Omitted options notwithstanding, at least some of those people are utterly wrong, even if all of them can claim lots and lots of evidence, and most advocates of any of them seem only to consider people who agree with them to be objective.
I'm not sure how much room for objectivity there even is in the whole debate anymore. It's a religious issue; people have their views on it, most of them are transparently political ("global warming is false because if it is true we'll have to do stuff and that's not libertarian!" "global warming is true because conservatives think it's false!" etc). I really don't think anyone's going to change their mind even if someone hammers out The Truth Of The Matter - and there is one, whatever it is - and I really am convinced by now that most peoples' definition of "objective" on the issue is "this person's conclusions match my own."
I probably can't consider myself exempt from that either, which bothers me.
To play devil's advocate, do we question whether politicians tapped for technologically related positions have enough scientific savvy?
A lot of the discussion of this story's giving me the impression that people seem to hope that people tapped for technologically-related positions don't have enough scientific savvy, and instead want them to have little enough scientific savvy.
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and assume that someone who's spent the last four years as a director of a major national research lab with 4,000 employees just might have administrative experience.
But no, go ahead and kneejerk on the fact that he's a scientist and therefore unable to do anything else.
(Also, LOL at the idea that the academic world doesn't involve politics.)
What if "only" two U.S. tactical nukes were accidentally dropped while they were being flown over some American land during training exercises in the last 30 years?
Only dropping two of them by accident would be a fourfold improvement over the eight (that I know of) from 1966 and 1968.
A lot of medical jargon is (A) incredibly standardized and (B) designed to abbreviate.
Ever hear a doctor reciting a prescription over the phone to a pharmacist? They can compress a substantial amount of information about dosages, timing, when to take/avoid something, etc., into maybe a dozen characters. It'd be a bit moreso when you're talking about *removing someone's shoulder blade* (gah!), but if people on both sides know the jargon for anatomy and techniques, you'd probably be surprised at how much information you can condense without causing confusion.
The few telemarketers who are actually bound by the rules of the do not call registries might stop calling, but the majority who are loopholed in because they're within seventy-five degrees of separation of a company you once did business with will keep on calling.
Or political campaigners.
Or "surveys."
Or, more common than all of the above, credit/bank fraud schemes, who are obviously not terribly worried about the law in the first place.
The city I'm in is one of the God only knows how many places which reflexively banned Segways the moment someone managed to fall off them. Thanks to the cotton-padded-life, zero-risk crowd, the cops confiscate them on sight here.
(Of course, I'm wondering how quickly that would have happened to bicycles had they been invented in the last few years. I'm guessing there'd be federal laws against them by now.)
How many of them would seriously damage the understanding of a layman browsing the subject? As in, they're not trying to actually put what they read into practice, but are trying to gain a general and basic knowledge set?
Spending some time trawling the Hellenistic parts of Wikipedia a few years ago, this was the current incarnation of the article on Philip II Philomaerus. Not only would I say that qualifies as pretty fucking seriously damaging a layman's understanding of the subject - compare it to the current version - but it was stable in that form for seven months.
I don't know. A lot of countries throwing the "twenty years hence, we shall do mighty things!" idea around don't have quite so strong a drive to build (or restore) global prestige and the like as Russia does. I don't know if they have the means (or the actual desire) to pull off something that ambitious, but I'd be more willing to believe Russia would be willing to attempt it than I would the United States (which lacks the will for such things even if some in the government were serious) or China (which seems more content taking a cautiously-paced approach to space).
Do I think they'll do it? I dunno. Would I be surprised if they followed through? Only a little.
Isn't the professor presenting a Straw man argument here? Nobody would ever compare an encyclopedia to a long course of hands on training and intensive work.
Dealt with high schoolers or college freshmen lately? We're in a world where people privilege 300 over Herodotus, or where What The Bleep Do We Know?! is often seen as trumping the entirety of modern science.
So y'know, take it easy on the creationists. They may not understand how science works, but when faced with an article like this, can you really blame them?
I once did this for a young woman once (I don't exactly recall where or when), but she intentionally went through another door (that she opened herself) and scolded me that she doesn't need help. The undertone there was that she wouldn't accept my gesture of courtesy because I was male. Due to that one instance, I've pretty much stopped holding doors for people (unless they're really going to need help with the door, i.e.: arms full of stuff). I will hold the door open a little longer as I go through it if I notice someone following, but that's about it.
I'm curious as to why you'd abandon a decent enough practice because of one encounter with one asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
I loved the kind of stealth eulogy for Gene she gave in her appearance there.
Omitted options notwithstanding, at least some of those people are utterly wrong, even if all of them can claim lots and lots of evidence, and most advocates of any of them seem only to consider people who agree with them to be objective.
I'm not sure how much room for objectivity there even is in the whole debate anymore. It's a religious issue; people have their views on it, most of them are transparently political ("global warming is false because if it is true we'll have to do stuff and that's not libertarian!" "global warming is true because conservatives think it's false!" etc). I really don't think anyone's going to change their mind even if someone hammers out The Truth Of The Matter - and there is one, whatever it is - and I really am convinced by now that most peoples' definition of "objective" on the issue is "this person's conclusions match my own."
I probably can't consider myself exempt from that either, which bothers me.
To play devil's advocate, do we question whether politicians tapped for technologically related positions have enough scientific savvy?
A lot of the discussion of this story's giving me the impression that people seem to hope that people tapped for technologically-related positions don't have enough scientific savvy, and instead want them to have little enough scientific savvy.
Are we taking the "agrees with you" definition of objective here?
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and assume that someone who's spent the last four years as a director of a major national research lab with 4,000 employees just might have administrative experience.
But no, go ahead and kneejerk on the fact that he's a scientist and therefore unable to do anything else.
(Also, LOL at the idea that the academic world doesn't involve politics.)
What if "only" two U.S. tactical nukes were accidentally dropped while they were being flown over some American land during training exercises in the last 30 years?
Only dropping two of them by accident would be a fourfold improvement over the eight (that I know of) from 1966 and 1968.
A lot of medical jargon is (A) incredibly standardized and (B) designed to abbreviate.
Ever hear a doctor reciting a prescription over the phone to a pharmacist? They can compress a substantial amount of information about dosages, timing, when to take/avoid something, etc., into maybe a dozen characters. It'd be a bit moreso when you're talking about *removing someone's shoulder blade* (gah!), but if people on both sides know the jargon for anatomy and techniques, you'd probably be surprised at how much information you can condense without causing confusion.
The few telemarketers who are actually bound by the rules of the do not call registries might stop calling, but the majority who are loopholed in because they're within seventy-five degrees of separation of a company you once did business with will keep on calling.
Or political campaigners.
Or "surveys."
Or, more common than all of the above, credit/bank fraud schemes, who are obviously not terribly worried about the law in the first place.
For real?
Good God, bring back the thirties!
I've got some elephant repellent here you might be interested in buying. It's really quite effective!
The city I'm in is one of the God only knows how many places which reflexively banned Segways the moment someone managed to fall off them. Thanks to the cotton-padded-life, zero-risk crowd, the cops confiscate them on sight here.
(Of course, I'm wondering how quickly that would have happened to bicycles had they been invented in the last few years. I'm guessing there'd be federal laws against them by now.)
But after they spend that dollar on pork, they'll request an additional dollar from Congress to compensate on blow-upping or contractors.
They probably think so in Uganda, at least.
Not quite; that comes with the printer auto-inserts random toxins into whatever it makes.
Only if you invite them along and camp their spawn point.
I'm sure that's an upcoming feature there.
Also, what point would be in GTA: pink ponies?
Now I'm picturing Grand Theft Horse in some sort of generic Wild West setting...
Hell, I use Blogger because of its stagnant feature development. ;)
How many of them would seriously damage the understanding of a layman browsing the subject? As in, they're not trying to actually put what they read into practice, but are trying to gain a general and basic knowledge set?
Spending some time trawling the Hellenistic parts of Wikipedia a few years ago, this was the current incarnation of the article on Philip II Philomaerus. Not only would I say that qualifies as pretty fucking seriously damaging a layman's understanding of the subject - compare it to the current version - but it was stable in that form for seven months.
Ever taught freshmen? You'd be surprised.
Do I think they'll do it? I dunno. Would I be surprised if they followed through? Only a little.
Dealt with high schoolers or college freshmen lately? We're in a world where people privilege 300 over Herodotus, or where What The Bleep Do We Know?! is often seen as trumping the entirety of modern science.
So y'know, take it easy on the creationists. They may not understand how science works, but when faced with an article like this, can you really blame them?
Yes.
Feel free to point out where I said it was.
I'm curious as to why you'd abandon a decent enough practice because of one encounter with one asshole.