (Don't get me wrong, those are ok too. It's just that they're not better than anything else.)

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[plunge]

"Theories, such as some of those you mentioned, often attempt to explain or predict phenomenon that extend beyond the boundaries of that which is actually observed."

I think you are confused as to what "observed" means in science. Observations are what we are trying to explain in the first place: you form a hypothesis in order to explain some observation. Testing the hypothesis requires just that: testing it in any way you can think of relative to what it claims.

You are trying to set up a distinction between scientific claims about the past and about the present which just doesn't exist. Scientific claims about the present aren't any more "proven" than anything else.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[mfrank]

They're not afraid of intelligent people. They're afraid of people capable of critical thought. There is a difference.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Mahou]

says who?

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I think that geeks are becoming recognized as less shallow, more intellectually satisfying and more interesting than non-geeks. What is my basis for this? Mainstream media.

Take a look at recent hits...the movie Garden State....Beauty and the Geek....Seth from The O.C.....the list goes on.

Your attention to mainstream media makes it seem like you shouldn't be calling yourself or other people "geek". Moreso if some of the titles you mentioned were television shows.

Girls are starting to realize that hey...once we clean up and dress well and learn to talk to them, we are actually way more interesting and fun to be around than Joe Fratboy who only knows how to go to the bar and do keg stands.

Society as a whole is looking for deeper emotional and intellectual fulfillment

What society do you live in? You're obviously not an American.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Lord_Dweomer]

'Your attention to mainstream media makes it seem like you shouldn't be calling yourself or other people "geek". Moreso if some of the titles you mentioned were television shows."

My industry requires that I be up to date on mainstream media and the pulse of society as a whole. So, while I would love to publish information from the several thousand dollar studies I base my observations off of, unfortunately I am contractually prohibitted from doing so.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous Coward]

My industry requires that I be up to date on mainstream media and the pulse of society as a whole. So, while I would love to publish information from the several thousand dollar studies I base my observations off of, unfortunately I am contractually prohibitted from doing so.

Not to denigrate your work, but somehow I have a feeling that the "studies" you speak of involve, at least in part, the ratings for movies/shows like the ones you mentioned above, which I distrust because popular media generally doesn't portray reality accurately, especially in deeply technical matters. Of course, I could be wrong (hope so), but sadly, I generally don't see people around me looking for much of any kind of fulfillment, unless it involves drugs, money, socializing, or ego inflation. But maybe what you're talking about is more abstract than that. Or maybe I should get out more.

Also, just curious - what kind of work do you do? And is there a site where the kinds of studies you mentioned (not the proprietary/thousands-of-dollars ones, but publicly accessible) can be viewed by the general public? It must be interesting knowing what Joe Random thinks and feels... (I'm guessing it's related to sociology and psychology)

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Starcub]

Am I making an arbitrary disctinction? Tell me then, how is string theory proven science?

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Starcub]

You are trying to set up a distinction between scientific claims about the past and about the present which just doesn't exist. Scientific claims about the present aren't any more "proven" than anything else.

I'm not talking mearly about scientific claims regarding the observed, past or present. I'm talking about theories, theories can also attempt to explain the future, or the unobserved. There are theories that are more 'proven' than others. The earth was flat, because as best as could be determined in the past, it was observed to be so. We know the earth isn't flat today because we have the ability and/or technology to get the data that proves it.

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[mfrank]

I read Pat Buchanan's column every Monday and Wednesday. He seems quite intelligent. But he would want to teach ID in public schools. There seems to be some assumptions that he's not willing to question (and I suspect the same holds true of you).

Re:Anti-intellectual?

[Mahou]

huh????

Is there a reason I should consider this important

[mmell]

or is this just another guy wasting oxygen?

Here, I'll tell ya where science'll go in the next quarter-century - first, in the area of physics we'll rediscover the stick and the stone. In the area of astrology, we'll rediscover the power of the stars over our lives and our fates. In the area of biotechnology, we'll discover that we should wash our hands before we eat our latest kill; and also not to hang around the warm, softly-glowing remains of the "cities".

There. My predictions look like they have at least as much chance as Mr. Lightman's (for the record, he seems to have spent some thought on his answers, and he exhibits a certain intelligence level, but this is like me preparing a schedule for my boss showing all unplanned outtages for the next three months!).

Finally

[Ignignot]

Someone has discovered a color scheme more repulsive than slashdot's IT section! I couldn't even let the page fully load before I closed it to prevent blindness. In this one story, I think we can forgive people for not RTFA'ing.

Re:Finally

[tor528]

I like the color scheme. If you would like to know why, email me at tor528@u.washington.edu....

I think the pendulum will swing back

[Anonymous Coward]

I also think the pendulum will swing from the attack on intellectualism to an attack on not being unintellectual.

Re: I think the pendulum will swing back

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't not disagree truthfully regarding the anti-unfalseness of your statement.

Anti-Intellectualism ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's called "slashdot moderation".

Re:Anti-Intellectualism ???

[paulthomas]

Mod Parent Down!!!!!!

not with Jr around

[Anonymous Coward]

" but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again."

certaintly wont start with Jr. in the Hizhouse

The future of science

[truthsearch]

Frink: Well, you should think of stuff that people need, but which do not exist yet.
Homer: You mean like an electric-blanket-mobile?
Frink: Well, I suppose that's possible...or you could think of stuff that exists and find a new use for it, like...
Homer: Hamburger earmuffs.
Frink: Well, that may...
Homer: So long sucker!
Frink: What?! Okay, calm down, Frinky. These babies will be in the stores while he's still grappling with the pickle matrix!

After we outlaw all Science

[WillAffleckUW]

words that he's said like this response:

"I think science has always been under assault to some extent. I think there are fashions in cycles in which science is attacked for a period of time and is embraced for a period of time and it's attacked again. Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again. I agree with you that we're not seeing anything now that hasn't happened in earlier centuries."

will come back to haunt him.

Everyone knows that any so-called science that attempts to invalidate The Great Spaghetti Monster is heresy and will be rewritten - or rather, redrawn with crayons - in the classrooms of our nation.

Re:After we outlaw all Science

[LWATCDR]

Yet they used this as an example of an attack on science. "nonbelievers of global warming".
Since when did belief have a place in science?
Should we be worried about possible global warming? Yes. Should we act to reduce carbon emissions? Probably. Do we have proof of global warming? Not currently. So many people have such a firm belief that they are scientific that they are sure that no thinking person could question their belief.
Kind of like some people I know that go to the UU church but have a FSM bumper sticker.

Re:After we outlaw all Science

[WillAffleckUW]

Yet they used this as an example of an attack on science. "nonbelievers of global warming".
Since when did belief have a place in science?
Should we be worried about possible global warming? Yes. Should we act to reduce carbon emissions? Probably. Do we have proof of global warming? Not currently. So many people have such a firm belief that they are scientific that they are sure that no thinking person could question their belief.

All true believers of His Noodlyness know that Global Warming is caused by the Lack of Pirates. Possibly Pirates are responsible for emitting carbon, especially those who light bonfires, set ships afire, and light their hair or beards on fire whilst attacking merchant ships.

All we need to do is just get more Pirates.

Now, I've noticed that some High Officials in the White House have recently been showing Pirate behaviors, using blunderbusses and all, but that's not enough. We need eyepatches, hats, hooks, parrots, and Arrrrrs - and lots more.

Re:After we outlaw all Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass. There is ample proof of climate change. Peer-reviewed studies showing time and again that there is significant climate change.

You're behind the times on your talking points. Even the Republicans now accept that there is climate change (and have done for the last couple of years). The thing that they are attempting to debate is whether the climate change is anthropogenic or not.

Unfortunately for them, there is also ample peer-reviewed scientific proof that the climate change is indeed anthropogenic.

I would suggest you stop reading Michael Crichton's books and start reading information from actual climatologists. But I know that someone like you would prefer to consider themselves and expert based on faulty information rather than correct themselves and possibly learn something in the process.

I repeat: You are a dumbass.

well

[revery]

I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again

Primarily because it would be anti-intellectual to expect any other sort of response from a pendulum?

  I myself believe it is the Greek goddess of swinging things, Pendulus (she also has two other uhm... circles of influence) that maintains the expected reciprocation, but to each his or her own....

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Primarily because it would be anti-intellectual to expect any other sort of response from a pendulum?

Or it's the other way around -- he compared it with a pendulum because he thought it would swing back again.

Nope, no reason that this is important ...

[WillAffleckUW]

Is there a reason I should consider this important or is this just another guy wasting oxygen?

Nope. No reason. Just go back to watching Video Mods on MTV2.

glboal warming

[irtza]

The interviewer seems to make it seem like assaults on global warming theories are non-scientific. Most of what I've seen against global warming is not whether the temperature is rising, but whether we are the ones causing it and a lot of what they say seems reasonable. Perhaps someone here i the field could enlighten us on this matter. How much has the worlds CO2 level changed and are there any controlled experiments that would allow us to extrapolate this data to global temperatures? I really would like to know what the hard evidence is that global warming is secondary to the actions of mankind and that we are throwing enough pollution into the world to have caused it... as of now, I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on it from either perspective. My other issue with this is that how do you conduct an experiment that you can comfortably extrapolate information that would be accurate at the global level?

Re:glboal warming

[iagreewithmichael]

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/index.html

Re:glboal warming

[irtza]

The site mentions emmissions of 6 tons per person... does that include normal CO2 production such as by breathing? If those numbers are correct that would imply nearly 2gigatons of green house gases per year? How much would things change if we increased foilage in cities? For example, if all avenues were lined by trees creating a canopy over the traffic? In other words, would it be possible to combat the emissions by increasing foilage?

the other thing is that the site admits that we don't know how much the green house gases are influencing the change in temperature, so where is the debate on this issue? Do people actually doubt that the world is getting warmer?

Re:glboal warming

[Anonymous Coward]

> Do people actually doubt that the world is getting warmer?

No, people don't doubt it.

But here's the thing that may be hard for you to understand.

Not everyone agrees that a warmer earth requires mass panic and costly adjustments in anticipation of such changes.

If the changes come, deal with them. You don't have to prepare so much for something that will, even in the worst case scenarios, unfold over a terribly long period of time.

People will adapt or resources will decline over time, acting as a regulator on population explosion. Don't get so emotional about it. It's not as big of a deal as they make it sound. Don't give up your wealth and power to a ghost of fear. That's what they want you to do.

The problem is that luddites have taken over the debate by presuming to be scientific and attacking anyone who disagrees with a certain line of thought as "unscientific," meanwhile unable to even produce a clean line of logic to support their own theses.

If you're even somewhat scientific the irrational panic of the loudmouths is pretty obviously geared toward a political disposition or some other self-serving goal. Don't buy it.

End of item.

Re:glboal warming

[quintesse]

Are you trying to treat this as the US legal system would a potential criminal? Do you want to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" they we DIDN'T do it?

Just look around you at the things we managed to fuck up and all the others we are busy trying to fuck up in this world and tell me that you think it's wise to just wait until it's too late.

I, for one, think we a perfectly capable of damaging the environment on a global scale and would rather that we do something about it.

If we find in 20-30 years time that we have been mistaken all along and this was just an inevitable natural change, okay, no problem. Maybe the economy suffered a little but I'm sure will manage.

It's the other outcome that I don't want to think about: what if they're right?

Re:glboal warming

[Medievalist]

Actually, both the "assaults on global warming theories" you mention and the "global warming theories" themselves are usually quite "non-scientific", as you put it.

Most advocates of action (that is, research on global warming, reduction of carbon exhausts, or preparation of remediation strategies) are driven primarily either by political affiliations or by the belief that humans are too destructive of our planet, and that it needs to be given more respect if humans are to survive. They are just using "global warming" as their rallying cry because it has a strong scientific basis, they'd be against smokestacks and industrialism no matter what.

Most advocates of inaction are following political affilitations or believe themselves to have vested interest in things staying the same. These people are using "we don't know why the earth is warming" as their rallying cry right now, but until very recently the exact same people claimed that "global warming is a ridiculous myth unsupported by science". Like the first group, they aren't really interested in what scientists say unless it supports their base premise, that ever-increasing industrialism is a good thing for the human race.

There's an infinitesimally small number of people who have an opinion on the issue yet don't fit into the two groups I've described (as well as enormous numbers of people on both sides who are firmly but incorrectly convinced that they are in that small number).

Both sides see scientific data as a tool to further their pre-existing aims, and do not necessarily have any respect for science or scientists. Remember Ronald Reagan in 1981 publically stating, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do"? That statement is based on a selective misreading of actual science - trees do release carbon dioxide at night, and cars don't release a lot of carbon dioxide (monoxide is another matter) so if you just conveniently ignore certain gasses and the existence of the Sun, Reagan was actually right.

Your post is rather intelligent, BTW - I read a lot of "global warming" (I hate that stupid term) crap on Slashdot and it's rare to see an honest, intelligent query rather than political screeds or ignorant posturing.

Re:glboal warming

[amliebsch]

It's the other outcome that I don't want to think about: what if they're right?

Well, what if they are? That's really the important question, isn't it? I see no reason to assume a priori that any climate change of any kind is bad. The Earth is a constantly changing place, after all.

Re:glboal warming

[HermanAB]

Well, cause and effect isn't even proven. Is the world warming up because of an increase in CO2, or is CO2 increasing because the world is warming up. Whether everything is caused by the sun warming up, isn't proven one way or another either. So it is all conjecture.

Re:glboal warming

[|/|/|||]

The entire point of environmentalism is not to protect the Earth, it is to protect the humans. Yes, the climate changes, and life will go on no matter what we do. What we don't know is whether we will go on.

Can we survive if the climate changes? What species are we dependent on? What environmental conditions are required for us to maintain our current expensive brainpower? What will it take for us to revert to more efficient animals with a lower level of consciousness?

This is a list of questions that are too complicated to answer right now. I vote that until we can answer them, we just be conservative and try to change our environment as little as possible. What do you think?

Re:glboal warming

[amliebsch]

I think that the questions you pose are and always will be unanswerable to your satisfaction. I also think that historical evidence demonstrates that humans are more than capable of adapting to a very wide variety of ecological conditions. Therefore, I think the logical way ahead is to focus on maximizing our happiness (in the utilitarian sense, not the hedonistic sense). Only then will the answers to some of your questions be known. The future is an uncharted path. What lies ahead? Maybe something good; maybe something bad; maybe more of status quo. But the only way to find out is to press ahead. Far better, in my opinion, to press ahead looking forwards, ready to meet challenges and overcome them, rather than being forced down the path, weakened, afraid, and looking backwards.

Re:glboal warming

[|/|/|||]

The path to enlightenment is littered with the corpses of the ignorant. Just as uncountable species have risen and fallen on Earth and only Humans (as far as we know) have reached the level of cognitive ability that we have, surely billions of species throughout the universe will try and fail to truly understand everything to the greatest extent possible.

How do we "win" the game of "continue to advance"? Nobody can tell you the best strategy, but "just hit the gas and see what happens" sounds like a good way to veer off a cliff.

Sure, if all species use that strategy then at least one of them is likely to make it -- it's just extremely unlikely to be *us*. I still vote for taking it at walking speed and trying to see what lies ahead. Note that I don't mean sitting around on our asses -- we should be pushing ourselves forward technologically, exploring our solar system, and otherwise protecting ourselves. What we shouldn't be doing, IMO, is taking risks that could wipe us out.

Could ecological disaster wipe us out? I'm pretty sure that it could at this point.

I'll be the Grinch...

[Otter]

OK, can anyone point to a single line in that interview that suggests this guy knows anything that qualifies him to hold forth on "the future of science"? He seems to have a strong layman's familiarity with current work in physics, a high school student's background in any other science and a lot of pompous namedropping about the novels he's read.

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[ajlitt]

I'm not sure if Alan does, but his brother has a history of breaking in to military computers.

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[mhore]

OK, can anyone point to a single line in that interview that suggests this guy knows anything that qualifies him to hold forth on "the future of science"? He seems to have a strong layman's familiarity with current work in physics, a high school student's background in any other science and a lot of pompous namedropping about the novels he's read.

Sure. He has a B.Sc. in Physics from Princeton, a Ph.D. in Physics from Caltech... his thesis advisor there was Kip Thorne... and is good friends with many of the big names in science (for example, Gell-Mann... the quark guy). I'm sure he has a much stronger familiarity with physics than a layman. You'd be surprised what being in those circles does for one's perspective on science and its direction. :) Mike.

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[jpflip]

In that article, perhaps none. But on his website you can find that he has a doctorate in theoretical physics from Caltech, has been an astronomy professor and research scientist at Harvard, and is now a professor at MIT in the science writing program.

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[jim_deane]

The most basic of searching would locate his qualifications.

Here's his information from MIT, and an excerpt below:

Lightman's scientific research has focused on gravitation theory, the structure and behavior of accretion disks, stellar dynamics, radiative processes, and relativistic plasmas. His research articles have appeared in The Physical Review, The Astrophysical Journal, Reviews of Modern Physics, Nature, and other journals of physics and astrophysics. For his contributions to physics, he was elected a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1989 and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the same year. In 1990, he chaired the science panel of the National Academy of Sciences Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee for the 1990s. He is a past chair of the High Energy Division of the American Astronomical Society.

Lightman has also been interested in science education and the philosophy of science. His work in science studies and in science education has been published in The American Scholar, The Physics Teacher, Science, Science and Children, The Science Teacher, and Social Studies of Science.

Hardly a layman in the sciences.

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[Otter]

I said "current". He has a doctorate, obviously, and someone else points out that he was a prominent working physicist for a while, although he's not now.

At any rate, however up to date he is with physics, he clearly doesn't know a damn thing about what's cutting edge in biology and he doesn't even mention any other science.

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, he doesn't just read modern novels and name-drop about their authors, but writes novels too -- including "The Reunion" which was in part based on his actually attending a Caltech reunion and and having dinners with fellow alumni, including yours truly. Caltech summarizes his credentials thus: Alan Lightman PhD '74 Physics "Alan Lightman is a physicist, novelist, and educator. After receiving his PhD in theoretical physics from Caltech in 1974, he taught astronomy and physics at Harvard. In 1989 he went to MIT with a joint appointment in physics and the humanities. His scientific research has been in the area of relativity and astrophysics. In the early 1980s, Lightman began writing essays about the human dimensions of science. His essays and reviews have appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, the New Yorker, and the New York Review of Books. He is the author of a dozen books, the most recent being the novels The Diagnosis, Good Benito, Einstein's Dreams, and the forthcoming Reunion, which will be available in July. In 1996, Lightman won the Gemant Prize of the American Institute of Physics for linking science with the humanities." In addition, he only published on science fiction poem that I know of, "In Computers" -- and that won the 1983 Rhysling Award for Best Short Science Fiction Poem of the Year: SFPA Grand Masters and Rhysling Winners: 1978-2005. By the way, I talked with Kip Thorne a few hours ago, about how Harvard Professor Lisa Randall does actually look like Jodie Foster, although she always says in interviews how she hates to be told that. -- Jonathan Vos Post Caltech Class of 1972/73 1987 winner of Rhysling for "Before the Big Bang: News from the Hubble Large Space Telescope"

Re:I'll be the Grinch...

[mhore]

At any rate, however up to date he is with physics, he clearly doesn't know a damn thing about what's cutting edge in biology and he doesn't even mention any other science.

If you read his book, he does talk about the other sciences -- for what it's worth. In the end though, it's all physics anyway. :)

Mike.

popular fashion

[Bloater]

> I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States

It is normal for the dominant fashion of a nation to be modelled on its leader (eg making yourself look like you've got syphillis was popular hundreds of years ago, when the rich and powerful all had syphillis).

Re:popular fashion

[NoMaster]

It is normal for the dominant fashion of a nation to be modelled on its leader

Which is fine when your leadership is stable, lasting anywhere from 10-40 years. When you know you're guaranteed a leadership change every 4 or 8 years, doing so starts to make you look a bit psychotic.

Interesting about the syphillis though. Never thought of it that way, and never encountered it in my readings of history. Now I'm curious to see if it's true - it sounds like something made up after the fact to emphasise the decadence of the upper classes of the time...

Re:popular fashion

[Bloater]

> Interesting about the syphillis though. Never thought of it that way, and never encountered it in my readings of history.

I could be mistaken, but I thought European aristocrats would paint their lesions black to make them look acceptable, people would paint similar black blobs on themselves to look like the powerful.

Re:popular fashion

[EEDAm]

Mod this comment up! It doesn't have to be correct but it's analogy is entirely accurate so it deserves a lot more credit.....

Re:popular fashion

[Medievalist]

It is normal for the dominant fashion of a nation to be modelled on its leader (eg making yourself look like you've got syphillis was popular hundreds of years ago, when the rich and powerful all had syphillis)

Don't know about syphillis, but Japanese courtiers used to paint some of their teeth black to imitate the rotten, blackened teeth of the nobility, who had access to much more sugar than their poorer countrymen. If you were newly rich or politically connected (or wanted to be that way) you could pretend you'd had lots of sugar all your life like the children of the rich and powerful.

Interestingly, this was also popular with geishas and prostitutes at the same time. Perhaps these women had similar motivations, or maybe the customers wanted to fantasize about being served by the daughters of the establishment...

Re:popular fashion

[RedWizzard]

I could be mistaken, but I thought European aristocrats would paint their lesions black to make them look acceptable, people would paint similar black blobs on themselves to look like the powerful.

You might be getting confused with smallpox scars. From the 17th century small black patches made of velvet or other materials were stuck over smallpox scars (and scars caused by other diseases, including syphillis, but to a lesser extent).

Re:popular fashion

[Lord_Dweomer]

Do you have any links to read up further on the syphillis thing? Thats a very interesting cultural phenomena that I'd love to learn more about.

Human half being the brain

[Cybert14]

That would be the most interesting, a human brain in a machine. Just hook up the cranial nerves and spinal cord and you're all set. We're pretty sure from amputations that you're still sentient after losing limbs.

We already have artificial cochleas and retinas interfacing to cranial nerves.

Re:Human half being the brain

[Nataku564]

Yes, although those interfaces are currently VERY crude. The resolution on one of those artificial eyes numbers in the tens of pixels, and its just black and white, on/off, no greyscale.

pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Red Flayer]

Well, /.ed for me. But to comment on the summary:

""Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again." "

I'm not so sure about the pendulum eventually swinging back. I think American culture tends to look away from those things we are not the best at -- and since we're losing the lead in science, Americans will no longer consider scientific achievement to be a benchmark of success. Sour grapes and all that.

he fact of the matter is that intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches, fame, or other rewards in the US. Sports figures and other entertainers dominate pop culture. Intellectuals do not get elected to national positions of leadership, nor do they often get elected to state leadership positions.

As other nations take the lead in various areas (whether it's scientific achievement, literature, or what-have-you), Americans will always find something else to feel superior and smug about. We've seen this since the dawn of mass media.

What scares me is that the American superiority/inferiority complex seems to be directing itself at world power. Sure, we're not the smarterst anymore. Nor are we the most productive. But you can bet yer bottom dollar that we could whup anyone if we devotyed the resources to it.

My end point is this -- the American inferiority complex, reinforced by the loss/coming loss of our lead in economy, science, athletics, etc, is leading to a classic bully syndrome. The wars in the Mideast we'll be fighting aren't just about oil -- they're also about proving to ourselves that we're still #1 in some fashion, that we still matter.

Sorry for the long-windedness, but the only way we're going to "swing back" is if people push really hard for it. There's no natural tendency to do so, IMO.

Odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you seen people in hollywood say that they were intellectuals? I have heard it from fox new, the white house and those that want to control the universities (too many left leanings, etc). But not from Hollywood.

But for the record, there are those that are from hollywood that certainly fit the definition of an intellect. And yes, they have PhDs.

Lightman... cool guy.

[mhore]

Nice guy. Living in Memphis and all, I had the chance to meet him a few months back. He gave a lecture mirroring his new book (The Discoveries -- good book, by the way. Has a physicists perspective on ground-breaking pubs, and then the original pubs themselves, mostly unabridged). Since I also live in Memphis, there is a lot of that bible-belt mentality here... Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc. Anyway... somebody asked a question at the end, obviously of a pro-Intelligent Design slant, trying to get him to comment on it. It's refreshing to hear his take on the absurdity... and I can only hope that since he has status outside of the science community as well as within that his comments will make people think. (Basically... his answer was science and religion address different questions. Don't try to mix them).

Mike.

Re:Lightman... cool guy.

[bigpat]

Basically... his answer was science and religion address different questions. Don't try to mix them

Yes, that attitude might have held water a couple centuries ago. But physics has been trying to understand the fundamental "nature" of the universe for quite some time and even goes so far as to extrapolate back to the big bang, which is itself a creation story. Biology seeks to explain life itself.

What exactly do you think religion should cover? The attitude of seperation is exactly the attitude that allowed Intelligent Design in the door in the first place. The fundamental attitude of ID is that everything that Biology can't adequately explain, probably can't be explained and just is because that is the way God made it. It puts a big stop sign up at the edge of current scientific understanding and tells us to look no further because that is just the way God made it and it is beyond our human comprehension.

To me science is an integral part of religion. To know creation is to better know the creator. Religion and Science should both be about the pursuit of Truth regardless of where it leads us. If our preconceived notions don't match reality then we must reconsider. To say science and religion have seperate domains is little different than what Intelligent Designers are really saying. There is only room for one reality in my reality. It may ultimately be unknowable, because we are finite, but to say there is no sense in trying to figure it out is both anti religious and anti scientific. At least in my book it is.

Either God gave you a brain or your brain is the result of Billions of years of evolution, either way you should use it.

Re:Lightman... cool guy.

[mhore]

What exactly do you think religion should cover? The attitude of seperation is exactly the attitude that allowed Intelligent Design in the door in the first place. The fundamental attitude of ID is that everything that Biology can't adequately explain, probably can't be explained and just is because that is the way God made it. It puts a big stop sign up at the edge of current scientific understanding and tells us to look no further because that is just the way God made it and it is beyond our human comprehension.

My opinion (and others' too) is that science deals with the how -- religion deals with the why. For example, science can address easily HOW humans evolved and to a first approximation, HOW life came to be on Earth. However, WHY humans evolved? Well... nobody knows why. And science will never be able to definitively answer that. Same with WHY the Universe was created. There's just no answer to that.

Yes -- I grant that there are a few (small, in my opinion) holes in that viewpoint. But I think it's a reasonable benchmark.

Mike.

Re:Lightman... cool guy.

[MatterOfMind]

I'm sure he's interesting, but I'd find that response about ID - the science and religion relationship - disappointing. Yes, they do address different questions - but they co-exist in a lot of people's minds. In fact, a lot of different contexts - learning or otherwise - tend to activate both scientific and religious thoughts at the same time. Brushing the relationship off by saying that they address different domains of information does not result in forward progress.

Re:Lightman... cool guy.

[bigpat]

Can't you ascertain intent from action?

Are we close to the bottom yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Continued Success for Space Elevator Tests,
  Do it yourself electrode kits.
  We must be getting close enouph to want to change.

Re:pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Expert Determination]

intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches

Look at the Forbes 400. I think you'll find more intellectually inclined people than sports figures and entertainers. They include software developers, mathematicians, economists.

There were no Cro-Magons 100,000 years ago

[the_lesser_gatsby]

Or cave paintings. The Lascaux paintings are no older than about 20,000 years.

A lot of talk but no intellectual rigour.

Re:There were no Cro-Magons 100,000 years ago

[truckaxle]

I guess you will just have to wait the pendulum to swing...

Re:There were no Cro-Magons 100,000 years ago

[WillAffleckUW]

Or cave paintings. The Lascaux paintings are no older than about 20,000 years.

Of course not. The pirate fish ate them all. A classic case of supply and demand - the pirate fish liked the supply of cro-magnons so they demanded to eat them. Hence no Cro-Magnons.

Of course, convincing the Cro-Magnons to walk into the water to be eaten was a bit tricky, but they were very good pirate fish.

Re:There were no Cro-Magons 100,000 years ago

[novus ordo]

I don't think he was saying that the paintings were made back then. Only that humans have had an innate curiosity about life from the early beginnings.
See:
"The Cro-Magnons form the earliest known European examples of Homo sapiens, the species to which modern humans belong. The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early man and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe. The oldest H. sapiens (i.e. anatomically modern humans) first emerged in Africa around 100,000 years ago."

How ironic, you just illustrated what he was saying about "a greater attack against intellectualism." Please keep trying to make him look stupid, you just end up looking like one of these.

Re:There were no Cro-Magons 100,000 years ago

[the_lesser_gatsby]

Well, unlike you, I actually read the article instead of trawling through Wikipedia.

"If you look at the Cro-Magnon paintings and caves in Lascaux in France you could see that these people 100,000 years ago were searching for meaning."

And you could have gained some benefit by reading beyond the first paragraph of your link. (He could have, too).

Re:There were no Cro-Magons 100,000 years ago

[novus ordo]

Uh-huh. Go back and read it again. And keep trawling.

Re:There were no Cro-Magons 100,000 years ago

[the_lesser_gatsby]

If you want to keep discussing this, then ok. I'll grab the information from the source you cited.

From the Wikipedia article you quoted (2nd paragraph):

"Cro-Magnons lived from about 35,000 to 10,000 years"

From the Wikipedia article on Lascaux:

"..types of materials believed to have been used 19,000 years ago."

I've already quoted the original article which parses only one way - Lightman thinks the Lascaux paintings were made 100,000 years ago. If there really were any paintings from this period (the oldest known are in Chauvet from about 32,000 years ago, although this estimate is considered too old by many) this would be an amazing discovery which would change a lot of ideas about human development.

My point is this: to anyone who knows anything about these cave paintings, this is a howler of an error. Something akin to believing humans co-existed with dinosaurs (not quite as bad though). I was showing some irony, but not what you think: if intellectuals want to resist attack, they've got to get their facts right. There's a reason there's such a phrase as "intellectual rigour". If Lightman wasn't challanged on this, many people would think this age was correct.

Your attack on me, simply because I pointed out his error (and then hinted he might not be quite the intellectual he thinks he is), is precisely a version of this "greater attack against intellectualism." Intellectuals should be robust in their arguments and not succumb to sloppy thinking or fact-checking. Attacking the person because he stated that your facts are simply wrong is the behaviour shown by groups such as creationists.

Waddya think? Are any of my facts wrong?

Re: pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Black Parrot]

> he fact of the matter is that intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches, fame, or other rewards in the US.

Has it ever been?

Intelligent falling

[truckaxle]

You know things are bad when you come across a parody and you stop for second and check to be sure they are not really serious.

Alan?

[manowarthegreat]

Is this the Green Lantern?

Elected?

[PCM2]

Intellectuals do not get elected to national positions of leadership, nor do they often get elected to state leadership positions.

Maybe not, but you could rightly describe Karl Rove as an intellectual.

Whoever said that intellectualism contributes toward strong leadership? You could say the two are somewhat exclusive -- one requires a degree of introversion and introspection while the other calls for the opposite.

Really what you need are leaders who recognize and respect the value of intellect, and who will act upon the recommendations of smart people. To a certain extent, George Bush owes his successes to the fact that he actually does do that. I don't buy that he's as much of a hayseed as he pretends to be. The reason he doesn't do what I would like to see done isn't because he's stupid; it's because he doesn't share my priorities.

Re:Elected?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Maybe not, but you could rightly describe Karl Rove as an intellectual.

.. KARL ROVE? The Mayberry Machiavelli? He is definitely possessed of a certain cunning, and is a skilled and formidable opponent in a political election, but I'd scarcely call him an intellectual. Unless you're measuring 'intellectual' with the George Will metric, where dressing the part makes it so.

The current administration cannot conceivably be classed as intellectuals -- they and their supporters share a common distate for intellectualism and actively suppress it in favor of ideology. All their decisions are made according to ideological first premises, and the facts on the ground are then rearranged until they fit the decision. This sort of Stalinist modus operandi is about as anti-intellectual as you can get without just going whole hog, and doing like Mussolini's party, who coined the word 'egghead' because of how easily their skulls crack.

Re:Elected?

[Red Flayer]

I didn't mean to imply that we need intellectuals as politicians (though, I'd much rather have a thinking man/woman in a position of leadership, someone who is willing to recognize that some issues are not one-sided); the point I was making with that sentence was that the lack of intellectuals in public office is a symptom of the anti-intellectualism that pervades most of the country.

Re: GWB, I agree that he's craftier than is commonly perceived. But, it's one thing to select capable advisors and to take their advisement under consideration; it's another thing entirely to have advisors and to take their advisement as gospel. I don't want a figurehead or puppet as president.

Generally ... in general

[dankelley]

I think I might give this article a pass, based on that quote

Important question that got left out

[LarryTheGeek]

How's his son David doing? Last time I heard anything about him it was 1983....

Re:Important question that got left out

[iluvcapra]

Alan is quoted as saying "This corn is RAW!"

His wife responded "I know, it's so crisp!"

Alan retorted "Of course it's CRISP, it's RAW!"

Re:Important question that got left out

[Anonymous Coward]

last thing I heard he was sipping a Tab, powering up his Imsai and reading through reams of dot matrix printouts.

he means

[geekoid]

Left half human, right half machine!

which is better then top half machine, bottom half human.

Re:Is there a reason I should consider this import

[SydShamino]

I met him in college years ago when he held a discussion for the honors program at my school. I have a signed copy of Einstein's Dreams in my library. This was a very small group - perhaps 15 students, 2 faculty members, and him, so it was more informal and personal.

In person, he comes across as very sincere and intellectual. I believe that he has a good, rational, critically-thinking mind, and thus, compared to many other humans, the oxygen he uses is much less wasted.

The future? The pendulum of our nation?

[That's Unpossible!]

The global internet is making the world smaller. The idea of the nation matters less and less. In the future, everyone will be brown, and smart people will lead the world in wealth, power, charity, and evil.

anti-intelectualizem :)

[Intangion]

free thought is bad in a nation whose government uses irational fear to control the populace. if we actually used our brains we would wake up and complain about all the liberties we are giving up.

Re:anti-intelectualizem :)

[Anonymous Coward]

In your world anarchy == liberty, but not in mine.

Re:anti-intelectualizem :)

[Intangion]

in my world people are only criminals if they commit crimes, not for having an opinion contrary to the ruling power. In my world you go after just the criminals, not everyone. In my world the government is by the people and for the people, not against the people.

Poisoned Well

[shmlco]

I think he means that such is no longer perceived as the primary route. Is the average American teen more likely to perceive themselves becoming a nuclear physicist... or hitting the big time on American Idol? In the garage working on whatever will create the next Microsoft... or recording their garage band? Landing a college scholarship to become an engineer... or as the next step in getting picked up by the NFL?

Unfortunately, too many of those kids also flunked math, and don't understand that the odds of any one of those things leading to success as being highly unlikely, and that what is likely is that they're about to enjoy a long and unprosperous career in the food service industry.

I also think American business has also, for all intents and purposes, posioned the well. The smart students can still read, and when the news is full of stories about companies closing research divisions and outsourcing the ones they didn't close to India or China they tend to think that maybe, just maybe, there isn't a future in research and technology anymore.

Re:Poisoned Well

[Expert Determination]

I'm not sue R&D has been outsourced. Some companies may have closed their R&D groups over the years, but there is still no shortage of companies doing R&D in the US. What has been outsourced is a different type of job.

I give him one out of four

[Ogemaniac]

Anything to do with cosmology and string theory will have no impact on our daily lives by 2100. Stem cells, while interesting, have been blown way out of proportion relative to their actual importance. They will (in some incarnation) probably play a role in the only point I agree with here - the biotechnical merging of man and machine. I think the anime series "Ghost in the Shell" is not terribly far off the mark with respect to how this will transform our lives.

On the other hand, there are two big technological transformations that were completely missed that I am convinced will happen this century:

1: AI. It's always 30 years away. But it is much less than 100 years away. Computers will be as smart as us by mid-century and much smarter by 2100, by when we will have the MotherBrainSkyNet.

2: The energy revolution. A combination of rising dinofuel prices, falling renewable prices, and mid-century industrial fusion will completely change our use of energy. Global warming will be large averted.

The world of 2100 will be richer, cleaner, and more peaceful than that of today. The biggest problem will be convincing people to have enough babies.

Re:I give him one out of four

[Hinin]

Anything to do with cosmology and string theory will have no impact on our daily lives by 2100. Stem cells, while interesting, have been blown way out of proportion relative to their actual importance

I'm curious as to how you know this? I mean, I assume you know this, because your statement was not preceded by "in my opinion" or "i think". Especially your statement concerning stem cells. Do you have a crystal ball giving you information as to the importance of stem cells in the future? Even if you were a molecular/cell biologist who's main objective was conducting research on stem cells every day it still puzzles me as to how you are able to see into the future and assess their value. Could you please explain this?

Re:pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Anonymous Coward]

My end point is this -- the American inferiority complex, reinforced by the loss/coming loss of our lead in economy, science, athletics, etc, is leading to a classic bully syndrome.

The economic/intellectual/productivity fear happened in the 80's. Remember how the smarter, more productive Japanese were taking our jobs and taking over the country? You had similar "Buy American" and "The Cold War is over & the Japanese won" fear mongering.

The wars in the Mideast we'll be fighting aren't just about oil -- they're also about proving to ourselves that we're still #1 in some fashion, that we still matter.

The wars in the middle east are about securing strategic resources and trade. The US's closest "ally" is Saudi Arabia, who internally hates the US, so they invade Iraq to setup a puppet government as a backup to keep the oil flowing if the Saudi Royals lose power.

Sorry for the long-windedness, but the only way we're going to "swing back" is if people push really hard for it. There's no natural tendency to do so, IMO

Throughout US history there have been periods of religious fervor like "The Great Awakenings" then the pendulum moves back. It isn't like the current sense of nationalism and spirtuality is unprecedented.

Public Schools Are Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict that Americans will continue sending kids to public schools and voting down competitive voucher systems and education in America will therefore continue to slide.

No Sir

[DesScorp]

Look at our recent elections -- winners have won through largely anti-intellectual platforms.

No, that's not the case, and it betrays a fundemental lack of understanding about what's really going on. Intellectual activity is not being attacked...intellectual arrogance is being attacked. There's a huge difference. People are simply tired of a relatively small subset of society going "we're smarter than you, better than you, and we know what's best for you". In fact, Americans have never been comfortable with such people. And so are Americans anti-intellectual? Of course not.

As for the political angle, when people look at the adminstration and say they're anti-intellectual, again, what evidence is there for this? "They blocked stem-cell research!". No, they only blocked certain kinds of stem cell research, on moral and ethical grounds. Global Warming? Sorry, that's not a settled issue yet, even among scientists. Stem Cell research wasn't federally funded at all until now. The administration is pushing for a revived space exploration program (in part by killing the Shuttle program), and new nuclear power research and new reactor construction. While there are no super conducting super colliders out there on the horizon, you can't say with a straight face that basic science has been defunded in any way.

One more thing....if you don't like the "anti-intellectual" party in power now, you can try voting them out. However, looking at their oppositions lack of electoral success against them, I'd say your bigger problem is convincing other Americans of our dire intellectual straits. They don't seem to think things are so bad.

Re:No Sir

[jnicholson]

No, that's not the case, and it betrays a fundemental lack of understanding about what's really going on. Intellectual activity is not being attacked...intellectual arrogance is being attacked. There's a huge difference. People are simply tired of a relatively small subset of society going "we're smarter than you, better than you, and we know what's best for you". In fact, Americans have never been comfortable with such people. And so are Americans anti-intellectual? Of course not.

My understanding of what is going on is that a small subset of society is going "we've studied this and here's what's happening" and the rest is saying "we're not going to listen to you people just because you're 'scientists'! How come you think you're better than us?!"

That's pretty much anti-intellectualism, for my money. YMMV

Re:No Sir

[Anonymous Coward]

Global climate change? Sorry, that is a settled issue, unless you're American. All that's left is the how-bad's-it-gonna-be and what-are-we-gonna-do-about-it and when's-the-US-gonna-get-a-clue issues.

Re:No Sir

[jonwil]

With respect to global warming, its simple, if the government says "global warming IS a problem" (which is what the scientists want, they want the governments of the world and the people of the world to recognize global warming as a problem), then everyone will start calling for solutions. The only solution thats worth considering is a reduction in the amount of polution we emit into the atmosphere. And, that means big $$$.

Basicly, its cheaper for the big companies that create all this polution to buy off the governments of the world (or at least in america) so they will pretend that all the polution they are creating isnt anywhere near as serious as the scientists say it is than it is for them to actually clean up and polute less.

Regardless of the actual science behind global warming and the whole debate about how serious it is etc etc, there arent too many scientists that would argue that reducing the amount of polution that we produce (e.g. all that smoke comming from all those factories, power plants etc) is a bad thing (and they are only paid to say that by the big companies who dont want to stop producing all that polution)

Re:No Sir

[DesScorp]

What do you say to scientists like these that say the Sun may be just as, if not more responsible for, Global Warming, if it exists, than CO2 emissions? Kind of hard to wave the Kyoto treaty at the Sun and expect it to care. Despite claims to the contrary, plenty of people are still unconvinced, and not because they're sticking their heads in the sand...

Re:No Sir

[xantho]

scientists like these that say the Sun may be just as, if not more responsible for, Global Warming, if it exists, than CO2 emissions

This does not matter. In fact, global warming is a problem, and whether or not we can control the largest source of the problem is immaterial. CO2 and ozone pollution via burning fossil fuels is a significant source of global warming, and coincidentally, it is something that we can control. So, let's control that, sun be damned.

I had a professor in college that didn't give any A marks as a rule, and mapped grades to a curve, pretty unfair. But I didn't say, "hell, he's not going to give me an A, so I'm not going to do anything towards the goal that I can do", e.g., study lots and make a B. No, I studied and made the highest grade in the class, and got my B. Studying and learning was something that I was in control of, and I did it, in order to solve that problem. Waving hands in front of prof and making threats to get the administration involved were not going to solve the problem, and so I left them alone.

Re:No Sir

[mOdQuArK!]

What do you say to scientists like these that say the Sun may be just as, if not more responsible for, Global Warming, if it exists, than CO2 emissions?

I'd say that it doesn't matter whether global warming is caused by the Sun or by CO2 emissions - the effects are going to be the same no matter how it's caused, and if we don't want the global civilization to undergo mass disruption, then we need to figure out a way to ameliorate or adapt to it.

Since we can't do anything about the Sun's output, we need to look at options like: 1) play with the balance of gases that we are outputting into the atmosphere to compensate for the extra heating, 2) put up big sun shields between the Earth & the Sun to control the amount of light reaching the Earth, 3) anticipate how climate change is going to screw over various parts of the planet & implement migration plans (or forestation plans) to make sure that most people will end up in a habitable zone, or 4) some mix of many plans.

I'm sure there'd be a few other interesting ideas if people brainstormed some, but I haven't heard policymakers proposing _anything_ effective - just tiny little adjustments in industrial output which aren't going to do squat against the magnitude of the effects which are being measured by climatologists.

Contrary to your final statement, a lot of the people who need to be doing something about the situation _are_ the ones who are sticking their heads in the sand. Unfortunately, they are probably well-off enough to adapt to a changing climate, while the bulk of the world's population is probably going to end up enduring quite a bit of hardship (if not death by wars & famines & such).

Re:No Sir

[jafac]

People are simply tired of a relatively small subset of society going "we're smarter than you, better than you, and we know what's best for you"

. . . only that's not what's going on. Now it's a different small subset of society telling them "don't listen to those arrogant intellectuals, listen to US arrogant intellectuals at the Cato Institute/Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society/Focus on the Family instead, cuz those other intellectuals think they're better than you, and they don't hunt or have genuine southern accents or own ranches in Texas"

Re:No Sir

[jonwil]

Whether global warming exists and if so, what causes it is immaterial.
What matters is that polution caused by factories, power plants, cars, trucks, airplanes etc is bad for the planet and reducing it would be a Good Thing (that at least science generally aggrees on)

Intellectualism under attack by culture, not govt.

[geekee]

Aside from a few hot button issues (stem cell research, intelligent design, global warming), I don't see the anti-intellectualism that he describes from govt. And we see fiction on both sides of the aisle with global warming (The Day After Tomorrow). The real problem is that our culture no longer values science. First, girls are taught at an early age that math and science is for boys. Second, at high school level, when people are at the age where they start thinking about careers seriously for the first time, math and science are something nerds do, and people are often ridiculed for being interested in these subjects. This cultural bias has a much stronger influence on intellectualism than a few govt. hot issues that are the supposed cause for anti-intellectualism. Even if a person isn't interested in a career involving math and science directly, having some understanding of these subjects help develop skills in logic and critical thinking, which are useful no matter what you're doing. I don't think the anti-intellectual culture in the US will change anytime soon. It's been around since the 60's and 70's or so when the "Protestant work ethic" changed into more of an "I'm ok, you're ok" attitude.

Obligatory Star Trek: TOS rant

[colinrichardday]

Kirk: But you are both half human, half machine.

Other guy: But I am human on the left half, and he is human on the right half.

Re:Intellectualism under attack by culture, not go

[Banaticus]

Girls are taught that math is for boys? Did you miss the latest Newsweek article which reports that, all across the board, girls are scoring higher than boys?

My take on the Intellectual vesus Scientists

[FooGoo]

It is the job of the intellectual to sit around and think up stuff. It is the job of the scientists to tell the intellectuals that they are either full of shit or right on. It is the job of the revolutionary to change the world. If you consider yourself one of they above but do the job of one of the others you are doing the rest of us a disservice. Scientists should never be intellectuals and logic and intellect are not comparable.

My job as a gadfly is to tell everyone they are full of shit. Which makes me idealy suited to post on slashdot.

IANA"/."

[Anonymous Coward]

"Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again."

IANA...

How often have you seen that, and it's follow up?

Creationism is not Anti-intellectual, Anti-Science

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, evolution is not even based in science, like he says in the article, it is not testable and certainly not repoduceable, so it is purely an article of faith. He says that scientists are anti-authority and skeptical by nature, but the history of the acceptance of evolution belies this. Evolution was accepted because science exists alongside a religious belief in naturalism. Religious because they have no evidence that the universe in inherently naturalistic, yet this is accepted a priori for all science. Thus, this religious belief in evolution is called 'science', and anyone who disagrees with it is now anti-intellectual??? I don't think so. I can disagree with evolution, which is not science, and still believe all the tenets of science that actually are demonstrable and reproduceable, and aren't tied to a religious belief of things that happened in the past.

Re:pendulum? more like a downslope.

[UserGoogol]

There's a very strong difference between an entrepeneur and an intellectual. An intellectual attempts to solve problems for the intellectual curiosity, whereas an entrepeneur solves problems so as to make money. Just because you are smart does not mean you are an intellectual.

You can be anti-intellectual and still appreciate entrepeneurs. An important aspect of anti-intellectualism is the belief that those eggheads should quit fucking around and get down to business. An entrepeneur (or an engineer, to a lesser degree) is a person who has gotten down to business.

A person can be anti-intellectual and still appreciate the things which intellectuals do. Similarly, people can like Spiderman and the Interweb but still wanna give geeks their respective wedgies.

"Science is like sex. Sure it gets results, but that's not why we do it." -- Richard Feynman

Your interpretation of 'intellectual'...

[Expert Determination]

...may be correct. In which case "intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches" is a weird statement for a different reason.

Re:Is there a reason I should consider this import

[6800]

No more oxygen wasted any slashdoters use making blogging entries.

The anti-global warming crowd...

[Ogemaniac]

keeps screwing up their argument. When they argue that global warming isn't happening, or man is not causing it, they are being flat-out stupid. There is no scientific debate at all about either of those two points. The only debate now is to what extent it is going to happen, and what damages (and benefits) will it bring.

However, the anti crowd does have a good argument that they do not utilize fully - an economic argument. It is not at all clear that any potential global warming mitigation is beneficial. In almost all cases, either the cost-benefits come up negative, or just slightly positive. In the latter case, there are many other humanitarian issues with superb cost-benefits (50:1), so again, it is not clear that any government action to mitigate global warming is justified.

Sometimes, global warming activists will make claims like "we can mitigate global warming by X percent with only 2% of the world's projected GDP", to which a wise person would respond that with 2% of the world's GDP, we could provide food and clean water to everyone who does not currently have it, along with providing basic health care and making massive inroads against HIV and malaria. Which is more important?

Re:The anti-global warming crowd...

[RedWizzard]

It is not at all clear that any potential global warming mitigation is beneficial. In almost all cases, either the cost-benefits come up negative, or just slightly positive.

Care to cite? I haven't seen a lot of convincing research on the economics of global warming at all. To be honest I don't think we know enough to make a sound decision.

Sometimes, global warming activists will make claims like "we can mitigate global warming by X percent with only 2% of the world's projected GDP", to which a wise person would respond that with 2% of the world's GDP, we could provide food and clean water to everyone who does not currently have it, along with providing basic health care and making massive inroads against HIV and malaria. Which is more important?

A wise person would respond with "what is the cost of unmitigated global warming?". If global warming reduces the worlds GDP by 20% over the next 50 years then paying 2% to mitigate that reduction by 20% is indeed a worthwhile proposition and probably more important than those other things you mentioned.

Re:The anti-global warming crowd...

[amliebsch]

When they argue that global warming isn't happening, or man is not causing it, they are being flat-out stupid. There is no scientific debate at all about either of those two points

Can you point me to some indisputable evidence that man alone is responsible for the rise in the earth's temperature?

Climate Change?

[6800]

I live in Va. My grandmother lived here too. She said "if you grow tired of the weather (climate) here, just wait, it will change".

eh

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really take these kinds of interviews very seriously... 2001: A Space Od.???? That was wrong... Ever read the book "The Future"? It was written in the 80's and it's way off too. Apparently we should be colonizing the moon by now...

A subtle bias

[Ogemaniac]

It's interesting to note that the "hot-button" issues you listed are all ones where the opponents are on the political right, while you ignore the "hot-button" issues where the opponents are on the left. Which would you rather do?

1: Walk into your local church and try to have a reasonable discussion about evolution

2: Walk into Harvard and try to have a reasonable discussion about biological gender differences

The left has as many scientific taboos as the right (race and sex with respect to genetics, genetically modified foods, pretty much anything to do with economics when human lives are factored into the equation, etc). Both sides ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Re:A subtle bias

[gasjews]

3. Walk into Harvard and try to have a reasonable discussion about biological racial differences.

Re:A subtle bias

[geekee]

"It's interesting to note that the "hot-button" issues you listed are all ones where the opponents are on the political right, while you ignore the "hot-button" issues where the opponents are on the left."

The left is a minority in govt. these days so I didn't bother with their agenda.

Re:A subtle bias

[Guuge]

Please cite the evidence of genetic gender differences that is being ignored. Alternatively, list the legal restrictions placed on gender studies. Find a single instance of science actually being twarted on this issue.

Re:A subtle bias

[transient]

Before attempting #2, it would be wise to learn the difference between sex and gender. Sex is determined on the basis of reproductive function, and is not always completely male or completely female. Gender is a social construction, and is rarely completely masculine or completely feminine.

Re:A subtle bias

[mfrank]

I think he's referring to the incident a few months ago where the president of Harvard came within a gnat's ass of having to resign because of stating in a public forum that there *may* be functional differences in human brains between the genders.

Evidently some women in the audience couldn't take it and had to run out of the room in tears. Incidentally, kind of proving his point, but try pointing that out to them. :)

Start with the Copenhagen Consensus

[Ogemaniac]

and Bjorn Lomborg's "Global Crises, Global Solutions". Numerous experts were invited to address these various issues and debate one another. When you read the Global Warming chapter, it becomes pretty obvious that unless you make some really outlying assumptions (both scientific and philosophical) there is not a whole lot we can do about global warming that is worth the price. Meanwhile, the chapters on such things as malaria mitigation come up tremendously positive. As one economist put it, would you rather pay $400 to buy an African family a solar-powered cooking stove and do them a little bit of good, or would you rather pay $10 and buy them a mosquito net, and do them a lot of good? The choice should be obvious.

Now why on earth would global warming reduce GDP by 20%? Not even the whacky whackies would predict that much. How would a 3C rise in temperature reduce your work output by 20%? Seriously.

When the economist crunch the numbers, it comes out as a wash at best. We can do better with things with the money.

Re:Start with the Copenhagen Consensus

[RedWizzard]

Start with the Copenhagen Consensus and Bjorn Lomborg's "Global Crises, Global Solutions"

Got anything other than Lomborg? There are big questions over the scientific validity (and even honesty) of his analysis of global warming.

Now why on earth would global warming reduce GDP by 20%?

I'm not saying it will. What I am saying is that to say 'global warming activists will make claims like "we can mitigate global warming by X percent with only 2% of the world's projected GDP", to which a wise person would respond that with 2% of the world's GDP, we could [do a lot of other good]' makes assumptions about the severity of the economic impact of global warming that are not supported. It begs the question.

Re:Start with the Copenhagen Consensus

[jesterpilot]

Talk about attacks on science. Lomborg was smart enough to keep ecologists, climatologists, experts on population growth and health, technologists and left-winged economists out of his 'consensus'. Like he did not tolerate statisticians talking about his 'statistics'.

If a 3C increase in global temperature reduces GDP by only 20%, i will start to believe in god again.

_A_ugmented _I_ntelligence maybe

[snowwrestler]

That's the path technology is just beginning to start down--taking human intelligence and augmenting it synthetically. Google and Wikipedia are great examples; in seconds I can have information at my disposal on almost any subject or topic. The systems are dumb tools under human direction, but highly complex in their operations. The future holds greater responsiveness, availability, portability, and customization. The future will still be led by humans, but they'll be remarkably well-informed, with near perfect recall, thanks to their tools.

It does not hold self-aware robots with personality who converse with us as equals (let alone superiors). There is just too great a fundamental distinction in the modes of operation between intelligent life and machines--life survives to reproduce, while machines follow orders even if it means their death. I don't know of any evidence that this distinction will change any time soon. Without selfishness and the survival imperative there can be no intelligence.

I agree: Fuck it! Kick Back And Live A Little

[Anonymous Coward]

This "global warming" thing is getting out of control. That is, the idea that there is global warming and that we can do anything about it. Why not just kick back and let economics take care of it?

If it gets colder, then the price of oil goes up and I stay indoors more and run my heater. If it gets hotter I go outside. If it gets really hot, I stay indoors more and run my air conditioner. Either way I pay my bills at the end of the month. Simple.

Who gives a flying fuck if the coastline rises 20m in 300 years? That's a glacial pace (Ha, Ha!) and we'll adjust by moving our beach homes inland a foot at a time.

IOW just fuck it and learn to live easy. There are more interesting things to kill your neighbor over than "global warming". Like the outcome of next year's Super Bowl. Yeooowwww!Aaaaarrrgh!

Re:Intellectualism under attack by culture, not go

[geekee]

"Girls are taught that math is for boys? Did you miss the latest Newsweek article which reports that, all across the board, girls are scoring higher than boys?"

I don't claim they're not good at it, but culturally they're taught that there's no future for it for them, and it's just something to learn until college. After that they're supposed to be liberal arts types. The only real exception I've noticed is that there's a push for women to get m.d. degrees.

big bang

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought the big bang theory sounded a lot like genesis "in the beginning", if someone were to have written it a few thou years ago. Taken with a little grain of salt and lacking good terms (at the time), it fits precisely. And I have seen nothing in the bible that discredits evolution, either, it says the animals and everything were made, but says nothing about after the fact, leaving gradual evolution totally inside the sphere. Well, that's my opinion as a non fundy believer. I've never had a problem with it.

As to anti intellectualism, scientists are sometimes their own worst enemies,(they are human, I don't blame them for being human,but they have "weaknesses"), anyone who steps out of the currently accepted norm is immediately labeled a quack or a crackpot. Witness thus, just an example because it directly relates to my own personal anecdotal, something that changed my life because I *know* now this subject is quite valid (direct, indisputable observation), but ignored and ridiculed: there are billions of galaxies out there, we'll take that as a given, the odds of more life are huge, the odds that more life could be more advanced than us are huge because of the sheer age of the universe, the odds that even a thousand years (whatever) more advanced than us would mean some pretty spiffy space travel and drive tech and stealth tech, etc, are almost probable. See where this is going? So how come, despite millions of sightings by people all over the planet,going back hundreds of years, we can't get a rational UFO discussion going? How many governmental whistleblowers from how many nations does it take to sink in? How many redacted documents that get leaked out or dragged out from FOIA requests, etc, etc, will it take? How much more evidence is needed to see that there has been an ongoing mulit-governmental decades long cover-up? Where are the mainstream scientists on this? Oh ya, afraid of getting blackballed "out of the community" and away from grants and a paycheck, so they chicken out and shut up, except for a few brave ones.

There's more out there, that's just one glaring example that comes to mind.

Re:big bang

[plunge]

"I always thought the big bang theory sounded a lot like genesis "in the beginning", if someone were to have written it a few thou years ago."

That's the silliest thing about this particular controversy. This poor kid apparently never got the creationist memo that said "Resolved: Big Bang is actually GOOD for us, we don't oppose it anymore, we embrace and promote it!" I mean, in addition to being on the wrong side of science, he even got the ID/creationist side of things backwards. I just hope he now has a chance to complete college.

"Taken with a little grain of salt and lacking good terms (at the time), it fits precisely."

Wellll.... so does the Greek concept that the stars are embedded in a great glass dome. With enough grains of salt. Let's not go too crazy here.

Lightman Films String Theory Movie in Hollywood!

[22RealMcCoy]

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=56 [physicsmathforums.com] [physicsmathforums.com] [physicsmathforums.com]

Tied Up & Strung Out: Hollywood String Theory Movie!!! Looking For Extras!!!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

ALL TIED UP & STRUNG ALONG, a movie about String Theorists and their expansive theories which extend human ignorance, pomposity, and frailty into higher dimensions, is set to start filming this fall. Jessica Alba, John Cleese, Eugene Levie, Jackie Chan, and David Duchovney of X-files fame have all signed on to the $700 million Hollywood project, which is still cheaper than String Theory itself, and will likely displace less physicists from the academy.

"As contemporary physics is about money, hype, mythology, and chicks," Ed Witten explained from his offices at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, "The next logical step was Hollywood, although I thought Burt Reynolds should play me instead of Eugene Levy."

Brian Greene, the famous String Theorist who will be played by David "the truth is out there" Duchovney, explained the plot: "String theory's muddled, contorted theories that lack postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations have Einstein spinning so fast in his grave that it creates a black hole. In order to save the world, we String Theorists have to stop reformulating String Theory faster than the speed of light. We are called upon to stop violating the conservation of energy by mining higher dimensions to publish more BS than can accounted for with the Big Bang alone, and I win the Nobel prize for showing that M-Theory is in fact the dark matter it has been searching for."

Greene continues: "At first my character is reluctant to stop theorizing and start postulating, but when my love interest Jessica Alba is sucked into the black hole, I search my soul and find Paul Davies there, played by John Cleese. I ask him what he's doing in my soul, and he explains that the answer is contained in the mind of God, which only he is privy too, but for a small fee, some tax and tuition dollars, a couple grants here and there, and an all-expense-paid book tour with stops in Zurich and Honolulu, he can let me in on it. And he shows me God in all her greater glory, as he points out that we can make more money in Hollywood than writing coffee-table books that recycle Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, and Wheeler. I am quickly converted, and I agree to turn my back on String Theory's hoax and save Jessica Alba."

But it's not that easy, as standing in Greene's way is Michio "king of pop-theory-hipster-irony-the-theory-of-everything- or-anything-made-
you-read-this" Kaku, played by Jackie Chan. Kaku beats the crap out of Greene for alomst blowing the "ironic" pretense his salary, benefits, and all-expense paid trips depend on. "WE MUST HOLD BACK THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS WITH OUR NON-THEORIES!! WE MUST FILL THE ACADEMY WITH THE POMO DARK MATTER THAT IS STRING THEORY TO KEEP OUR UNIVERSE FROM FLYING APART, OUR PYRAMID SCHEMES FROM TOPPLING, AND OUR PERPETUAL-MOTION NSF MONEY MACHINE FROM STOPPING!!" Kaku argues as he delivers a flying back-kick, "There can be ony ONE! I WILL be String Theory's GODFATHER as referenced on my web page!! I have better hair!"

But Greene fights back as he signs his seventeenth book deal to make the hand-waving incoherence of String Theory accessible to the South Park generation, senior citizens, and starving chirldren around the world. "Kaku! Kaku! (pronounced Ka-Kaw! Ka-Kaw! like Owen Wilson did in Bottle Rocket)," Greene shouts. "It is theoretically impossible to build a coffee tables strong enough to support any more coffee-table physics books!!!"

"Time travel is also theoretically impossible, but there's a helluva lot more money for us in flushing physics down a wormhole. Nobody knows what the #&#%&$ M stands for in M theory ya hand-waving, TV-hogging crank!!! Get it?? Ha Ha Ha! We're laughing at the public! We're the in

Not on these issues

[Ogemaniac]

GMO scare stories hurt our farmers overseas, and the refusal to have honest discussions about race and gender are strongly affecting our education policies. Likewise, the hard left's refusal to put values on human rights causes us to waste huge amounts of money on preventing minor risks.

I think the line will blur into nothingness

[Ogemaniac]

and we will spend a lot of time trying to find our ghosts.

The problem now is not lack of information, or lack of access, but indeed the opposite. There is far, far too much of it! I am a scientist. Papers in my sub-sub-sub specialty are now being produced so fast that I can no longer read them all, or even give them more than a glance. I do not think there is much hope in "augmenting" our abilities without completely moving them outside of our bodies. Our brains are pretty well optimized for their jobs as is. But if the augmentation is outside, why not replace the whole? We will. In any case, I think if you have any machine that is close to real AI, it will have a survival instinct. Indeed, this may be one of the defining characteristics.

Got anything other than ad hominem?

[Ogemaniac]

Btw, there is plenty of scientific and economic support for Lomborg as well. Yes, he touched off a firestorm by daring to touch a sacred taboo. God bless him for that.

Three nobel prize winners contributed to GCGS. I bet they are all crocks.

Re:Got anything other than ad hominem?

[RedWizzard]

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty found The Skeptical Environmentalist to constitute scientific dishonesty. They found fabrication of data, discarding of unwanted results, misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. However, it is not clear that the DCSD's findings are entirely accurate. As I said there are big questions over the validity Lomborg's work. How is that an ad hominem argument?

Btw, there is plenty of scientific and economic support for Lomborg as well.

There is plenty of support from economic and social science fields. There doesn't seem to be so much support from the scientific community.

Yes, he touched off a firestorm by daring to touch a sacred taboo. God bless him for that.

Whatever. If you want to support the man just because he did something controversial that's your prerogative.

Three nobel prize winners contributed to GCGS. I bet they are all crocks.

Actually four now. But all the experts involved are economists. So there are valid questions about their analysis of the situation from a scientific point of view. There has also been concerns raised by some of the panelists themselves about how the climate change portion of the project was handled, including claims that it was set up to fail.

Aside from that, I'd still like a second opinion. So again, got anything else?

Re:Intellectualism under attack by culture, not go

[Hinin]

I agree that it is more of a cultural anti-intellectual movement, and I agree with what another poster said about the anti-intellectual movement coming to the forefront because it is the loudest voices (those that disturb the grain the most) that are heard. But these voices seem to be in the minority, despite their influence. From my experience, what we usually hear from the media does not affect scientific research, because researchers know better and cast aside comments concerning intelligent design and other BS as trivial. But where it can hurt research is when it comes time to pay the bills and previously reliable monetary sources are no longer there (i.e. federal funding cuts for stem cell research). So even though you may relegate issues such as stem cell research to being an inconsequential hot button, these "hot buttons" are of tremendous importance to our future and the ignorance of the government (I don't mean to use ignorance in a derogatory manner, but just as a term describing limited knowledge of a subject) prevents scientific research from being fulfilled. As for intelligent design, it won't impact our current generation of scientists and researchers, but there is a lot more to accomplish in the field of biology ahead of us, and these kids that are currently being taught ID, the ones that will be carrying on our research in the future, will be missing the core structure of biology, the theory of evolution, biology's unified field theory that ties everything together, and that's a damn shame. So, the government does have at least some part in this movement.

"Causing" vs "Contributing"

[splutty]

It's not so much the supposition that people are 'causing' global warming, since there are a LOT of things 'causing' global warming (cows eating grass and farting methane, as a random example). The point I think is most important is that the human way of life currently includes belching out rather large quantities of gasses into the air that are thought to contribute to global warming.

Humans aren't the only ones doing it, for sure, and never will be the only ones (certain landslides on the ocean bottom free up large pockets of methane as well), but they're definitely part of it.

Now the question becomes more political than scientific: I think we can take it as a given humans contribute to global warming. The question is not whether we should stop or slow down, the question is why we shouldn't.

Is there any reason we can't cute down on greenhouse gas emmisions? Whether we're responsible for 30% or 5% really doesn't matter. It's just beancounting. The fact as far as I can see it is we're at least partially reponsible, and if we can reduce that part, we'd at least have less negative impact on the environment.

(To another post in this thread: I have no clue which side I belong to, to be honest. But I'd guess the global warming side :)

Splut.

ps. (Yes. This post is repetative in certain place, but I've noticed a penchant for /. readers to single out one improperly spelled or grammatically incorrectly pur phrasing, and try to discredit your post, without bothering about the content)
pps. No. I'm not a native english speaker/writer, either.

Man alone? When did I say that?

[Ogemaniac]

That would be both absurd and impossible to prove. How could one demonstrate that there is no underlying natural trend?

However, there is broad consensus across the scientific community that temperatures are rising and we are a significant, if not the sole, cause. If you need details, there are plenty of freebies at Nature and Science. That should get you started.

Arguing that we aren't causing global warming is little different than claiming the earth is 6000 years old and that we are all decended from Adam and Eve.

Easy enough

[Ogemaniac]

Cosmology: Getting away from the earth is too darned expensive and will be for quite a long time. What difference is worrying about dark matter or cosmic background raditation going to make in our daily lives?

String theory: Speculation on paper. We are a long way from even being able to test it in our mega mega colliders. No one is going to make a better widget based on string theory in the foreseeable future.

Stem cells: Stems cells are a road, not a destination. They are clunky to work with and have all sorts of ethical concerns. We will have better methods without the ethical issues long before 2100. In any case, stem cell research has been vastly overblown because of the political controversy. Stem cells are one possible technology out of thousands. Who knows which ones will actually provide the breakthroughs.

Re:Easy enough

[Hinin]

My point was we really have no way of knowing how these issues will affect us until the time arrives. You seemed so certain of your assumptions that they were stated as if being factual when they were actually just your average musings.

Concerning cosmology and string theory, we have no way of knowing how our lives will be affected by these. In your original post you even stated that anything to do with cosmology and string theory will have no impact on our daily lives. So not only did you make the statement about cosmology and string theory in general, but also anything to do with them. You just can't accurately predict this for a hundred years from now.

And concerning stem cells, I think your knowledge of them may be a little limited if you have only focused on the political controversy as being their claim to fame. From our current early stages of stem cell research, the future looks very bright indeed, and the possibilities of using stem cells for everything from cloning to gene therapy far out weighs the majority of the "thousands" of other technologies out there.

Personally I think we should focus on output.

[skids]

It just bothers me somehow that the way people instinctively view the human-machine neural interface is in terms of input, of adding senses. I mean, I understand that prosthetic sensory organs are a pressing matter. However, I have a sneaking suspician that that's only part of the reason. Why aren't people more psyched about having the ability to control machines more or less directly? Why in a world of bluescreens would they have no fear about opening a channel directly into their mind? I think it's cultural. Our culture views the machine as something providing information. We have a passive mentality. It's a sad commentary on our nature. Were I to take such things to their fictional extremes I'd go so far as to say it bodes badly for the end result of machine/man integration -- we'll trend towards becoming the peripheral device, not the CPU.

Anti-intellectualism?

[aaronmcdaid]

Bring on the Cultural Revolution!

Re:pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Red Flayer]

"Remember how the smarter, more productive Japanese were taking our jobs and taking over the country? You had similar "Buy American" and "The Cold War is over & the Japanese won" fear mongering."

But fear-mongering is not what we're seeing now. I don't understand this parallel you're drawing when what the American culture is experiencing now is not remotely the same as the cultural attitude during the 80s.

"The wars in the middle east are about securing strategic resources and trade"

That's not all they are about. They are also about increasing government spending to stimulate the economy, they are also about making the common American feel good about the country (and thus it's leadership). Maybe not so successful at that, but definitely intended to do so.

"Throughout US history there have been periods of religious fervor like "The Great Awakenings" then the pendulum moves back. It isn't like the current sense of nationalism and spirtuality is unprecedented."

The nation is comprised of individuals, and it's the effort of some of those individuals that cause the 'pendulum' to swing back, or to push the boulder back up the hill. It's a Sisyphusian struggle, not a passive pendulum that we can afford to sit back and wait for it to swing back in the direction we like.

Re:pendulum? more like a downslope.

[Red Flayer]

"Look at the Forbes 400. I think you'll find more intellectually inclined people than sports figures and entertainers. They include software developers, mathematicians, economists."

But, most people don't look at the Forbes 400. They look at movies and television programming. The Forbes 400 is less and less relevant to American culture.

Also, the majority of the people on the Forbes 400 didn't rise to the Forbes 400 through their own actions -- they earned their money the old-fashioned way -- they inherited it.

Anti-arrogance in civil society

[aminorex]

Personally, I think it's an expression of despite for the arrogance and mass murder conducted by intellectuals and scientists, during the past century. It does seem that intelligence is a self-limiting genetic trait.

revolutions can be surprises

[peter303]

The one in my lifetime was how fast internet applications took off like a rocket once they finally did. I think the critical year was 1993 when the number of Mosaic downloads and websites starting increasing in the hundred thousands per month.

An amusing anecdote was Nick Negropronte's book tour for his interesting book Being Digital (1994) which was collection of his columns in Wired magazine up to that time. Nick was the founder of the MIT Media Lab and Wired magazine. The interesting thing about the book is THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB. Thats because it took off so fast that it even caught pundits like Nick off guard.

Re:Man alone? When did I say that?

[amliebsch]

However, there is broad consensus...we are a significant, if not the sole, cause.

How, exactly, can there be broad consensus for a conclusion for which it is impossible and absurd to provide convincing? Let's take softer standard, then. What evidence is there that demonstrates it more likely than not that man is the significant, if not sole cause of warming? I'm not saying there is none; I am actually curious about this, but as a skeptic by nature I demand evidence, not consensus.

We're ALWAYS in an anti-intellectual phase

[abbamouse]

Others have already made this point, but I think I can make it better. The US has a strong current of anti-intellectualism in its political culture. Only one American President has had a PhD (Woodrow Wilson) -- and he was sandwiched between anti-intellectuals like Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. Campaigning against effete intellectuals who couldn't do an ordinary working man's (yes, there is strong gender bias in the anti-intellectual culture) job is practically an American pasttime. Even while scientists were respected for their achievements in medicine and space exploration during the 1950s, perceived egghead Adlai Stevenson lost to perceived dullard Dwight Eisenhower -- twice. Needless to say, things did not improve under the Johnson or Nixon Administrations. I'm sure anyone who noticed politics in the 1980s is aware that Reagan portrayed himself as a genial old man with a sense of down-home humor, not an intellectual prepared to discuss the details of policy. Bush I had the good fortune to run against someone even more ivory-tower than himself, the sensible but nearly robotic Michael Dukakis.

In short, there is a strain of anti-intellectualism that has dominated American culture for at least a century, and ikely much longer (anyone remember the so-called Know-Nothing Party?) In America, being perceived as "intellectual" -- educated, cosmopolitan, well-spoken, intelligent -- is quite different from being perceived as "wise" or even "smart." Intellectuals seek to change the culture around them using ideas; those who feel intimidated by them tend to resent the (real or perceived) air of superiority that comes with education and serious scholarship. And since Americans tend to think of American heroes as being virile, hard-working men rather than serious scholars and thinkers (both views have some merit), there's no counterpart to the European intellectuals that laid the foundations for human rights, democracy, and public participation. Intellectuals in America are seen as artifical constructs and not as organic producers of the national culture. This is no "phase" -- it is part of the American condition.

Why does it matter to you?

[Medievalist]

What difference does it make if man caused it or not? What goal are you going to reach by making any such distinction? How will that argument put bread on your table, or increase your grandchildren's chances of having happy, productive lives? I refer you to a prior post and submit that you are following a rhetorical pattern that has very little to do with science, based almost entirely on economics and politics. I expect that your mind was made up before you saw any data, and if you change your mind it will not be (primarily) because of the data but rather because you will have reorganized your political and/or economic priorities.

Re:Why does it matter to you?

[amliebsch]

What difference does it make if man caused it or not?

I'm sorry, I thought that was obvious. It seems relevant to me because if man is not the cause, it is probable that man cannot effect a solution, in which case it is sensible not to waste too much time trying to do so.

Re:Why does it matter to you?

[Medievalist]

...I thought that was obvious... ...if man is not the cause, it is probable that man cannot effect a solution...

No, that's not at all obvious. I myself have probably solved thousands of problems that were not caused by man.

Of course, the definition of what a problem is is entirely subjective; my problems may not resemble those confronting you in the slightest.

I agree with you in principle that one should attempt to spend one's limited time and effort on productive endeavors, though.

I'm not a globe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw economic figures.

Given the location I live in, I can reliably expect massive environmental disruption in my lifetime; already the flora in my area are noticeably different from those of my youth, because the increasing air pollution gives advantage to invasive Asian fauna. The fauna are less affected, but still the salamanders and frogs I gleefully found in every stream as a child are increasingly rare.

I don't like these changes (which are not dry figures in books, they are real experiences).

I have kids.

I can reduce my carbon emissions, because I can afford a modern fireplace insert and a Prius. I can reduce my sponsorship of Big Oil for the same reasons. I can reduce my pollution footprint because I can afford arable land, and thus I can grow some of my own food and fuel organically.

See Emmanuel Kant, the categorical imperative.

Inaction is for the weak, the incompetent, and the permanently damaged.

Be strong. Gain competence. Conquer your disabilities.

Be greater than you already are.

Sure, that's the other side

[Cybert14]

There were electrodes inserted in the primary motor cortex that went the other way. So someone could control a simple video game with the mind. I don't see any preference either way--both are important if you want to play video games as well as watch movies.

As a scientist myself

[Ogemaniac]

I hate all science that appears in the mass media, because it is overhyped to the extreme - and that is before politics. Why? Because the scientists who study it are self-selected (bias). Then they have every reason to hype their work to get funding (bias). Then they cherry-pick data (bias). Then the news selects the most outlying data to present (bias) and then hypes it (bias). If you add politics, you get yet another layer of mega bias.

Stem-cells only look so promising because you are seeing them through about a dozen hype filters. Down in the trenches, they are one technology out of many. There are tens of thousands of biomedical research groups, and probably only a few hundred do work related to stem cells. If they are such a miracle, why is this so? Why is there virtually no major corporate research, given that corporations do half the research)?

Re:As a scientist myself

[Hinin]

I work at UT-Southwestern here in Dallas and see stem cells every day without the hype filters you speak of. And in my opinion, and those of many many others, there is no new field of research more valuable to the understanding of growth, development, and evolutionary relationships than stem cell research.

Also, if you are a scientist it is surprising to me, and it is not in the field of biology, or you would not have asked the corporate research question. Any scientist knows the difference between "basic" and "applied" research. Basic research is important when researching a relatively new field such as stem cell research. Basic research is research for the sake of knowledge. Once enough basic research has been done, then applied research can done, built on the foundation of basic research. Applied research is where the corporations step in, to take what data was collected during basic research and aim to alleviate a problem or create a product based on the initial research. We are just beginning the basic research stages of stem cell research.

These are elementary concepts and I don't feel like teaching a science seminar right now.

Evidence? Several thousands peer-reviewed

[Ogemaniac]

journal articles. How many more do you need?

You have some interesting logical issues. You should know that your request that I prove a negative (that no other source exists) is impossible.

Here are the three major facts:

1: We are releasing greenhouse gases

2: Models predict releasing greenhouse gases on this scale will cause warming

3: The earth is warming

What else do you need? What would consititute "proof" in your opinion?

Exactly

[Ogemaniac]

This was not an isolated incident, either. This has an effect on our public policy as well. If one posits that men/women or blacks/whites/reds/greens/oranges are all exactly equal on average and in distribution, then one can infer that a fair system will produce equal outcomes. Therefore, one can measure "bias" in the system by noting unequal outcomes. However, if the inputs are not exactly equal, then a difference in outcome may not be indicative of a problem with the system.

Trying to root out biases is important. We cannot do this if we start with false assumptions about our inputs, leading us to waste energy trying to eliminate biases that may not even exist. We should be able to have rational discussions about racial differences in various intelligences (the evidence is strong) and gender differences (the evidence is overwhelming). The incident at Harvard proves we are incapable of this as yet.

The GMO foods issue is an even bigger problem. People, right now, are starving because of the left's anti-scientific worry over GMO foods. Take anything bad you can say about the right's objection to stem cells and multiply it by a thousand.

Here is an example I just found

[Ogemaniac]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;js essionid=R2SCQNKZZJTYJQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/con nected/2006/02/07/ecnthink07.xml&%5C1sSheet=/conne cted/2006/02/07/ixconn.html

Even the editors of Science are not immune to the fear of being tarred and feathered for daring to be un-PC.

Basic research is pretty easy to define

[Ogemaniac]

It is any research that no one would spend their own money doing. That's pretty telling to me. If stem-cell research offered a fraction of what the hype promised, then there would be plenty of reasons for evil, greedy corporations to jump on the bandwagon. They aren't.

The distinction between "basic" and "applied" research is a myth perpetuated by people that can't get others to fund their research voluntarily. If there ever was such a distinction, it has blurred beyond any hope of recoginition.

Re:Basic research is pretty easy to define

[Hinin]

All of this is your own opinion, not fact, and everyone is entitled to their own. But spend enough time in the field and you will begin to see what I mean.

That's precisely what I mean

[Ogemaniac]

No one would deny their are biological sex differences. Men have penises. Women have vaginas and breasts. There are not many exceptions or indistinct cases.

However, suggesting that gender differences have roots in biology will get you into some hot water really quick if you are in the wrong crowd. This group of people want gender to be completely divorced from biological reality, so they can shape it to their will. Telling them that their dream is not possible makes them very upset.

Re:That's precisely what I mean

[transient]

Ah, I see now. I suggest that "the wrong crowd" learns what happens to transsexuals (of either gender) when they start taking hormones. It's unbelievable the degree to which some of our basic tendencies can be attributed to simple body chemistry. Of course, transsexuality doesn't make any sense unless there are properties of gender that aren't based purely in chemistry... so, clearly, gender is complicated.

I've worked plenty of academic projects and

[Ogemaniac]

plenty of corporate ones. The only difference is one has a purpose and the other is a bunch of people playing around with other peoples' money. When I switch from one type of project, neither my way of thinking nor my methods change - only the goal of the research.

I'd estimate that only about 1% of the academic articles I run across will have any impact on any normal person ever. Most of them are just "Variation #23452 on Theme #964, Hey, No One Has Done This Before!"

Strange but true

[Ogemaniac]

The same crowd that champions the causes of transexuals and gays by claiming their behavior is biologically based (this is correct) is the same crowd that throws a hissy fit when someone suggests that women on the average are willing to make more sacrifices for their children and therefore will not be as likely to take up jobs that require absurd hours (like a Harvard professor), even though this is just as true and the logic is the same. It is also funny watching them squeal when someone claims that there is a wider distribution of mathematical ability for men than women which may cause the dominance of males in the upper eschelons of math, even though this also implies that there are more male idiots. I didn't hear anyone complain about that.

Re:Evidence? Several thousands peer-reviewed

[Anonymous Coward]

"1: We are releasing greenhouse gases"

All of which are minor in comparison to the gases given off by other creatures and volcanos.

There have been times in our pre-Industrial past where levels of atmospheric CO2 have been over 12times higher than what they currently are.

"2: Models predict releasing greenhouse gases on this scale will cause warming"

Big shocker, there. Mankind accounts for less than 5% of all CO2 emissions.

Anyway... these models rarely deliver with any sort of respectable consistency.

(Sort of reminds me of our weather models out at PSU Main when I was studying Meteorology there. At best, our weather forecasts were only capable of being 70-75% accurate within a twenty four hour period. Every day into the future brings a larger and larger drop.

These models are not so different than the models that were used for the past thirty years, and the people and machines creating them are not so different either. They're neither consistent or accurate, and I find it silly to use them as support in a serious discussion on the matter.)

"3: The earth is warming"

That's not, on the whole, a completely accurate statement. You have models from the surface to high levels of the atmosphere all of which give a different answer to the question of whether or not the Earth is warming. In some ways, it is cooling. In others, it is warming. Many of the models are incomplete or inaccurate, and despite popular opinion, the scientific debate is still /on/.

"What else do you need? What would consititute "proof" in your opinion?"

There are plenty of articles out there that firmly stand in opposition to popular opinion in these heralded journals. As we've learned from the past, consensus in the scientific community doesn't necessarily mean all of that much over the long term.

I'm about to fall asleep, though. My thoughts have quickly come undone.

Milankovitch Cycles! That, too. Alright... too much to drink.