Skip to comments.
Starving Science
Washington Post ^
| May 29, 2004
| staff
Posted on 05/29/2004 6:51:29 AM PDT by liberallarry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-198 next last
To: CasearianDaoist
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. I don't see creationists as being necessarily "anti-science" either. So long as they are willing (Dembski, et al) to frame conjectures like intelligent design as scientific hypotheses, such hypotheses are as worthy of a fair test as any other.
I see the real problem for both public and private science as being the hatred for science by the liberal arts establishment. When they write for newspapers, TV and Hollywood, their biases are evident - at least to people like us.
To: bondserv; xzins
A monument to the banned, an attempted indictment of FR's management. But who's the Moderator-pinginnest freeper of them all?Heh, heh, heh. I have not advertised my profile once. I have explained it to one who asked and added a note to clarify its purpose to one who accused me of trying to hide my identity. Yet it seems to be like a pebble in a shoe to some. Just its purpose.
142
posted on
05/30/2004 2:51:29 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
To: CasearianDaoist
What is really scandalous is that Bush is letting the left paint him as "anti-science" which could not be farther from the case. Hadn't noticed such painting, but agree with your conclusion.
I don't know about overall spending fluctuations but I do know that I still get paid. The way I see it, experimental physics (predominantly in the form of applied and material science, for industry and defense, etc.) is and will be the focus for physics as a field... I'm not saying that solely out of a sense of bias (though must admit to that sense-- hey, theorists look down on us just as much). Anecdotal "evidence": my job-hunting experience as an applied experimentalist, versus that of my colleagues in theoretical nuclear. Latter went much less smoothly...
Back to topic: "we're running out of funds!!!" hysteria never struck me hard because I have picked up some vague sense of how much is actually spent on real physics as opposed to Administration (which maketh a world of hurt) and all manner of compliance horse-sh!t. There is plenty of green.
143
posted on
05/30/2004 2:59:11 PM PDT
by
maxwell
(Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation...)
To: balrog666
To: longshadow
Trailer Trollop placemarker.
145
posted on
05/30/2004 3:07:47 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Hic amor, haec patria est.)
To: The Raven
146
posted on
05/30/2004 3:10:09 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(the difference between "trained intellect" and "indoctrinated intellectual" is an Abyssal gulf)
To: CasearianDaoist
Shall I wax poetic in calling you a fool?
Nope, you aren't worth it.
147
posted on
05/30/2004 3:19:07 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.)
To: balrog666; All
Very strange thread. Very strange.
To: balrog666
To: PatrickHenry
Anthony Troll-ope placemarker.
To: CasearianDaoist
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Why don't you go pontificate yourself to death, you blowhard.
151
posted on
05/30/2004 3:51:34 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.)
To: balrog666
To: D Edmund Joaquin
Very strange thread. Very strange. The culmination of a great many previous threads.
153
posted on
05/30/2004 3:56:32 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.)
To: CasearianDaoist
Oh, come on, surely you can do better than that!?
154
posted on
05/30/2004 3:57:13 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.)
To: balrog666
Ah. I don't get out much.
Comment #156 Removed by Moderator
To: CasearianDaoist
"The dumbest people I know are those who know it all."
Malcolm must have been talking about you.
157
posted on
05/30/2004 4:25:56 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.)
To: D Edmund Joaquin
Stay tuned - all will become clear.
Oh, and welcome to FreeRepublic!
158
posted on
05/30/2004 4:26:51 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.)
To: balrog666
Why thank you. I was wondering what a Daoist is?
To: BlazingArizona
I don't see creationists as being necessarily "anti-science" either. So long as they are willing (Dembski, et al) to frame conjectures like intelligent design as scientific hypotheses, such hypotheses are as worthy of a fair test as any other. Agghhh!!! You're not supposed to know Dembski's a creationist! You're 100% right, of course, but it's supposed to be a secret.
As for testability, reports from people who can follow his mumbo-jumbo more directly than I indicate that the problem with Dembski's formulations is that thus far he's still sitting on the level of detailed specification that would make them testable.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-198 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson