Anthony Troll-ope placemarker.
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 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.
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.
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.
And you are a mediocrity
Trailer Trollop placemarker.
you jest?
Nope, you aren't worth it.
Very strange thread. Very strange.
Child.
Anthony Troll-ope placemarker.
Why don't you go pontificate yourself to death, you blowhard.
Ignorant twit.
The culmination of a great many previous threads.
Oh, come on, surely you can do better than that!?
Ah. I don't get out much.
Malcolm must have been talking about you.
Oh, and welcome to FreeRepublic!
Why thank you. I was wondering what a Daoist is?
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.
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.