Posted on 05/29/2004 6:51:29 AM PDT by liberallarry
THERE IS BOTH good news and bad news in the flurry of reports describing the decline of American preeminence in science. Falling numbers of scientific papers and prizes, as well as the relative drop in levels of funding and students, provide evidence of this decline. The good news is that it means other governments across the globe have begun investing heavily in basic scientific research. It also means that foreign companies have been investing in research and development, creating opportunities that make more people want scientific careers in their countries. More research anywhere creates more possibilities for innovation everywhere.
Yet the reports from the National Science Foundation and elsewhere indicate that the decline is not only relative. It is also absolute: American science is growing weaker, although not across the board. The boom in research and funding for the biological sciences -- including genetics and molecular biology -- has been matched by a decline in funding for, and interest in, physics and math.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I have.
Yes there is a reason. The serious lack of education in the sciences allow for all kinds of "junk science" to be hawked. Modern day snake oil salesmen I call them.
I also find a whiff of anti-religious bigotry in your tone. I will point out to you neither Einstein or Newton where atheist.
So? So? I know scientists who are both religious and atheists.
I also know many a libertarian scientist who has had a successful career yet does not believe in government funded science programs. These sort tend to have their own businesses or work in the private sector. Obviously your reasoning is flawed in this case. To be against government funding for science is not to be "anti-science" in the least.
Some areas require government funding. The company has a duty to the shareholder. Some endeavors go beyond company profits and are a benefit for the whole human race. Some of this takes funding on a government scale. Think of Christopher Columbus, Lewis & Clarke, our space program, etc. Lets see you drum up enough funding to return to the moon from the private sector or build a radio telescope on the scale of the VLA. Good luck.
You might be better served by discussing things on their merits rather that casting aspersion on people whose opinions about science programs are at odds with you. It would be more productive and you might find more takers.
Codswallop! I have been in those arguments.
That lament is more common than you might think. Another interesting tidbit is that one of my professors has not had an US PhD candidate in more than two years. They are ALL foreign students now
Nope. Now considered too dangerous. If that is too dangerous, how do we ever expect to go back to the moon or beyond? Sigh.
However, these "private" endeavors are built upon government projects. SETI@home uses Aricebo. I did not see the private sector build such a machine. The Internet first spawned off of DARPA and collider research.
Sure private industry and entrepreneurs can take a ball and run with it. It is often the initial outlay that takes funding on government scales.
Yes I saw that movie. Do you know how many man-hours went into the human factor studies alone? It is mind boggling what was required and tested. This does not even address the engineering hurdles. It was a quaint movie. However, that is all it was.
Better late than never! ;^)
Why can't you astronomers keep the same hours as everyone else?
Thanks :-)
LOL! Hmmm.... I always wanted to be a used car salesman. Think a change of profession is warranted? Would give me more freep time. :-)
Well, if you were, then you'd fit right in with the rest of the anti-science dingbats....
Don't tell me. Don't tell me.. Ummmm.... Dawkins and Sagan! Evolution is(was) their religion. :^)
But the issue here is the level of the funding, not its direction. If you had followed the thread here you would have seen that I had mention "earth science" as the sort of thing that unfortunately eats up monies. I content that this comes under the rubric of partisan politics, not a paucity of science education, and thus is covered in my assertions.
Even so, I see no proof that in the current funding discussions going on between institutions like the AAAS, the NSF, NASA the DOE, etc. to support your position. There seem to be no "anti-science" position due to lack of science education that would buttress your position. Can you refer me to one? Otherwise my assertion still stands: the current budgeting for national science funding is due to budgets, priorities and partisan politics. There does not appear to be any lobby of "anti-science dummies" out there calling for cutbacks to other programs. Rather there is in fight in organizations like the AAAS over how to slice a pie that is not growing much bigger in some areas due to some priorities quite beyond the governments control.
It is true that the Democrats corrupt science with politics but mostly this is not about funding level but direction. The people doing so are not doing it out of a lack of scientific education - nothing could be further from the truth - but rather because of their political orientations, orientations, I might add, that are a mixture of actual sentiment and position in the Democrat spoils system. The problem here is the politicization of science, not a lack of science education - there are plenty of scientist with solid educations in the loop. What is lacking is a broader education outside of science (as in telling the difference between rhetoric and reason) that might allow for a rational discussion. Do you have proof otherwise?
The man on the street rarely has anything to do with the nature of our science funding, is not consulted as to its general direction and really knows nothing about it other than reading about its fruits. It is often a source of national pride and competitiveness to him. Witness the tech boom of the 1990's. The appreciation is not due to science education necessarily. Atrology was popular in the 50's and the 60's yet I see no evidence that it hurt science funding. It is not so much "junk science" that hurts science funding as the loony humanities funding, the "deconstructionist" gravy trains and the vivtimology departments that suck up cash in a way that was never done before. So again, it may not be a lack of science education so much as a lack of basic education, not to mention common sense that hurts science funding - at least as far as the academic world goes.
The point that "Physicist" was trying to make was that there is some sort of anti-science animus abroad in FR, the conservative movement and one supposes the nation at large that somehow was an obstacle to government science funding. I do not see this, find it insulting and tend to feel that this gentleman is perhaps casting about to find someone or something to blame for his own career disappointments. You give me no reason here to adjust that perception. The point still stands.
So? So? I know scientists who are both religious and atheists.
What can I say? You know, I had many discussions with you about the current direction of astronomy awhile ago when the rovers where going up and there was a the inane brouhaha about Hubble. If you recall we talk about CELT, ALMA (and indirectly the upgrade to the VLA,) and the Webb telescope. We talked at length about current directions in astronomy research, how well that seemed to be going and what an exemplar of long term government and private funding the national astronomy research program has become.
Frankly I am taken aback by the aggressiveness and the lack of civility in a response that begins with "So? So?" I had thought better of you.
The point here was that this poster had a rather parochial view of religion - one no doubt nurtured by a quite narrow education, cultural milieu and a leftist focus in his formal training - and was again seeking out to characterize a group of Freepers - and by implication a larger group in the nation - for a problem that they in fact have little to do with. It is, of course, a slander of the hard left that religious people are "anti-science" when if fact they are not. To underline this point I mentioned Einstein and Newton.
Your point is way out of line, missed the point of discussion and also smacks of bigotry, not to mention foul manners.
Such bigotry bespeaks of a lack of mindfulness, ignorance and a general lack of civilization and culture, and I am surprised to hear it from you given the tenor of our prior conversations. Even if you did not intend this sort of bigotry you still missed the obvious point: The poster has disdain for religions people and somehow feels they are disruptful to the development of science. History says otherwise. In any event should be ashamed of yourself for addressing me in such a manner, "So? So?" indeed. I feel you owe me an apology.
Again, I feel that the poster was looking around to find blame for his own shortcomings and would reassert again that current funding level are about priorities, budgets and partisan politics. I challenge you to find me a case where people of faith have hampered funding levels. Obviously, stem cell research and similar issues are not sticking point because of science per se but rather larger moral issues, which, BTW, is a useful example of that dangers of scientists scoffing at religious critiques of research. One need only think of mengele to see this.
This point too still stands.
Some areas require government funding. The company has a duty to the shareholder. Some endeavors go beyond company profits and are a benefit for the whole human race. Some of this takes funding on a government scale. Think of Christopher Columbus, Lewis & Clarke, our space program, etc. Lets see you drum up enough funding to return to the moon from the private sector or build a radio telescope on the scale of the VLA. Good luck.
Again you are off point here and evidently up on a hobbyhorse. The poster was again casting about for blame and this time struck on libertarians, accusing them of being anti-science. I was pointing out really two things here: 1) there are many scientist that are libertarians, quite successful ones in fact, and 2) Government is not the sole provider of monies for basic research. Obviously institutions like Bell Labs in the past or the T. J. Watson Research Center of IBM (the largest collection of Physicist under one roof in the world, BTW, and with scant government funding I might add) undertake or have undertaken world class basic research in the private sector, and in a model that a libertarian might find agreeable. I will add that I have worked at both Bell Labs and the T. J. Watson Research center and have as well as work on Government grants. So I have some knowledge of the issues and trade offs here.
The point being that the poster is quite wrong to think that libertarians are somehow obstructing science or "anti-science," or obstructing basic research - far from it. It is on the face of it an absurd statement. Again, I sense that he is looking for someone to blame for his situation and if he had something on the ball he could find employ as a Physicist in the private sector. The taxpayer is not obliged to guarantee him the career options he should like to have.
You posit examples of basic research and then claim that no serious work is possible without government but one has only to look at things like the transistor, the laser, the science of Acoustics or for that matter the theory of relativity to find examples of work that has taken place outside of the confines of government funding. I will grant that the basic research is more technology oriented but then so has most government funding for basic research.
I do not happen to be a libertarian and certainly believe in government funding of research. I even state this in my posts and discuss current project with the LHC at CERN and the run up to ITER. I also discuss reasons for the current funding level so obviously I am not opposed to it. Moreover, you should recall this from our prior interactions. Never do I say otherwise.
So I find the preachy pontifications about Lewis and Clark, the VLA to not only be rude but off point and thoroughly uncalled for. If
But this bit of nastiness:
You might be better served by discussing things on their merits rather that casting aspersion on people whose opinions about science programs are at odds with you. It would be more productive and you might find more takers.
Codswallop! I have been in those arguments.
I find as foolish as it is uncivilized. I guarantee you that my career is at least as impressive as yours. I went to Berkeley and Stanford have been an academic at these place as well as NYU. I have done science for the Navy, the Air Force, several private and public world class think tanks in mathematics, and as I said before, Bell Labs and IBM. ALso, I have actually been in decisions loops for funding for DARPA, the AAAS and the NSF. I really do not need a lecture in science policy from you. Given your tone, I doubt if you have been "in those" arguments," at least not in the sense that I mean them. Again, in this "argument" you have straightaway jumped on your hobbyhorse and throughly misread the points of the "discussion," as has the original poster, BTW.
I had thought you to be more intelligent, civilized and reflective. I am disappointed.
So I will reassert to you:
You might be better served by discussing things on their merits rather that casting aspersion on people whose opinions about science programs are at odds with you. It would be more productive and you might find more takers.
Good Day.
A monument to the banned, an attempted indictment of FR's management. But who's the Moderator-pinginnest freeper of them all?
This is largely because only recently has rocket technology gotten cheap enough for private investors to afford. After all, at the beginning of my career computers were so expensive that only a few banks and universities could afford one. Add to that foot-dragging by governments who are reluctant to allow private parties to take physical risks.
To see the effect of this on public discourse, flip on any TV station or open any newspaper.
Back in the Clinton Administration, I was arguing with a liberal Democrat lawyer friend about the lack of respect given today to the 10th amendment. (Powers not specifically delegated to the feds are reserved to the states or the people.) He gleefully trumped my complaint with "The Welfare Clause! We can do anything we have to for the general welfare." There might as well not be an Article X. He had it lawyered. (What did I expect?)
Correlary: "Supply and demand, not government policy, are going to determine prices in the long run."
Another item: "The man offering you the bag of candy to get in the back seat with him may not really be your best friend."
Using spare time on Arecibo helped SETI Institute get its start, but the Institute is now zooming past the government scientists with the huge new Allen Telescope Array (Yes, more of Paul Allen's money going to work).
Details at http://www.seti.org/about_us/info_for_media/press_releases/paul_allen_next_phase.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.