Your criticism might have some merit if the show was claiming to do science. It isn't, and they're on record as saying that they aren't, even though they do use some of the elements of science (such as experimental controls, your claim to the contrary).
What they are doing is popularizing the idea of experimentation, and they're doing a very good job of that. The fact that their experiments lack scientific rigor is rather beside the point, particularly since that sort of rigor would make for spectacularly uninteresting television.
It's a fun show that introduces a number of beneficial memes to the public, not least being that claims shouldn't simply be accepted because someone says that something is true. In fact, they go out of the way to have episodes where their *own* results are challenged and reevaluated.
Although it isn't science, it has at its core the same ethos that drives science and strikes me that your objection is tantamount to making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Actually, that's not an especially scary scenario, once you discount the irrational "yuck" factor. A great-to-the-sixth grandparent has as much genetic relation to you as a sixth-cousin -- about 4/10ths of a percent.
Genetically speaking, they may as well not be related to you at all since they're about as likely to share common genetic material with you as is a random stranger.
With regards to your examples, going to the America's wasn't an "it's there" mission. The goal from the beginning was financial reward and it was financial incentives that kept people investing in travel to America.
The moon was, indeed, a politically motivated "it's there" (and we're getting there before those darned Russians). However, it's precisely the lack of bottom line profitability that ultimately killed the Apollo program once the political motives and public appeal of the program evaporated.
The spin-offs from Apollo were, of course, a good thing, but a lot of what has been reported as spin-offs were actually pre-existing technologies. Likewise, the promise of vague eventual technologies doesn't really appeal to taxpayers who have to pony up money now (and even less to corporations and private investors).
Pure science is certainly an "it's there", but do note that the research that typically gets the most funding (read: military) is in applied science with the intent being a near-term payoff. Getting funding for large pure science projects has often proven to be difficult (e.g., the SCC).
The problem with space is that, right now, there isn't a good profit angle to really lure private investment (excepting only space tourism, which is a very limited venture, right now). That leaves government which means that all expenses has to be justified to Congress.
Guess who's getting the axe whenever there's a deficit of available funds.
Until private industry starts seeing space as being really profitable, we're going to remain a largely earth-bound species.
That's an amusing story. I once heard a beautiful analogy that said that mathematics was to physics what musical notation was to music.
By extension, just as one can appreciate music without necessarily understanding the notation, I think that it is possible to cultivate an appreciate of physics without having a firm grip on the math but, in like manner, you capacity to appreciate it is going to be bounded and is going to be much shallower than a person who can.
It goes without saying that if you don't know the notes you can't, of course, write the music. People who think that they can contribute to the body of physics, in any substantial way, without an understanding of that math are, of course, deluding themselves.
Uh, when you're out in public everything you do is subject to observation by the public. That's why it's called public.
There's a difference between observation and surveillance.
If I'm going about my business, I can hardly call the cops to complain that some random person was looking at me; however, I think that I would be within my rights to call the police if a group of people were following me around with a parabolic mic and long range video equipment. This would be an invasion of my privacy and constitute, at the minimum, harassment.
Of course, if the people doing this are the police, then to whom do I turn?
It amuses me that Yahoo, Hotmail, et al are rushing high storage accounts into place. Google's 1GB storage served to get everyone's attention but that's not what's generating the buzz, anymore. The simple fact of the matter is that it's a superior product. The interface is clean, elegant and functional. The search features and the utility of labels place it well beyond the competition. Finally, the lack of obnoxious flashing banner ads makes it pleasant to use.
I had a Hotmail account for years. I wouldn't go back to them if they offered me an exabyte of storage and free gift certificates for the rest of my life.
You are confusing two different craters. The Chicxulub crater is generally considered responsible for the KT (Cretaceous/Tertiary) extinction that killed of the dinosaurs.
The newly alleged impact crater off of Australia (there's still controversy over whether it is, in fact, an impact crater as opposed to the remnant of a volcano) is being considered as a cause of the P/T (Permian/Triassic) extinction that happened approximately 251 million years ago.
The Permian extinction is notable for being the largest mass extinction on record. Some 95% of all species apparently died out in less than a million years (how much less is a source of controversy). This compares to only 50% for the K/T extinction.
Slashdot Mirror
What they are doing is popularizing the idea of experimentation, and they're doing a very good job of that. The fact that their experiments lack scientific rigor is rather beside the point, particularly since that sort of rigor would make for spectacularly uninteresting television.
It's a fun show that introduces a number of beneficial memes to the public, not least being that claims shouldn't simply be accepted because someone says that something is true. In fact, they go out of the way to have episodes where their *own* results are challenged and reevaluated.
Although it isn't science, it has at its core the same ethos that drives science and strikes me that your objection is tantamount to making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Actually, that's not an especially scary scenario, once you discount the irrational "yuck" factor. A great-to-the-sixth grandparent has as much genetic relation to you as a sixth-cousin -- about 4/10ths of a percent. Genetically speaking, they may as well not be related to you at all since they're about as likely to share common genetic material with you as is a random stranger.
With regards to your examples, going to the America's wasn't an "it's there" mission. The goal from the beginning was financial reward and it was financial incentives that kept people investing in travel to America.
The moon was, indeed, a politically motivated "it's there" (and we're getting there before those darned Russians). However, it's precisely the lack of bottom line profitability that ultimately killed the Apollo program once the political motives and public appeal of the program evaporated.
The spin-offs from Apollo were, of course, a good thing, but a lot of what has been reported as spin-offs were actually pre-existing technologies. Likewise, the promise of vague eventual technologies doesn't really appeal to taxpayers who have to pony up money now (and even less to corporations and private investors).
Pure science is certainly an "it's there", but do note that the research that typically gets the most funding (read: military) is in applied science with the intent being a near-term payoff. Getting funding for large pure science projects has often proven to be difficult (e.g., the SCC).
The problem with space is that, right now, there isn't a good profit angle to really lure private investment (excepting only space tourism, which is a very limited venture, right now). That leaves government which means that all expenses has to be justified to Congress.
Guess who's getting the axe whenever there's a deficit of available funds.
Until private industry starts seeing space as being really profitable, we're going to remain a largely earth-bound species.
I always assumed that it meant that the bulk of his brain was located in hyperspace. I guess I'm too literal.
That's an amusing story. I once heard a beautiful analogy that said that mathematics was to physics what musical notation was to music.
By extension, just as one can appreciate music without necessarily understanding the notation, I think that it is possible to cultivate an appreciate of physics without having a firm grip on the math but, in like manner, you capacity to appreciate it is going to be bounded and is going to be much shallower than a person who can.
It goes without saying that if you don't know the notes you can't, of course, write the music. People who think that they can contribute to the body of physics, in any substantial way, without an understanding of that math are, of course, deluding themselves.
Uh, when you're out in public everything you do is subject to observation by the public. That's why it's called public.
There's a difference between observation and surveillance. If I'm going about my business, I can hardly call the cops to complain that some random person was looking at me; however, I think that I would be within my rights to call the police if a group of people were following me around with a parabolic mic and long range video equipment. This would be an invasion of my privacy and constitute, at the minimum, harassment. Of course, if the people doing this are the police, then to whom do I turn?
It amuses me that Yahoo, Hotmail, et al are rushing high storage accounts into place. Google's 1GB storage served to get everyone's attention but that's not what's generating the buzz, anymore. The simple fact of the matter is that it's a superior product. The interface is clean, elegant and functional. The search features and the utility of labels place it well beyond the competition. Finally, the lack of obnoxious flashing banner ads makes it pleasant to use.
I had a Hotmail account for years. I wouldn't go back to them if they offered me an exabyte of storage and free gift certificates for the rest of my life.
This is a common misconception. Aliens aren't actually interested in space.
You are confusing two different craters. The Chicxulub crater is generally considered responsible for the KT (Cretaceous/Tertiary) extinction that killed of the dinosaurs. The newly alleged impact crater off of Australia (there's still controversy over whether it is, in fact, an impact crater as opposed to the remnant of a volcano) is being considered as a cause of the P/T (Permian/Triassic) extinction that happened approximately 251 million years ago. The Permian extinction is notable for being the largest mass extinction on record. Some 95% of all species apparently died out in less than a million years (how much less is a source of controversy). This compares to only 50% for the K/T extinction.