Slashdot Mirror
The Politically Incorrect Science Fair
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Science fairs have reached new levels of intensity, and students are turning to trendy topics like stem-cell research and intelligent design to get a leg up, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Serene Chen says she might not be at Harvard now were it not for her application essay, which described her fetal-stem-cell research on the characteristics of Down syndrome. "If you say you studied something like 'random molecule,' it's obscure, but when you say 'stem cells,' people really perk up," says Ms. Chen, 20, now a sophomore. ... Of a 2002 project involving marijuana muffins for pain management in Santa Cruz, Calif., Mission Hill Middle School science teacher Sherri Kilkenny says, "It got all this attention, but it was very average at best." '"
What ever happened to the good old days when people would make simple rocket nozzles by hand and call it good?
As much as scientists would like to do research that really matters, and accomplishes something important, they (I will not say "we," because although virtually everyone I work with is a scientist, I lack any formal post-high-school training in the sciences) are smart enough to realize that headlines count too.
This isn't to say that scientists go through their entire careers just generating flash and noise - very few do. But a discovery that plays well to the masses, despite being relative "fluff" in terms of scientific value or breaking very little new ground, can raise awareness of one's work, which can make it a lot easier to get funding for the research that does matter.
These enterprising youth are just picking up on this at an early age, and leveraging it in their favour. Buzzword-compliance probably won't get them beyond a certain point career-wise, but it's interesting to see it having some effect at the beginning.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I'll be attending my second Intel ISEF this year, but I have yet to see anything that controversial. I've heard of controversial 4th dimension calculus projects, but never stem cells. I'm sure something like stem cell research would attract a lot of attention. I think it's a good thing if we start seeing these kidns of projects though. Some people might be offended by it or against it, but it's pushing science in the right direction of exploring the unknown, and it's good to see students picking up on this.
So basically what these kids are learning is that they should only be studying subjects that wow and amaze or are in contention.
So much for the lowly germ unless it's causing an epidemic or the lowly bug unless they're swarming.
Regular science goes by the wayside for the "Reality TV" version of science.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Of course, the trendy research changes, and one can find oneself in grant limbo. That is why it is often better to do something personally interesting instead of just hoping for money. That way, if you don't get the money, at least you are doing something interesting.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
STUPID AND EVIL
Isn't the idea of evil a religious concept, which cannot be proven, therefore under your own scheme it is infact "stupid"... whilst on the whole people who are against stem cell research might be misinformed (and I happen to think its a very good idea) their oppinions should be challenged with rational ideas, and education, thats how youwin an arguement, not just by saying people are wrong.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
I'd bet that most high-school students were more interested in getting laid than working on stem-cell research. And why the hell aren't U.S. high-school college advisors telling students that they need to be doing post-graduate level research if they want to get into the top schools? Oh, but God forbid that U.S. high-schools cut back on athletics and put the money and energy into cultivating intellectuals.
Doesn't that make you sad? People have to pass up legitimate, useful research just because the buzzword-laden research gets them more attention and funding.
From TFA: "And some say latching on to a controversial topic is a cheap way to get buzz. Of a 2002 project involving marijuana muffins..."
Hmm... using "marijuana muffins" to get a cheap buzz?
Now there's a novel idea...
These enterprising youth are just picking up on this at an early age, and leveraging it in their favour. Buzzword-compliance probably won't get them beyond a certain point career-wise, but it's interesting to see it having some effect at the beginning.
But they shouldn't have to do this. This isn't something they should need to know to be scientists and researchers. Period.
Science should be about studying things because you want to understand them better or know more about them. Money shouldn't enter into it.
Unfortuantely money seems to be the prime motivator for research lately. This is unfortunate because it will probably cause many many great things about the universe to be missed in favor of what's "popular" at the time.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
All I have to say is that much of the fault for the politicization of science lies not with scientists.
PS Politicization isn't a word, but I'm not sure there's a better term.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
If you can't dazzle them with your intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit.
In my recollection, High School Science Fairs were as often about who had the flashiest, most inpressive presentation or display, and not necessarily who did the best science, though my experience to this effect could have had something to do with growing up in the South - I live not far from Cobb County, Ga., where Science textbooks were required to have stickers stating that evolution is only a theory and may not be taught as fact, yet the "teaching" of the "story" of Adam and Eve was encouraged. My freshman year, I built a miniature wind-tunnel and did studies on lifting bodies, animal flight and developed a concept for a novel lifting-wing and control mechanism for an "ornithopter". The Freshman-class winner that year? A study of how peanuts and soy are grown based on "science" that would have been fruity in the 1850's, complete with a dozen pictures of that traitorous rat, Jimmy Carter.
We HAVE to do something about the education standard in this country.
(/me is still hoping that intellectualism will someday return to the United States and that we will oust the relgious nutbags and anti-intellectual [dare I say, liberals] from our schools.)
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
A real scientist is one who actually devotes their life to their work and really doesn't care if it's ever exposed to the masses or brought out into the limelight. Some scientists are a bit of both (like Stephen Hawking). Oddly enough, the pop scientists are often teachers because they love the idea of instilling a copy of themselves into the mainstream. But they also cater to the lowest common denominator, hence their writings to the public. That's great, let's send these young students the message that science is really trying to get grant money and holding press releases before testing is even done on a drug. In fact, we should have a class for them on how to appeal to the lowest common denominator so that they can get exposure and the papers can run with a story on them. On the contrary, buzzword compliance will get them very far in their careers but it won't do anything for their research or findings. Fancy words mean everything to companies and nothing to real scientists.
In closing, a pop scientist craves public attention and recognition. A real scientist craves knowledge and nothing more. Which one of these two are you most like?
My work here is dung.
Creationism is not a scientific topic. It's nothing more than a big "nu-uh" to the evidence which overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Actually, the problem with intelligent design is that it is unable to be disproven, and so it can never be anything other than junk "science".
In my recollection, High School Science Fairs were as often about who had the flashiest, most inpressive presentation or display, and not necessarily who did the best science
Sadly, it happens all too often that a science fair is judged by people who are completely out of their depth in any discussion of science.
that traitorous rat, Jimmy Carter.
Carter, like Neville Chamberlain before him, isn't a traitor: he's just incompetent. Whenever he has dealth with anyone operating from truly evil motives, he has failed to recognize that fact, and act accordingly. Nice guy, but definitely not the man you want in charge when a pack of maniacs commit an act of war by invading an embassy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And musicians shouldn't have to know how to do anything but music. ;)
;)
:(
And chefs shouldn't have to know how to do anything but cook.
And geeks shouldn't have to know how to do anything but program.
And athletes shouldn't have to know how to do anything but sports.
And managers shouldn't have to know how to do anything.
Sorry, but "I'm a specialist, so I don't have to know how to market myself" doesn't hold up for a femtosecond. Why do you think so many job postings in the sciences list grant writing ability as desirable? People who can convince others to give them money for something will generally do a lot better than those who can't.
And unfortunately, science isn't like fast food. You don't get out of high school and get a low-paying job working at the drive-thru window of the local laboratory. Unless you've got the chops to work at Bell Labs or somewhere similar, you can't just research whatever you find interesting without having to wonder about where the money's coming from.
It's largely a tradeoff - you can get a nice steady paycheck for researching what the corporate suits want you to research, or you can have a more interesting job that you know up front is only guaranteed for a short period of time, after which it might be renewed "contingent upon continued funding."
We just had a thread on here about NASA budget cuts. One of the areas that's getting cut is astrobiology research. Some of the people I work with have been doing a lot of work in that field, and I've been doing a lot of work with them. (Remember last year's "deep impact" mission? Key members of the astrobiology team for that, basically.) In my case, there are other non-astrobiology researchers that'll pick up any slack in my schedule, but I don't wanna see the astrobiology sorts out panhandling on the corners either. (They're nice folks, and kinda cute for scientists.
It would be really nifty if all the scientists had steady paychecks, and Bush had to hold a bake sale when he wanted to create a new cabinet-level department of the federal government, but oh well.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Speaking of that, I got really intrested. How advanced is this science really? It seems most participants are 17-18 years old. I higly doubt that they would produce groundbreaking results. It seems more like what they are doing is watering down results from other scientists, am I mistaken?
It's not about flash as much. It's more about getting funding to pay for research materials, graduate student salaries, etc.
It's sad because now, if an immediate result isn't suspected, or some buzzwords like stem cell or cancer research isn't thrown around, you chances of getting funding decrease.
The high school kids just figured that out.
I know of noone that is opposed to stem cell research. Many, however, are opposed to embryonic stem cell research based on the fact that even an embryo is a life. Since it cannot be proven that an embryo is NOT a life, then, using your logic, to not oppose embryonice stem cell research is STUPID and EVIL. I agree.
FreePA
No, "Politically Incorrect" is supposed to be something that will get you murdered murdered in politics. It was popularized by some liberal ideas that went against the mainstream, such as refering to a certain minority as "Black" instead of "African American" depite the fact you know damned well his family has lived in Jamaica for 6 generations before immigarating 3 generations ago. Suggesting that an anti-integration warrior would have been a great president in the 1950's would qualify too.
Its pretty easy to argue in today's climate that being pro-gay marriage is "politially incorrect", that calling for an immediate unilateral troop withdrawl is too. Likewise, I'm pretty sure shooting a 78 year old in the face qualifies too.
But they shouldn't have to do this. This isn't something they should need to know to be scientists and researchers. Period.
If you are independenty wealthy and are doing science as a hobby, your post is absolutely right.
For the rest of us, doing science does mean getting funding - not only for equipment, travel, conferences and the rest, but also for the rather important, if mundane, reason that it's good to be able to pay for food and rent. Being homeless and begging for food tends to put a crimp in your research, whether you're really interested in your work or not.
But take heart - people are working on what they find interesting and worthwhile. It really is amazing how far you can stretch descriptions of your actual work to make it fit whatever is the flavor of the day. Take just about any two subjects - models of neuarl plasticity in the accessory basal amygdala and feminist influences in nineteenth-century reinterpretations of Chaucer, say - and any good researcher working in either field will be perfectly able to seek money earmarked for the other.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
(/me is still hoping that intellectualism will someday return to the United States and that we will oust the relgious nutbags and anti-intellectual [dare I say, liberals] from our schools.)
Right, like that well-known liberal cause, getting EVILution out of our schools!
Oh, wait.
Liberals are the anti-intellectuals here? GMAFB.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
How is Intelligent Design "politically incorrect"? It's fake science, factually incorrect witchdoctorate mumbo-jumbo. It is correct only politically, as dumb politicians legislate science to pander to even dumber hicks swilling their snake oil.
When NASA's publishing is controlled by lying, dropout Bush propagandists, then the Big Bang is politically incorrect. But then, since Bush thinks backing Uncle (and Aunt) Toms and shortchanging African AIDS projects makes Republicans the only politicians fit to talk politics at Coretta Scott King's funeral, I guess that "politically correct" now means "politically correct". Just like the "liberal media" refers to the corporate media, which propagates such newspeak.
Since it's politically incorrect to insist that "War is Peace", and politically incorrect to demand that Freedom is Slavery, my science project: Ignorance is Strength.
--
make install -not war
As a student who has been competing the Intel Science Fair for the past 4 years, I can say from experience that there are some very BS topics out there. Projects that have no scientific merit, Judges that don't understand what you are talking about so give you a random score depending on their level of intelligence (if you confuse the smart ones you get a low score, but the dumb ones give you high scores). Then there are the projects that couldn't have possibly been done without the help of professionals (their parents are doctors, their teachers doing research for them, etc.). I wrote small operating system 2 years ago, and had the misfortune of having a judge point to a random line in my source code and ask "What does this line do?". When I couldn't answer him (20,000 line+ source), he gave me straight 2's (highest being 6, lowest being 0), which knocked me out of competing at state. San Antonio boasts one of the largests Science Fairs in TX, however they need to get their act straight and get some good judges instead of the one's they've had in the past. For anyone that's interested, I'm doing my project over Buffer Overflows on MINIX 3.0 this year (which supposedly eliminates the threat of Buffer Overflows).
- Aetheral Research -
Just curious - why do you think anti-intellectuals are "liberals"? I thought it was the other way around. All the scientists I know (and being a paleo grad student, I've attended a lot of professional meetings, including the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in 2004 which occurred during the presidential elections, so a lot of anger happening there) are very liberal, and we also have discussions during these meetings about ID (creationism) and what we can do about it as educators. I guess you'd call me a liberal because I'm pro-choice and things like that, and I'm giving a talk at my old high school on paleontology and also introducing the topics of ("controversial" to religious people) evolution, plate tectonics, and radioactive dating, because none of these are really taught in school and hey, if you're going to talk about biology and geology, these are unavoidable, as they form the backbone of these sciences.
And isn't the president's administration for the teaching of ID in schools? (shocking, I know) I don't think you can lump all liberals as being anti-intellectual, even if you know some who are, and if you're going to lump either of them as that, I'd have to go with conservatives. But then again, my parents are extrememly conservative and wanted me to get married and have kids right out of high school instead of going to college, so I may just be biased.
However, you're right about ID not being science, of course, as it only tries to fill in the gaps with God and so uses the lack of physical evidence as its basis, which is very non-scientific. We know more about evolution than we do about why gravity works (I've heard it said, but even if not, we still don't know everything about gravity), but you don't see people filling in those holes with "God did it."
If these science projects can help gather data on the true pros and cons of controversial ideas, then these projects are a good thing.
If these science projects can help inform the public about controversial ideas, then these projects are a good thing.
If these science projects can help train future voters to think rationally about controversial ideas, then these projects are a good thing.
I'm sure that some of the projects may be buzzword laden copies of wikipedia entries, but I applaud those ernest young researchers that tackle tough societally-relevant topics with good science.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The main message I got from this article is that some kids are doing INCREDIBLY ADVANCED projects, whatever the subject is.
From my experience in high school, and from working in a research lab for many years... the kids who do these projects usually have CONNECTIONS. They didn't just waltz up to a university researcher with a proposal, and get to work in a "real lab". They probably knew someone who knew someone. They got to do this work not just because they were bright, which I'm positive they are, but because they were able to get a foot in the door. I got expert advice (though no material support) on my flatworm regeneration project in Grade 10... because my mom was in the same local political org as a biology prof.
So the upside of all this is that high school science fairs are being exposed to a much higher quality of project than before. Which is very good - it gives them a better idea what real research is like.
The downside is that Joe(sephine) Blow regular HS student hasn't got a chance of even being noticed with their project that was done without access to a lab, or any funding. And hence... may not bother to do a project at all.
Freedom: "I won't!"
For the rest of us, doing science does mean getting funding - not only for equipment, travel, conferences and the rest, but also for the rather important, if mundane, reason that it's good to be able to pay for food and rent. Being homeless and begging for food tends to put a crimp in your research, whether you're really interested in your work or not.
Point. But that doesn't make it right. Science, and indeed any research, should never in my opinion depend on cashflow. As far as I'm concerned it colors the research.
But take heart - people are working on what they find interesting and worthwhile. It really is amazing how far you can stretch descriptions of your actual work to make it fit whatever is the flavor of the day. Take just about any two subjects - models of neuarl plasticity in the accessory basal amygdala and feminist influences in nineteenth-century reinterpretations of Chaucer, say - and any good researcher working in either field will be perfectly able to seek money earmarked for the other.
I won't take heart unless they start teaching people properly again. We're low on the intellectual totem pole for many reasons. And teaching "flashy" science rather than basics is one of them.
As for stretching your focus to get funding - if you lie to do your job then your job will become a lie. There are exceptions to this but I've seen it happen in all walks of life so I hold it to be fairly accurate.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Everyone else thought that Venus would be cold becuase the clouds would block the heat. Sagan turned out to be right.
BTW, Sagan was a major pot-head. There's a couple of bios out there on him. Really interesting guy!
I'm a high school senior, and I've been astonished as the smartest kids I know (National Merit Scholars, high 90 average through high school, numerous internships, etc.) get denied by the top colleges. Now I know why.
But, I want to know how these super-students find data to publish new and interesting research on freaking stem cells. It was my understanding that even top scientists had a hard time in the U.S. due to moral objections. How are high school students managing it?
Sorry, but "I'm a specialist, so I don't have to know how to market myself" doesn't hold up for a femtosecond. Why do you think so many job postings in the sciences list grant writing ability as desirable? People who can convince others to give them money for something will generally do a lot better than those who can't.
:(
You are right on all your points and I accept all of them. However that doesn't make the situation right. Nor will I agree that it ever will be as long as money is a motivator.
It would be really nifty if all the scientists had steady paychecks, and Bush had to hold a bake sale when he wanted to create a new cabinet-level department of the federal government, but oh well.
I only hope I live to see a day where the world is not focused on money and conflict. I don't expect to live that long in my lifetime. I find that a sad thing...
"Bah!" - Dogbert
I went to a super competitive prep school, where everyone had Ivy on the brain. I remember two girls my age on the student newspaper. They both worked very hard at it, and when we were seniors they fought each other, practically to the death, over who got the top editor spot. The loser got the next rung. Both went on to Yale. Yale has one of the best college newspapers in the country, the Yale Daily News. I remember looking them up in college to see if either had continued in journalism; the answer was no. The girl who became the editor in chief? She became an investment banker as soon as she graduated. My point is, these kids in the science fairs, like those two girls, are just doing whatever it takes to get into college, and may not have any real interest in being scientists.
Bart Simpson won the science fair for proving that hamsters can fly planes.
Oh, I wholeheartedly concur that the situation is not "right." There are plenty of things in this world that aren't. And sure, I'd like to see it improved upon, and will avail myself of any opportunity to improve upon it.
;) The head of a totally-donation-funded entity I help in my spare time just told me yesterday that I'd gotten them an extra EUR 100,000 by spending a couple hours at a reception thrown by a government ministry and putting up some flattering photos from it on a web page. Is this silly? Sure. Am I gonna complain? Hell no. ;)
:)
Unfortunately, that includes sucking up^W^Wbeing nice to the right people.
In general, I just take the view that the scientific stuff I get to do is really cool and fun and interesting... you know, the "childlike awe and curiosity" that pervades people who're really into scientific discovery? I'm just grateful that I get to do it at all, and even more so that I get a little money in the process.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
(please no "yes slashdot is going down hill replies" - strictly on topic)
I don't see what's so political about choosing one science over another if it's a 'viable theory'. That is, if you choose to demonstrate your knowledge on a particular topic, a topic that's covered by the scientific community, you should surely be able to do so?
The question is whether or not there is a scoring cap in popular scientific theories, compared to the more 'traditional' this-is-a-model-of-space people used to do.
Because the world is learning at an ever faster rate, and because science is becoming more and more divisible by speciality, it's hard to say what is above anyones learning curve any more. I dont mean to introduce ID as a subject, but "science" is no longer just science- it's a popular form. Almost like art.
Science will always have big theories and little ones - and over time most of those big theories will be carved and diced until the holes in it are so gaping big, they call it "the old theory" - empiric or "simplified".
E=mc2 is an old theory. It's a very old one. We call it the simplified version. It doesnt work for very big masses for small ones... Einstein has gone out of fashion.
Yet we all know of and about E=mc2 beause it is pop-science. See?
Popular doesn't make it bad (or wrong) science. Popular encourages a field.
I'm a scientist and engineer.
Matt
Then why didn't my research on the Bell Curve get me that spot at Tuskagee College?
No, "Politically Incorrect" is supposed to be something that will get you murdered murdered in politics.
Isn't that overkill?
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
Students have ALWAYS used the latest HOT topic because it's all over the news and teachers want students to pick something. Unfortunately students beat these subjects to death, eventually these will fall by the wayside of war on drugs and abortion like in the 90s.
Some liberals are anti-intellectuals, for example:
Crystal energy nutters, "psychics", indigo children, rebellious dabblers with various exotic non-orthodox religions and philosophies, homeopaths, and post-modernists. Especially the post-modernists.
From the worst offenders you'll hear fine things such as "it's just a THEORY and that's just your BELIEF", "doctors are stupid", "I believe humans were a product of deliberate genetic modification by aliens", "Newton's Laws of Mechanics is a rape manual", "all viewpoints are equally valid".
But God help [sic] the poor judge who finds himself faced with a project proving that all the dinosaurs were wiped out in a flood 6,000 years ago. Many years ago my project was next to a project proving the power of pyramids to do all sorts of stuff, and when the project didn't win (duh) the parent disrupted the awards ceremony complaining about bias and conspiracies.
I expect no better from the ID supporters, who have no conception of what science really is, so there's no logical basis on which to argue with them. It becomes a shouting match very quickly because there's no other place for it to go.
Once I'd actually been accepted by Cambridge, I never went near chemistry again. (The joke was that after all that I passed the exam with enough points not to proceed to oral interview, so I never got to talk to anyone about my "research project". And, anyway, when I got there I found that what I was doing was just low grade industrial stuff, and real research wasn't anything like that at all.)
Pining for the fjords
Point. But that doesn't make it right. Science, and indeed any research, should never in my opinion depend on cashflow. As far as I'm concerned it colors the research.
Right? Why? Does not the people with the money have a right to decide what to fund? Or do you suggest any project, whether promising or utterly ridiculous, get funded equally?
And scientists are people. We want money and job security. We want health insurance, we want clothes for our kids, and we want a secure retirement, just like everybody else. If you want science to be some kind of monk-like self-depriving calling rather than a fun, absorbing, fascinating - but still - career, then you're looking at losing well over 99% of all practicioners in the field.
As for stretching your focus to get funding - if you lie to do your job then your job will become a lie.
It's not about lying - I am suggesting no such thing. What I am saying is that there are many ways of approaching any given project, and people will select the approach that lets them do what they want, even if that might not be the best way to actually approach it.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I'm sick and tired of hearing so called intellectual types summarily dismissing Intelligent Design and Creationism without having any idea of what they are talking about. Belief (not scientific fact) in Intelligent Design is simply the belief that, that which exists is too complex to have occurred by chance alone and that an intelligent creator (God or god depending on ones belief system) created all that exists and existence itself, through an unspecified means. Strict Creationists believe that all was created by God just a few thousand years ago and no biological change can occur through natural selection to change ones species.
Intelligent Design does not dictate a specific creator, year of creation, nor does it dismiss evolution. Those who believe in intelligent design do not dismiss current scientific evidence they just believe that current scientific models do not completely explain biology, astronomy, geology, etc... (basically all theories that explain how things came to be). Current scientific models are embraced as possibilities of the method in which all came to be but not "how" it came to be.
Modern Creationists believe that much of scientific theory to explain existence is directly opposed to their ideas. Creationists do not trust scientific models and theories because they are in direct opposition to their belief that some (God or god) created all that exists as dictated in their religious creation story.
Now, that said, I will give you some slack because in recent months Creationists have been raising the banner of Intelligent Design as a means of moving sentiment farther towards their views of creationism through a more palatable means. Pushing Intelligent Design gives them the ability to introduce God (not god as these creationists are pushing the Christian God) at public schools and forums.
Ahh this seems to be the topic of the week on my patch of dirt. I live in a city where half the workforce is government, and the other half is retail. It's the capital of ass kissing, and I'm the reverend of bad attitude! Why is it that people will bend over backwards for a measly dollar ? Why is it that irate people always end up getting what they want ? Yes, sometimes companies (and their minimum wage reintegration-subsidy employees) make mistakes, and there is a need to fix those mistakes, but more often than not people will just make a scene out of sheer greed. Then you hear about these "amazing scientific breakthroughs" that never amount to anything useful, they just make press releases to secure more funding. This society is trapped in a child mind and these hungry starving attention-whoring "children" far outnumber the few people who actually have the skills and determination to make a positive difference.
Sensationalism will be the death of our world.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Right? Why? Does not the people with the money have a right to decide what to fund? Or do you suggest any project, whether promising or utterly ridiculous, get funded equally?
Remind me again - how many years ago was it "ridiculous" that a man could not fly like a bird? Or reach the moon? Hmmm? Often times some of the most ridiculous areas of research deliver some absolutely stunning results. To not support those would be turning our back on history and closing off whole avenues of discovery.
It's not about lying - I am suggesting no such thing. What I am saying is that there are many ways of approaching any given project, and people will select the approach that lets them do what they want, even if that might not be the best way to actually approach it.
Fair enough. I'm just of the opinion that one shouldn't have to misrepresent anything they do. And yes I know that it is sometimes necessary to buy that box of $1000 "chairs" and return them to fund the real $1000 piece of equipment but it should be the exception. Instead we seem to be moving to where it has become the rule.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
If I may take an unpopular viewpoint, I think this is precisely one of the reasons that some people do not trust research about today's popular issues (global warming, for example). As you and other posters have pointed out, if you want grants, you have to be in the trendy research of the day. What better way for your research to remain trendy than to market your results as important to the future of the world? (I am not claiming that any wrongdoing is going on, only that there is an incentive for wrongdoing.)
I hope this does not turn into a global warming debate; that is not the objective of this post. I just want to point out that, while perhaps it is necessary, this need to market science is hurting its reputation, correctly or incorrectly. When scientists become salesmen and politicians, they are no longer trustworthy. Unfortunately, I am afraid that as long as research funding is provided by the government, politics will be an inexorable part of science.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think you have reached new levels of coolness by learning how to hyperlink words within your post. What makes you even cooler is that you love Google. Personally I think you are a real fuckface twat but that's just me. Post on asswipe, post on.
Remind me again - how many years ago was it "ridiculous" that a man could not fly like a bird? Or reach the moon? Hmmm? Often times some of the most ridiculous areas of research deliver some absolutely stunning results. To not support those would be turning our back on history and closing off whole avenues of discovery.
We have to choose. Our resources are very finite. If a thousand projects want time on a large-scale particle collider, and there's only room for ten, we have to choose which ten. We do not have the resources to build a hundred new CERN:s. The same goes for research in general - and society in general, which always has been about managing scarcity in one way or another. It's about resource allocation; money is just a convenient unit for keeping track.
Yes it would be nice if anybody could do anything they wanted with no limits - including having multiple duplicate earths; what do you suggest if one group wants to dig up an archeological find to study it, and another wants to keep it in wait for better analysis methods, for example? One group will have to give up their proposal, and someone will have to make the decision.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Looks like Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has a secret love child. Checkout the picture of Sergio-Francis Zenisek midway down the article.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
And scientists are people. We want money and job security. We want health insurance, we want clothes for our kids, and we want a secure retirement, just like everybody else. If you want science to be some kind of monk-like self-depriving calling rather than a fun, absorbing, fascinating - but still - career, then you're looking at losing well over 99% of all practicioners in the field.
It occurs to me that I missed addressing this. And that you are correct. The problem comes when people enter science fields BECAUSE of the money not because they love science. At least from my point of view.
I can't deny that support of families, health, and the nicer things in life should not be overlooked. In fact lack of those things is part of the problem with the field of science today. If a researcher didn't have to worry about those things then they would be free to focus on their research. That's where I'm going with this.
Unfortunately the only solutions to this that I can see end up either tainting the reseach or creating a caste system of scientists vs. non-scientists. Neither is desireable. Do you have a solution in mind?
"Bah!" - Dogbert
We have to choose. Our resources are very finite. If a thousand projects want time on a large-scale particle collider, and there's only room for ten, we have to choose which ten. We do not have the resources to build a hundred new CERN:s. The same goes for research in general - and society in general, which always has been about managing scarcity in one way or another. It's about resource allocation; money is just a convenient unit for keeping track.
I won't debate this but I will say that this alone is yet another good reason for getting off this rock and finding a good way to produce materials and complex systems without serious cost or effort. We need more space and we need more stuff - the universe is full of both. Maybe eventually nanotech or something similar will solve this but I don't see it happening in my lifetme.
Yes it would be nice if anybody could do anything they wanted with no limits - including having multiple duplicate earths; what do you suggest if one group wants to dig up an archeological find to study it, and another wants to keep it in wait for better analysis methods, for example? One group will have to give up their proposal, and someone will have to make the decision.
I never said choice wasn't necessary I just said it shouldn't be related to money in any way.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Moderators - remember there's no such thing as +1, has a low ID.
1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
And my point (which you seem to have missed) is that fields are about themselves, but you've got to have the "PR" too, unless you can do good science while starving.
Thanks.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
If a thousand projects want time on a large-scale particle collider, and there's only room for ten, we have to choose which ten.
Totally. Every facility where I work (except for a tiny 40-year-old one that's used for practice by undergrads) has anywhere from 3 to 15 different projects wanting each available second of time. People have to propose a year ahead. If they get time, then something breaks or conditions aren't good enough for their research, they're SOL and have to propose again in another 6 months.
On the flip side, there are the grizzled old professors who, when conditions aren't absolutely perfect say things like "F--- this, I've taken enough bad data in my career and don't need any more!" and go home. Which is delightful to see, on one hand... but if they do this halfway into 12 hours of allocated time, there are probably people who'd cream their jeans at the mere idea of getting those 6 leftover hours.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
It occurs to me that I missed addressing this. And that you are correct. The problem comes when people enter science fields BECAUSE of the money not because they love science.
Enter science fields... because of... the money??!?!
HAhahahahahaa!
That was a good one.
If you're smart enough to work professionally in the sciences, the odds are very good that you could make 2-4 times as much money in some other field. I know I have.
But... I was there "for the money." And I agree with you that's not a good place to be. I'm definitely not in science "for the money."
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I wish this wasn't mostly true, but most of society favors flamboyance over precision.
*This method has only been validated at the local science fair level. Results at the State level may vary if the project is subjected to a more strenuous and informed judging process.
As an example, some of the most highly educated, publicly visible, and famous scientists are... astronauts. If their pay scale still goes from GS-11 to GS-14 like it did in the '90s, that means they base pay "starts" (usually after multiple degrees and considerable work in some other field) around $52K, and "top out" under $100K.
NASA had a page up years ago that basically said, "If you want to make money, don't be an astronaut, go into the private sector."
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I guess "what is the effect of different light sources on plants" just isn't hip anymore huh?
Experience indicates that often the flair of a presentation is more prize-fetching than its substance. Often, the bar is set to standards like "well, they're not professionals so we should cut them some slack."
WRT my kids, their presentations have been along the lines of stuff that is environmentally interesting or is "future science." I'm very proud of the efforts they've made, but honestly, they didn't have a chance against the glitz-covered crowd.
So, really, what becomes important (not winning) is what the student learned about the scientific process. That's the part on which we've focused.
A Passionate Independent Musician
Agreed, but this still smells of encouraging them to "game the game" from a tender age. Wouldn't it be better to leave that till they're old and cynical (or postgraduates, at least).
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
In my family I was the first to ever go to college (since then, one other has, too).
For all of us - including me - it was a challenge to convince us to actually pay attention, let alone care about whether or not we went to college.
And, despite my best efforts, both my kids are the same way.
Clear, Dark Skies
Kiddo, I've worked on a project with 75 million lines of source. If the code is structured properly you *should* be able to figure out what any arbitrary line of code does.
Even if you weren't the guy who wrote it.
Now, that said, we don't know the details. If the listing was assembler, for example, all bets are off. If the kid couldn't see what context the particular line of code was in, then he didn't have enough information.
But a lot of kids write spaghetti code, too.
Clear, Dark Skies
I'm not so sure that money is the prime motivator for more than a handfull of researchers. Money can be a powerful motivator for a department or university but very few people who have the ability to drive cutting edge research are going to be motivated enough by money to devote their lives to a topic. Btw I got lucky on the buzzword factor. I studied Buckminsterfullerenes (bucky balls) as a junior in high school, by the time I was sending out college applications the Nobel prize had been awarded for the discovery of bucky balls so they were in the science news and therefore an obscure molecule became worthy of placing on my list of accomplishments rather than simply "chemistry research" =)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Fucking idiot.
The whole point of intelligent design is that you can't prove that we weren't designed, so it is not falsifiable. That's the major point of contention between scientists and ID proponents. So there's really nothing you can do to "refute" ID.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This view of the scientist as a kind of secular monk, dedicated to his research and nothing else, doesn't work very well in practice. Speaking as a scientist and a workaholic, I am strongly inclined to say that it is nonsense.
The reality is that most science needs resources, i.e. money, space, and equipment. To get that, a scientist needs to be able to prepare his case and defend it; nobody is going to give him or her these without a good reason. After all, there are other people asking for the money as well. Running a laboratory takes scientific as well as communicative ability, and at least some talent for administration as well.
Doing good science often requires the ability to communicate with people outside your own field; an astronomer might really, really need the ability have a meaningful conversation with a biologist or an engineer.
This is pretty much the same for scientists in an academic or an industrial environment. The industrial R&D environment generally has more money and (therefore) less backbiting, but also less scientific freedom.
Besides, many scientists want something to be done with their research. What is the point of you knowing, if everybody else remains ignorant, and worse, makes decisions based on flawed assumptions? Scientists want their publications, read, cited, and used. For this to be the case, the research has to be relevant, and it has to be made understandable. Fame is a sign of success -- it means that people know your work; and the probable (but not necessary) implication of that is that it was correct and useful.
Besides, if you want to be rich, you should study law or economics, not science. What scientists hope to get from their careers is a claim to immortal fame, however modest. And perhaps the rather exaggerated respect many people show to someone with a scientific degree.
That said, I hope that the kids who go to science fairs with stem cell research projects do not pick up a bad habit. When scientific subjects really become fashionable, that often means that --- in a scientific sense --- it is too late to jump on the bandwaggon. Nobody wants to read a "me too!" paper. The science that makes good careers is the kind of science most people outside an university have not yet heard of.
A marijuana themed project from someone in Santa Cruz!? I'm shocked! What's next? A project on surfing? [/sarcasm]
Santa Cruz - Inventor of "the vapid stare"
Buzzword-compliance probably won't get them beyond a certain point career-wise
You mean like upper management? There are plenty of PHBs around.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
Such was not the case only a few decades ago. What you witness today is the symbiosis between Market and Science. Their is no defense for it, nor practical excuse of it. And now we bear testament to science fair competitors enlisting a Jerry Springer type enterprise of lure and appeal? See a trend here? This is why you need substantial state or federal funding to offest this decaying influence from Industry (which is pandemic in our Universities).
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Since 1963 (Penzias & Wilson) certainly; probably rather earlier for all but the most determined skeptics.
What exactly happened at the Big Bang is unknown. But it is a scientific fact that the universe was once small, dense, and hot, and subsequently expanded and cooled.
Well, yes. At least ignorant of science.
Examine your own argument closely: "1. The universe has become more ordered over time. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the universe can only become more disordered. 3. Therefore the Big Bang is wrong." But that's not a conclusion that can be logically derived from your two premises. The correct conclusion is "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong", since if the 2LoT says that things ought to be come more disordered, yet we empirically observe that they don't, then the law flawed: it doesn't agree with reality.
Your objection doesn't really have anything to do with the Big Bang, in fact. You claim that the universe has become "more ordered", presumably because "ordered" planets, stars, and galaxies arise from "disordered" clouds of gas in the Big Bang theory. However, this is not just some implication of the Big Bang theory, it is an observed fact: we directly see stars in all stages of their formation from clouds of gas. This is true regardless of whether there was some "cosmic explosion" (an inapt description) that created the clouds of gas in the first place. Once again, you are really arguing against the 2LoT itself, not against the Big Bang.
However, the 2LoT isn't wrong, either. The real flaw in your argument is that premise 2 does not characterize the 2LoT. You might say that the formation of planets, stars, galaxies, etc. from clouds of gas is a movement from "disorder" to "order". But the 2LoT does not say that the universe must proceed from "order" to "disorder"; it doesn't say anything about order, period. What it talks about is entropy: the entropy of the universe must increase (or rather, statistically, it oughtn't decrease).
The problem is simply that what we informally perceive as "increasing order" does not always physically correspond to "decreasing entropy". As it turns out, the formation of planets, stars, galaxies, etc. via gravitational collapse increases entropy, and so is completely compatible with the 2LoT. In fact, it is predicted by the 2LoT, due to the negative heat capacity of gravitating systems (look up the Rayleigh-Jeans instability, and see this Usenet post and this one).
Your argument is analogous to the flawed "evolution says that complex life comes from simple and is impossible by thermodynamics" argument. We see entire multicellular organisms growing from single fertilized cells all the time; if thermodynamics said that the evolution of new species is impossible, then so would be the ordinary birth and growth of living things, and therefore (if thermodynamics actually said that) thermodynamics itself would be wrong. But it doesn't say that, and "order can come from disorder" all while entropy increases — whether it's life or stars.
You cannot simply handwave and say "this `ordering' process decreases entropy"; you have to actually sit down and calcul
Troll?
Sheesh, have all the
Trolling is a art,
Many students are capable of and willing to contribute to research, but only a small fraction of them get the opportunity. It would be really great if we could better reach such students in their high school years.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
The only group of people that I can think of that I'd classify as both liberal and anti-intellectual would be the Postmodernists. Fortunately I think they're largely dying off withing liberal groups, which is good because PoMo was intellectually bankrupt (big surprise there: an intellectually bankrupt anti-intellectual movement!) to begin with. Unfortunately PoMo's popularity is surging within the neoconservatism movement. But if it's postmodernists that you'd like to see gone from our colleges, that'd be fine with me.
IMO, the term "postmodernist" can be replaced with "wanker" with no loss of descriptive information, no matter what the context is. Hell since PoMo's just mental masturbation "wanker" is the superior term!
How is Intelligent Design "politically incorrect"? It's fake science,
That is not really true. One can search for "intelligent" patterns in DNA/RNA similar to SETI looking for intelligent signals.
Now, some SETI fans will tell you that it is the nature of the signal, not the content that sets it apart, but with all the false positives of the past, such as pulsar patterns, I think the content of the message also has to pass muster to be declared "intelligent", or at least a good candidate.
If we get into the content, the DNA pattern searches and SETI content analysis is really the same kind of project.
True, DNA pattern analysis may likely turn up nothing, but it could be the same with SETI also. Being improbable does NOT make an exploration endeavor non-science.
Table-ized A.I.
"You are right on all your points ... long as money is a motivator."
A plaint heard often. Do you have a remedy that ensures that loafers and sponges do not flourish? That is the problem with the more eutopian ideas that don't involve direct reward.
"I only hope I live to see a day where the world is not focused on money and conflict."
The world is not focused on money and conflict. Those are only two things. There are many other things "it" is focused on as well; like art, communication, play, medicine, peace, music, etc. That is, assuming that "the world" really means humans.
If by "the world" you mean something else, you lost me.
Hee hee, and that type of good rant is why I Friended you wayyyy back.
Trolling is a art,
If you disagree, I invite you to present the evidence against the Big Bang having happened, as well as the list of people who "refuse to look at" that evidence.
Time to help my daughter with her Astrology project.
Table-ized A.I.
You should read this story from the Chicago Sun-Times. A science fair student wanting to do a project based on sugar, brought in a bag of sugar to school. While in a washroom, he joked to some other kids that it was Cocaine. After a custodian at the school heard about this, the police were called and the student was arrested.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Evil is very easily defined according to secular concepts - wilful maliciousness, or acting to harm another. There is no need to think that all morality comes from what your priest tells you. Morality doesn't require religion at all, and most concepts of fairness etc. are learnt by children BEFORE they learn any religion.
If you truly need to look at how secularists and non-religious people maintain a level of morality, then please just go to a site by secular humanists and look for their morality section. I'll give you a hint: most of it comes down to The Golden Rule, ie. the ethic of reciprocity.
(Funnily enough, the most common formulation of the Golden Rule, which has been found in philosophical writings since before the formation of Judeo-Christian religion, is from the Christian Bible: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you).
My impression is that the term "politically incorrect" originated in academia in the late '80s as a humorous term in informal discussions among liberals to refer to wryly refer to deviations from their own subculture's dogma. The original tongue-in-cheek term was "politically correct", which was likely first used in a serious sense much earlier by doctrinare Marxists.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Sadly, it happens all too often that a science fair is judged by people who are completely out of their depth in any discussion of science.
e.g., Public School teachers.
Carter, like Neville Chamberlain before him, isn't a traitor: he's just incompetent. Whenever he has dealth with anyone operating from truly evil motives, he has failed to recognize that fact, and act accordingly. Nice guy, but definitely not the man you want in charge when a pack of maniacs commit an act of war by invading an embassy.
I refer to Carter as a traitorous rat not because of his complete failure to exercise a swift and decisive response in the hostage affair (this only serves as an excellent example of his complete incompetency), but for his behaviour in travelling outside the country to bad-mouth our citizens, government, and policies, as well as his habit of making cozy with leaders of anti-American nations. A local radio commentator by the name of Neal Boortz (http://www.boortz.com/) likes to say that Carter never met a dictator he didn't like, seems very true in my recollection. Wow, this is wayyyyyyyyyyy off-topic, let me see if I can draw it back together:
For a former Governor of this State who later became President, when you consider Carter's complete lack of intellectual integrity and Georgia's low educational rankings/standards, it is of no surprise to me that there are people out there who consider themselves educated (or ARE educated, like the Cobb Co. people who demanded the "Evolution is not real science" stickers in text-books) yet still equate I.D. with actual science, as these people wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass; I should know - as an I.T. professional, I deal with them on a regular basis, and am amazed by how rapidly people's eyes glaze over the minute you say something they don't understand, like "quantum physics" or something simple like "there's something borked on the network, so don't open attachments in your email or you might get a virus". This is also well indicated in a state where one of the most popular colleges to attend's biggest draw is the popularity and record of its football team, not the quality of its education (this would be U.G.A.).
Let us face facts: As long as the Homecoming football game draws more interest than the science fair, we're doomed to this kind of intellectual mediocrity, where intelligent students have to attend private schools so as not to be bored off their rockers, and the smart-kids who don't have that option are usually outcast because others cover their intellectual inferiority in a show of name-calling and brute-force when they can get away with it; While the football player who might one day buy himself an MBA while bored in the off-season is idolized and paid ridiculous sums of money because he had genetic advantages in the physical department and was hard-headed enough to do nigh nothing else but work out throughout school. I believe in the right to freedom of religious beliefs, and freedom from a state or federal religion, freedom to spend your dollar however you want (so long as it doesn't hurt someone else), freedom to watch sports if you want... But for the love of... Rational thought, intelligent design does not belong in a classroom, unless you are in a private relgious school! Then again, for my money, my children don't belong in and will not attend public schools, which really ought to be privatized across the entire nation, IMO, with minimum standards, but my child's education should not be put in the hands of the government.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
As the comic philosopher George Carlin noted:
"Nail together two things that have never been nailed together before, and some shmuck will buy it." He made this comment in reference to people's tastes in porn, but this isn't fundamentally much different.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Crystal energy nutters, "psychics", indigo children, rebellious dabblers with various exotic non-orthodox religions and philosophies, homeopaths, and post-modernists. Especially the post-modernists.
From the worst offenders you'll hear fine things such as "it's just a THEORY and that's just your BELIEF", "doctors are stupid", "I believe humans were a product of deliberate genetic modification by aliens", "Newton's Laws of Mechanics is a rape manual", "all viewpoints are equally valid".
EXACTLY. I'm sorry, but from my experience, liberals muddy-headed with some desire to see all things or people equally so they don't offend or exclude anyone. While I believe that trying to include everyone is noble, it often blinds them to the reality of the world and so they blind themselves to obvious truths in order to continue supporting their world-view. Some famous examples are notable throughout Hollywood. You don't have to be stupid to be anti-intellectual, just willing to disregard coherent, rational thought and logic. I recall clearly a High-school teacher who was a hippie if ever there was one telling us to encourage our parents to vote for Bill Clinton, since he was the champion of the common-man and would tax the rich and elevate the poor so everyone would be an equal and have everything he or she would ever need provided to them by the government. She later told me that she felt that the laptop I used to take notes on was an unfair advantage to the other students, since I could take better notes than they could because they didn't have laptops, and besides, it might make the poorer kids feel inferior (I got better grades than most in that class anyway, even when I didn't take notes, which, of course, blew the grade curve). I have dysgraphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia), and my family spent a large amount on money on a laptop for me (this was 1991) to use so I would be able to take decent notes, as my spelling and typing skills are fine, but I cannot write legibly to this day, and have a certificate to that effect, yet she told me I'd "just have to make do with the tools God gave you." I was in a private school the following year, but this was supposed to have been the highest ranked public school in the State at the time. It just goes to show that people who can seem reasonably intelligent may not be capable of executing logic in all areas, and may often-times find themselves and their thoughts clouded by emotion left over from past disappointments.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Actually, the problem with intelligent design is that it is unable to be disproven, and so it can never be anything other than junk "science".
A lot of scientific ideas cannot be disproven. Examples include other intelligence in the universe and other universes. Just because we can't find/detect any does not mean they don't exist. ID belongs in the class of ideas that are potentially true-ifiable, but not necessarily falsifiable. (See my comparison to SETI around here somewhere.)
Table-ized A.I.
I'm sorry, I did not mean to exclude the current administration from the anti-intellectual crowd, as the Prez' push for religous values is indicative of the same thing. However, it has not been my experience (living in a very liberal state marked by the second or third lowest education scores in the country for years now) that the average conservative here seems to be more rational. As an ecology student and naturalist, I do not believe that anything can ever be truly 100% and there are exceptions to EVERY rule. That said, I was raised by a pair of semi-conservative republicans (one studying to be a methodist minister right now, the other a non-practicing Jew), and I came out a "little-l" libertarian myself; I don't always agree with my rents, but they are rather moderate, and I often find myself in agreement with them, so perhaps I too am biased by my upbringing. I'm nominally pro-choice, in that I'm aware that countries with few to no restrictions on abortion and extensive public health, family planning and contraception campaigns have the lowest abortion rates per capita (Japan), and that likewise, nations that absolutely prohibit abortion have the highest number of abortions per capita (Russia). I do not, however, encourage abortion and am personally very partial to the belief that you have no idea what life you might be snuffing out. I've also known wonderful people who would never have been born if their parents hadn't had an abortion first. I choose the moderate position because I feel it fits my ideals best, not because I think a woman has an unlimited right to her body, because I don't. Not when it affects the life of another anyway, unless it's a case of rape or endagerment to the life of the mother. I don't advocate bringing babies into the world under terrible or undesirable circumstances either, but for all that so many very outspoken liberal girlfriends - or friends of girlfriends - in the past have decried to me "it's my body, and my choice to do what I want with it", I feel this is true only up to a point, where you become responsible for the consequences of your actions: You had a choice, and knowing the risk, with or without birth-control (which I am very much in favor of), you chose to have sex, and babies are often the result of intercourse. I go by a "Do what you want so long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process" kind of golden rule, personally, but I am rational enough to recognize that *I* don't have to have an abortion, and that if the freedom to do so will lower the occurance, then let it be. Same way with drug use and laws. Contrast with the raving lunatics on either side of the aisle (I am NOT for even moderate bans or oversights of birth-control, abortion or drugs), but my experience here in Ga. has been that the nuts on both sides of the argument tend to be die-hard liberals, both religious and and non-religious. Perhaps Georgia is a unique case for being a very religious state in the "Bible-belt" while consistantly electing Democratic nominees, but the academic and intellectual community here with any credibility seems to be either unaffiliated moderates, non-politcals, libertarians, or republicans. Although, I must again admit I am colored by my experience and perception of liberal values, ideals, and actions, which I often find to be wrong-headed and totally lacking in intellectual integrity. I'm not really claiming that republicans or conservatives who do, have, or will hold public office possess any of these values either, as they all lie, cheat, and steal. Perhaps it was just an unconcious snipe at a former girlfriend who was very liberal and the child of two extremely liberal former (and present-day) hippies from the UK who teach at major local university and my perception of their ideals as being poorly conceived at best and the fact that they encourage these ideals in their students while supposedly providing them with an education. My experience with the academic community is consistant with your implciation of it being rather liberal, and I call it anti-intellectual bec
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
The thing that people should be worried about is whether or not they learn something. That matters a lot more than what school you go to.
I'm sure that nobody in high school will believe this, but what college you go to will affect your life post-gradutation in a very small handful of ways:
(1) How frequently you get requests for money from your alma mater.
(2) How easy it is to get your first job. Whether or not you're obviously competent matters a lot more. It's also only the first job -- nobody, thirty years down the road, is going to give a damn what school you went to.
(3) You may run into other people at college that will give you some immediate contacts when starting out.
(4) If you're interested in a PhD, it can be somewhat easier to go to a well-known research school, simply because there will be more research money available there and thus easier to get into a research project and get research experience.
There may be some indirect psychological benefits. Maybe someone at an expensive school feels really driven to do their best and learns more than someone else...but the name of the professor reading off the lecture notes just doesn't matter that much.
Far more important is what you learn yourself. If you like history, read history -- who needs a professor to assign it to you? If you like computer science, there are more excellent works on the Internet than you can *possibly* read. It's like being in a candy store. Just grab something and start reading -- every book you read puts you one book more knowledgeable than you otherwise would be, and the more you know about a subject, the more entertaining it is to learn more about it.
The only reason the professor is there is to force you to a schedule, so that you don't wind up playing video games or drinking or whatever all the time, and there's little enough that they can do in this direction.
Besides, learning something on someone else's schedule sucks. I remember getting some dusty Steinback books from my dad's shelves and reading them. I loved them. In high school, I had to read Grapes of Wrath, which is probably considered Steinback's best work. I hated it. Why? I didn't have to read the earlier books on a schedule. I was doing it because I wanted to read them. I think a lot of people wind up learning to *dislike* learning because they are learning in an environment that makes them unhappy, which is really sad.
What college will do is give you a certificate that enforces some very minimal bound on your ability to stick to a subject. It doesn't take brilliance to get a college degree, and you can get a degree without learning that much. That doesn't mean that I think that you should *skip* a college degree, but going to Podunk U just plain does not mean that you can't be one of the most knowledgeable in your field.
Frankly, I'd say the most useful external thing that you can get to help you along is someone to encourage you. Parents to be interested in what you're doing, or friends that you can impress. Maybe a significant other. It's just someone to give you a little positive feedback, which helps a bundle.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
... students are turning to trendy topics like stem-cell research and intelligent design to get a leg up
Funny, I always thought religion was just as popular as usual, and only the actual term "intelligent design" was popular here.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Politically incorrect would be studying the bell curve or why women have smaller brains or something. I think someone has the term confused.
[FromTheMorning]
"Of a 2002 project involving marijuana muffins for pain management...
"It got all this attention, but it was very average at best." '"
The project or the pot?
A friend of mine was telling me about something that took up one of his classes in grad school and that is basically using "buzz" words to hype up what you are working on. Since he is a material engineer a good example of this is "Titanium". A lot of products that come out with "Titanium" on the label really just have a titanium oxide coating or something along those lines but it can sell more because of that magical word.
this is the most important sig ever! In your face 446154!
Buzzwords mean everything in science. If I hear "nano" one more time I am going to puke (and "nano" is my own darned field!). You are also wrong about corporations. They are less like to give into BS buzzwords and actually ask the most important question - what you you do for us?
"/. freethinkers"
Oxymoron?
-50, here I come.
You're doing the strawman thing again.
These kids are really smart. But they are not smart enough that they are really doing original research at age 17. Instead, they are being dragged around by graduate students and post-docs, given orders as to what to do, and if they are really good, may actually produce enough grunt labor for the grad student that the grad student feels he or she may have gotten a good deal. Most of the time this is not the case, and these high school kids require more input than they provide in output. This is true for undergraduates coming through on one-semester research projects, too. At least in my experience, any student who is in the lab for less than 4 months full-time or a school-year half time is a burden on the research, not a bonus. Even then, it takes nearly double that time for the student to contribute much beyond grunt work.
Whether we like it or not, doing real research is hard and takes a lot of knowledge and preparation. The giants whose shoulders we must climb are very tall and growing by the minute. These 17 year olds are not there. Hell, I am 31 and not there.
Perhaps the head article is right about one thing, though - scientific "merit" too often depends on which research group you hitch yourself to rather than the quality of your own thinking.
From the article: "Separate science fairs are cropping up to cater to the growing number of home schoolers -- about 7% more each year between 1999 and 2003, according to the most recent figures from the Department of Education -- and some entrants have gone on to regional and national fairs. Home schoolers, often from religious backgrounds, have sometimes undertaken projects dealing with intelligent design, the theory that some natural processes are so complex they must have stemmed from an intelligent or supernatural cause. Next month, a home-school science fair in Flagstaff, Ariz., will feature a lecture on creationism. In central California, creationism advocate Russ McGlenn is visiting home-schoolers and offering science-fair-project ideas like "Why do we have pimples? Did God goof?" Jennifer Slattery hopes the judges don't bully her daughter Ashley during next month's Northwest Louisiana Regional Science Fair. The 8-year-old will show an antievolution project that won her a prize at a local home-school science fair. She dripped water on rocks for two months to see how fast they eroded. Based on the speed, she says she found support for the idea that the Earth isn't 4.5 billion years old, as most scientists hold, but 6,000 years old, as young-Earth creationists believe."
I live in a city where half the workforce is government, and the other half is retail. It's the capital of ass kissing, and I'm the reverend of bad attitude! Why is it that people will bend over backwards for a measly dollar ?
Because in cities like that, all the people with creativity, inspiration, originality, self-identity and individuality stick out whenever they go for an interview, fail to get a job and end up moving elsewhere. Then you end up with a city that turns ass-kissing into an olympic competition, with working in "head-office" becomes the dream of all dreams. The only creativity in a place like that will be the artists in the newly regenerated "artistic quarter" of the city. Everything and everyone neatly arranged, organised, classified, filed and indexed.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Which do you think is more treasonous, criticism of the government and it's policies, or meeting with and negotiating with evil dictators?
Play Command HQ online
The dichotomy (if any exists), is thus:
* Lifeforms change over time to adapt to changing conditions.
* Lifeforms never change.
Note that this doesn't even begin to address how life came into being in the first place, nor even exactly what life is!
The researchers who study where life came from do not overlap with those who study the origin of species. This is because we have little to no evidence to make any claims to what happened before the fossil record, and we little left of the earth's surface that hasn't been turned into magma in the last half billion years. So the only we can posit how life might have began is to try different biochemical theories and try to duplicate it ourselves... then test to see if there any indicators that the earth could have those same conditions long ago.
So either we came from goo...
Or maybe life came from elsewhere in the solar system.
Or maybe the Christian god did it.
Or maybe we are all living in a computer simulation and the fauna and flora are the creation of a deranged ex-Disney employee.
This is a completely divorced concept from evolution.
I mean we could have the Genesis creation scenario, where all the animals appeared at once, and a false fossil record created... AND STILL HAVE EVOLUTION. You know, maybe animals evolved anyway and in 50,000 years we'll have slightly different or new furry friends.
Maybe there is a god. And evolution. Or maybe there isn't, and there's evolution.
Or maybe there is no god or evolution, and animals just spawn like in an MMORPG.
*shrugs*
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
And in any science, nothing is ever a done deal.
There are always so many facets of each theory to find support for, and more consequences that lead to more theories and questions and derivative truths that must be verified... and if stuff doesn't quite make sense, well then you need to go back and see what assumptions were wrong and fill in the gaps.
I mean, that IS the scientific process! There's always debate and uncertainty. That's not an indication of a wrong avenue of investigation, rather it's a good sign of a worthy field of inquiry.
Of course, we know enough to posit we're in the right ballpark with evolution. There are a lot of basic prinicples we know to be verifiable, but there's still a lot of questions. But we find places to hang the evidence on the framework and the picture is getting sharper all the time. And the theories have tangible derivative ideas that help us in biochemstiry and agriculture and environmental studies, so we have to be on the right track.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
So if a topic is controvercial, it will get studied? So when people protest stem cell research, they are in fact helping to fund it?
when they fail to understand what 2LOT really means, or misinterpret the terms used in its definition.
:-/
Like what exactly is entropy, and what exactly is heat? About defining the boundary of a system. About local vs. global, pinning down the boundary of system, unseen or assumed sources and sinks of energy, even not accounting for the radiation of heat away into the ever-increasing space of the universe (ultimate limitless heat sink).
It could clear things up for a lot of people and save millions upon millions of keystrokes in forum replies and usenet posts.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
So what you're saying is the people who hand out grant money or finance research aren't able to do their job (finding people who work on things) at all... Super.
Remind me why they are allowed to continue doing it?
Investment and reward is supposed to promote what exactly?
so thats why my alarm clock for the deaf got a d (the clapper taped to an alarm clock)
Some kids do good projects, and some do bad projects. Some do boring but useful work and some work on the latest buzzword science.
The judges have a whole bell curve to choose from, and they choose the buzzword projects instead of the worthy but less flashy projects. The fault is with the judges, not the children.
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
Well there is one science fair coming up in March, and I'm planning to do one... My topic is about research on 'Quantum entanglement'. I already wrote more than 20 pages or 5,000 words essay. I don't really care what other people think, as long as I win the award for my application to my boarding school....
While there have been quite a few negative comments regarding top science fair kids having an "in" with a university scientists or his/her graduate students, or kids "only doing it to get into a top college but being stock brokers later on," let's look at the other side of the coin here: promoting science literacy.
What better way for kids to learn about how science is done than by learning from real scienists? If some of them become Ph.D 5+ years down the road, great. Most won't, but does that really matter? What I think important is that these teens get a taste of how science works so they can become more informed consumers of scientific information. One science fair project is not going to bestow science literacy on these 16 and 17 year olds but it is a start--and a much neglected part in americas education programs IMHO.
If we had a highly science-literate population, would we really be having these intelligent design debates? I tend to doubt it. Furthermore science literacy is becoming more and more necessary just to be an informed voter, informed consumer, and all-around informed decision maker.
I spent all of those years as Anonymous Coward and all I got was this lousy number (204976).
It's the degree to which it's done.
This has always been true; the earliest scientists were working on changing lead to gold - alchemy - not because they had any belief that it could be done; but because that was how to get funding from the local king. Each king knew that if he could get 'the' discovery, he would then become richer than all the other kings, and could effectively buy the world.
Once they were on progress to alchemy, they did *other* stuff that showed generic progress in science, but always labeled it in terms of how that helped their country win what could be termed a 'gold race' -like our modern space race or arms race.
>> And geeks shouldn't have to know how to do anything but the Vulcan neck pinch.
Fixed.
SETI is not a scientific idea. Not in the same sense as ID claims to be.
SETI's program is just that - a search. In no way does it attempt to explain anything, or attempts to deduce something based on an assumption of existence of extraterrestrial life. In many ways, SETI is really a religion, it's only advantage being that unlike religion - and ID in particular, it has a well-defined and empirically meaningful notion of what it's looking for, and so a reasonable method of looking for it.
When a SETI proponent says he believes there is ET out there, he is making a statement of faith, not giving a scientific statement. There is nothing in this that is wrong or conflicts with the scientific method - until he does what ID does and say that the existence of the unfalsifiable thing is the reason for life, the universe or whatever.
Other universes, meanwhile, is hoped by its proponents to be a simple case of not-yet-falsifiable. Already, there are some ideas emerging of a way to differentiate the idea from the other interpretations, and the hope is that once these become rigorous and the funding appears, we would be able to confirm or finally deny things. Unlike in ID, where the idea is *specifically constructed* to be as vague as possible.
be true-ifiable. There's always the alternative explanation that any observations you make are just being faked by Prankster God(TM). Hence the whole "acceptance by repeated failure to falsify" thing.
Why not teach them to "game the game" when they are young if that is what they will have to do in their adult careers? Sooner or later they are going to have to make the transistion from child to adult. They might as well be prepared for all the unpleasentries of that transistion.
When I couldn't answer him (20,000 line+ source), he gave me straight 2's (highest being 6, lowest being 0), which knocked me out of competing at state.
If you did write the code, you should have been able to grok your location [within the source] and within a few steps point out where the line fit into the bigger picture.
Even if you didn't do that, you should have been able to describe it in a generic this-$LANGUAGE-function-does-$ACTION. It sounds like you didn't do that either, so he probably concluded you didn't write and/or didn't understand the code, hence the low scores.
Not flaming, btw - just trying to shed a little light on the judge's [likely] thought process.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
That is probably the best phrased insight I have read on slashdot since I started coming here 5 years ago. Keep up the good work!
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
By that logic, why not teach them to cheat, lie and steal as soon as they're old enough to walk? After all, it will be useful to them in later life. Hang on, wasn't this story about scientists, not lawyers?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Why is that such a "problem"? Technology has greatly decreased the number of man-hours required to feed and house and clothe the human population. If that means some people get to loaf and sponge, that's a good thing. I'd rather just work with other people who are interested in doing things, and not have to put up with the Wally's of the world.
We don't *need* to accomplish about 90% of what we accomplish. And frankly if anything there aren't enough sponges and loafers in the world today.
All's true that is mistrusted
They certainly have a right to decide, though whether they like it or not their own (non-scientific) decisions decrease the scientific value of whatever they end up funding.
Maybe we should go back to the Gallileien or Newtonian model of funding science: either be well-off, or find a truly disinterested (and uninterested) patron.
All's true that is mistrusted
You can believe whatever you want, as long as ID people acknowledge that it is a belief and has no place being taught as science in the classroom. Science has no bearing on what people choose to believe - indeed, I often argue that accepting human evolution has no bearing on one's spirituality, even if we are "just primates." Science certainly cannot say that God didn't start the Big Bang or whatever, and many devout people choose to believe He did, which is fine. Just don't try to teach it to people as science, and IDers are doing just that, I'm afraid. I like science because it is uncertain, and we're always finding new things and I think it's exciting to be proven wrong, and therefore I personally don't find a reason to explain things with God because it's exciting to admit I don't know everything, because maybe someday we'll learn some more of what we don't know today. Science certainly would have no reason to be done if we did know everything, or hide behind the banner of God doing everything. Indeed, we would progress very little at all.
/To say that the Bible is a geology, biology, or physics textbook is to at the same time give it too much credit, and also far too little. People who believe this know little about science but even less about faith.
I am speaking from current experiences. I am a senior in high school, second year PSEO student (I take all my classes at a local college). My grades are not nearly as good as other students in the high school, because the college does not weight grades i.e. AP are worth 5, honors 4.5, etc. However, I have learned much, much more than students with higher GPA's than me. While AP Caluculus students are being tested on simple derivatives, I am currently working on multivariable gradients and directional derivatives in Calc 3. When matching wits with them, I have a greater understanding of the subjects, and can apply the theorems much better than AP students. I will be studying EE and CSE at a state university. My GPA isnt the greatest, but I have learned 3-4 times more than AP students, and more importantly I have grown and matured as a student.
If the kid wants to be a lawyer, then yes, he or she needs to learn how to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie. At least if he or she wants to be a reasonably successful lawyer.
That's a silly comment. I could be on the verge of the greatest discovery in history and would need funding to complete. I can't expect people to just hand over money, I would need to sell the idea. So, yes, money does enter into it and it must. Money isn't evil like you imply.