| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Enkidu" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2006 03:28:30 PM |
| Object: |
Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate
change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to
take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a
president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.
Scientists and Engineers for America plunged into politics last week with
the aim of campaigning for particular candidates, starting with the 2006
mid-term elections. SEA says that "scientists and engineers have a right,
indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation's
leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis."
SEA's main targets will be the Bush administration and the Republican
leadership, says executive director Mike Brown. "[They] are the source of
a lot of the problems we've identified."
So far, the pitch has struck a responsive chord. Within days of the group
being announced on27 September, nearly 2500 people had signed up as
members. SEA's advisory board includes two of Bill Clinton's former
science advisers - John Gibbons and Neal Lane - and eight Nobel
laureates.
http://tinyurl.com/jpmtx
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
08 Oct 2006 03:39:31 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate
change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to
take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a
president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
<Snip> The rest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
09 Oct 2006 01:07:19 AM |
|
|
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate
change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to
take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a
president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
09 Oct 2006 01:14:43 AM |
|
|
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate
change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to
take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a
president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature and
creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan comes to
mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
09 Oct 2006 03:20:22 PM |
|
|
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more receptive
to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature and
creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan comes to
mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and those
who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are the "true
scientists"?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
09 Oct 2006 05:21:06 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more receptive
to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature and
creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan comes to
mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and those
who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are the "true
scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious scientific
work.
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
09 Oct 2006 05:42:59 PM |
|
|
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160414466.595503.258860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more
receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature
and creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan
comes to mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and
those who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are
the "true scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious
scientific work.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well?
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well? I
suppose I can't be a "serious mathematics teacher" and also express my
political views, write articles the state of education for non-teachers,
or climb mountains in my spare time?
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to
non-scientists. Pop scientists are very good at it.
Some serious scientists don't have an interest or a talent for public
activities. Others do. By your standards, Carl Sagan was not a "serious
scientist" even though . . . "Sagan taught at Harvard University until
1968, when he moved to Cornell University. He became a full professor at
Cornell in 1971 and directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there.
From 1972 to 1981 he was Associate Director of the Center for Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell.
Sagan was a leader in the U.S. space program since its inception and
worked as an adviser to NASA since the 1950s. (One of his many duties
during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo
astronauts before their flights to the Moon.) Sagan contributed to most
of the unmanned missions that explored the solar system, placing
experiments on many robotic space expeditions." (Wikipedia)
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
What a load of crap.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Gods always behave like the people who created them"
-- Zora Neale Hurston
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
09 Oct 2006 05:43:25 PM |
|
|
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160414466.595503.258860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more
receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature
and creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan
comes to mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and
those who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are
the "true scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious
scientific work.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well?
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well? I
suppose I can't be a "serious mathematics teacher" and also express my
political views, write articles the state of education for non-teachers,
or climb mountains in my spare time?
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to
non-scientists. Pop scientists are very good at it.
Some serious scientists don't have an interest or a talent for public
activities. Others do. By your standards, Carl Sagan was not a "serious
scientist" even though . . . "Sagan taught at Harvard University until
1968, when he moved to Cornell University. He became a full professor at
Cornell in 1971 and directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there.
From 1972 to 1981 he was Associate Director of the Center for Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell.
Sagan was a leader in the U.S. space program since its inception and
worked as an adviser to NASA since the 1950s. (One of his many duties
during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo
astronauts before their flights to the Moon.) Sagan contributed to most
of the unmanned missions that explored the solar system, placing
experiments on many robotic space expeditions." (Wikipedia)
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
What a load of crap.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Gods always behave like the people who created them"
-- Zora Neale Hurston
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
09 Oct 2006 06:29:25 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160414466.595503.258860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more
receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature
and creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan
comes to mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and
those who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are
the "true scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious
scientific work.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well?
Serious scientists can have other interests.
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well? I
suppose I can't be a "serious mathematics teacher" and also express my
political views, write articles the state of education for non-teachers,
or climb mountains in my spare time?
I suppose he could if he tried hard enough.
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to
non-scientists. Pop scientists are very good at it.
Some serious scientists don't have an interest or a talent for public
activities. Others do. By your standards, Carl Sagan was not a "serious
scientist"...
That is true.
...even though . . . "Sagan taught at Harvard University until
1968, when he moved to Cornell University. He became a full professor at
Cornell in 1971 and directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there.
From 1972 to 1981 he was Associate Director of the Center for Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell.
There's a difference between teaching science and performing scientific
inquiry. True, a science professor can do both, but being a professor
per se doesn't mean being a serious scientist.
Sagan was a leader in the U.S. space program since its inception and
worked as an adviser to NASA since the 1950s. (One of his many duties
during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo
astronauts before their flights to the Moon.) Sagan contributed to most
of the unmanned missions that explored the solar system, placing
experiments on many robotic space expeditions." (Wikipedia)
That means Sagan has held political positions.
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
What a load of crap.
It will take more than invective to deny the obvious.
Serious scientists get tired of the glazed expression journalists
exhibit whenever anybody tries to explain anything complicated to them.
Pop scientists know how to spoonfeed journalists enough information to
make them think they understand without getting them all confused.
"Pop scientist" isn't necessarily a pejoritive term. Some pop
scientists are genuinely interested in making science accessable to the
general public. Others, however, have a political agenda that affects
what information they reveal and what information they withhold.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
11 Oct 2006 02:55:45 AM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2006 17:43:25 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160414466.595503.258860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more
receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature
and creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan
comes to mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and
those who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are
the "true scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious
scientific work.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well?
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well? I
suppose I can't be a "serious mathematics teacher" and also express my
political views, write articles the state of education for non-teachers,
or climb mountains in my spare time?
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to
non-scientists. Pop scientists are very good at it.
Some serious scientists don't have an interest or a talent for public
activities. Others do. By your standards, Carl Sagan was not a "serious
scientist" even though . . . "Sagan taught at Harvard University until
1968, when he moved to Cornell University. He became a full professor at
Cornell in 1971 and directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there.
From 1972 to 1981 he was Associate Director of the Center for Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell.
Sagan was a leader in the U.S. space program since its inception and
worked as an adviser to NASA since the 1950s. (One of his many duties
during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo
astronauts before their flights to the Moon.) Sagan contributed to most
of the unmanned missions that explored the solar system, placing
experiments on many robotic space expeditions." (Wikipedia)
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
What a load of crap.
That's Mr. Austin's specialty.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
11 Oct 2006 06:33:24 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 17:43:25 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160414466.595503.258860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more
receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature
and creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan
comes to mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and
those who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are
the "true scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious
scientific work.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well?
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well? I
suppose I can't be a "serious mathematics teacher" and also express my
political views, write articles the state of education for non-teachers,
or climb mountains in my spare time?
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to
non-scientists. Pop scientists are very good at it.
Some serious scientists don't have an interest or a talent for public
activities. Others do. By your standards, Carl Sagan was not a "serious
scientist" even though . . . "Sagan taught at Harvard University until
1968, when he moved to Cornell University. He became a full professor at
Cornell in 1971 and directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there.
From 1972 to 1981 he was Associate Director of the Center for Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell.
Sagan was a leader in the U.S. space program since its inception and
worked as an adviser to NASA since the 1950s. (One of his many duties
during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo
astronauts before their flights to the Moon.) Sagan contributed to most
of the unmanned missions that explored the solar system, placing
experiments on many robotic space expeditions." (Wikipedia)
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
What a load of crap.
That's Mr. Austin's specialty.
Invective and insult consititute the liberal notion of a scientific
argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
14 Oct 2006 09:09:49 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 11:33:24 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 17:43:25 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160414466.595503.258860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more
receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature
and creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan
comes to mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and
those who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are
the "true scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious
scientific work.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well?
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well? I
suppose I can't be a "serious mathematics teacher" and also express my
political views, write articles the state of education for non-teachers,
or climb mountains in my spare time?
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to
non-scientists. Pop scientists are very good at it.
Some serious scientists don't have an interest or a talent for public
activities. Others do. By your standards, Carl Sagan was not a "serious
scientist" even though . . . "Sagan taught at Harvard University until
1968, when he moved to Cornell University. He became a full professor at
Cornell in 1971 and directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there.
From 1972 to 1981 he was Associate Director of the Center for Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell.
Sagan was a leader in the U.S. space program since its inception and
worked as an adviser to NASA since the 1950s. (One of his many duties
during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo
astronauts before their flights to the Moon.) Sagan contributed to most
of the unmanned missions that explored the solar system, placing
experiments on many robotic space expeditions." (Wikipedia)
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
What a load of crap.
That's Mr. Austin's specialty.
Invective and insult consititute the liberal notion of a scientific
argument.
Thank you for supporting my observations.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
15 Oct 2006 03:11:08 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 11:33:24 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 17:43:25 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160414466.595503.258860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1160356483.864389.32110@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
ike milligan wrote:
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1160321971.194485.307090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment,
climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists
have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively
promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more
receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
What do you call pop science?
Like I said elsewhere:
"Pop scientists are people with the Ph.D.s and other legitimate
credentials, but who spend their time writing popular literature
and creating documentaries for PBS stations. The late Carl Sagan
comes to mind as a pop scientist pushing an ideological agenda."
When certain people cite science to support their views, more often
then not, it's some pop scientist.
So . . . any scientist you hear from is only a "pop scientist", and
those who keep their mouths shut and stay out of public debates are
the "true scientists"?
Well, serious scientists spend most of their time in serious
scientific work.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well?
Pop scientists spend most of their time writing popular literaturel,
making documentaries, or in some cases, engaging in political
activities.
So, one can't be a "serious scientist" and other interests as well? I
suppose I can't be a "serious mathematics teacher" and also express my
political views, write articles the state of education for non-teachers,
or climb mountains in my spare time?
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to
non-scientists. Pop scientists are very good at it.
Some serious scientists don't have an interest or a talent for public
activities. Others do. By your standards, Carl Sagan was not a "serious
scientist" even though . . . "Sagan taught at Harvard University until
1968, when he moved to Cornell University. He became a full professor at
Cornell in 1971 and directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there.
From 1972 to 1981 he was Associate Director of the Center for Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell.
Sagan was a leader in the U.S. space program since its inception and
worked as an adviser to NASA since the 1950s. (One of his many duties
during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo
astronauts before their flights to the Moon.) Sagan contributed to most
of the unmanned missions that explored the solar system, placing
experiments on many robotic space expeditions." (Wikipedia)
Serious scientists tend to avoid journalists. Pop scientists are very
accessable to journalists.
What a load of crap.
That's Mr. Austin's specialty.
Invective and insult consititute the liberal notion of a scientific
argument.
Thank you for supporting my observations.
Stoney has shown no capacity for observation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
10 Oct 2006 09:40:21 PM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
11 Oct 2006 01:56:40 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
Does that translate into an ability to explain it to average persons?
To morons?
Would this make pop scientists better scientists than serious
scientists?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Works for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
11 Oct 2006 02:18:44 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2006 18:56:40 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
Does that translate into an ability to explain it to average persons?
That depends on specifics. Explain computer programming? Probably.
Explain the general theory of relativity? Probably not. Explain
quantum chromodynamics? I doubt it.
To morons?
Define "moron". If you're referring to the medical definition, I
doubt most scientists could explain most of what they do to a moron.
Would this make pop scientists better scientists than serious
scientists?
Since "pop scientists" are usually serious scientists, the question is
either a null or a full set. If you define "pop scientist" as a
scientist who can explain his work to the general populace, all good
scientists are pop scientists.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
12 Oct 2006 02:33:15 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 18:56:40 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
Does that translate into an ability to explain it to average persons?
That depends on specifics. Explain computer programming? Probably.
Explain the general theory of relativity? Probably not. Explain
quantum chromodynamics? I doubt it.
That makes my case.
To morons?
Define "moron".
Most journalists.
If you're referring to the medical definition, I doubt most scientists could
explain most of what they do to a moron.
Would this make pop scientists better scientists than serious
scientists?
Since "pop scientists" are usually serious scientists, the question is
either a null or a full set. If you define "pop scientist" as a
scientist who can explain his work to the general populace, all good
scientists are pop scientists.
Not all pop scientists are good scientists.
Serious science involves discovery of new knowledge. Serious scientists
engage in research, study and experimentation. Some of them may well
good at explaining science to the general public. Others are not.
Either way, they have little time for it.
Contemporary scientists known to the public are pop scientists. Those
saying that scientists be consulted generally mean those they've heard
of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
12 Oct 2006 12:48:34 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 19:33:15 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 18:56:40 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
Does that translate into an ability to explain it to average persons?
That depends on specifics. Explain computer programming? Probably.
Explain the general theory of relativity? Probably not. Explain
quantum chromodynamics? I doubt it.
That makes my case.
That destroys your claim that a scientist who can explain his work to
the average person isn't a serious scientist.
To morons?
Define "moron".
Most journalists.
Most scientists can explain their work to most media writers, but they
rarely bother, since most media writers write the story they see, not
the story that's there. Give them scientific facts and they'll write
a story using the "facts" that fit the story - even if those "facts"
directly contradict the facts they were given. Much like how
religion explains reality.
Would this make pop scientists better scientists than serious
scientists?
Since "pop scientists" are usually serious scientists, the question is
either a null or a full set. If you define "pop scientist" as a
scientist who can explain his work to the general populace, all good
scientists are pop scientists.
Not all pop scientists are good scientists.
If you keep changing definitions, you can make anything equal to
anything.
Serious science involves discovery of new knowledge.
Some of it does. Some of it has nothing to do with discovery.
Serious scientists engage in research
Some do, some don't.
Contemporary scientists known to the public are pop scientists.
Some are, some aren't.
But you must be a "journalist" - you come to the conclusions you want
whether they have anything to do with what you're told or not.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
13 Oct 2006 04:12:56 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 19:33:15 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 18:56:40 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
Does that translate into an ability to explain it to average persons?
That depends on specifics. Explain computer programming? Probably.
Explain the general theory of relativity? Probably not. Explain
quantum chromodynamics? I doubt it.
That makes my case.
That destroys your claim that a scientist who can explain his work to
the average person isn't a serious scientist.
Never so claimed.
I defined a pop scientist as one who spends the bulk of his time
explaining science to the average person, as in writing popular
literature and making documentaries.
To morons?
Define "moron".
Most journalists.
Most scientists can explain their work to most media writers, but they
rarely bother, since most media writers write the story they see, not
the story that's there. Give them scientific facts and they'll write
a story using the "facts" that fit the story - even if those "facts"
directly contradict the facts they were given. Much like how
religion explains reality.
No disagreement here.
Would this make pop scientists better scientists than serious
scientists?
Since "pop scientists" are usually serious scientists, the question is
either a null or a full set. If you define "pop scientist" as a
scientist who can explain his work to the general populace, all good
scientists are pop scientists.
Not all pop scientists are good scientists.
If you keep changing definitions, you can make anything equal to
anything.
I haven't changed definitions.
Serious science involves discovery of new knowledge.
Some of it does. Some of it has nothing to do with discovery.
My CD-ROM Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines science as:
"1 : an area of knowledge that is an object of study; esp : natural
science
"2 : knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws
especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method"
By definition, science involves obtaining new knowledge.
Serious scientists engage in research
Some do, some don't.
What else is there, in terms of serious scientific endeavors?
Contemporary scientists known to the public are pop scientists.
I'm not certain that was a correct statement. Certain serious
scientists have gained world-wide fame. Einstein and Werner von Braun
come to mind.
Some are, some aren't.
But you must be a "journalist" -...
I was, many long years ago.
...you come to the conclusions you want whether they have anything
to do with what you're told or not.
That's not exactly a scientific approach, believing something just
because somebody told it to me.
Klein is mad because I believe what I see, not necessarily what I hear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
13 Oct 2006 02:26:33 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 21:12:56 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 19:33:15 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 18:56:40 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
Does that translate into an ability to explain it to average persons?
That depends on specifics. Explain computer programming? Probably.
Explain the general theory of relativity? Probably not. Explain
quantum chromodynamics? I doubt it.
That makes my case.
That destroys your claim that a scientist who can explain his work to
the average person isn't a serious scientist.
Never so claimed.
I defined a pop scientist as one who spends the bulk of his time
explaining science to the average person, as in writing popular
literature and making documentaries.
So one who spends the bulk of his time doing research but CAN explain
his work (which is all I said) isn't a pop scientist.
Serious science involves discovery of new knowledge.
Some of it does. Some of it has nothing to do with discovery.
My CD-ROM Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines science as:
Argumentum ad Dictionarium. Try allowing scientists to define
"scientist". They're better equipped to do so than dictionary
editors.
"1 : an area of knowledge that is an object of study; esp : natural
science
Therefore, someone involved in the study of an area of knowledge is a
scientist. No, suspect right there.
By definition, science involves obtaining new knowledge.
By your definition, not by the definition of people who ARE
scientists.
Serious scientists engage in research
Some do, some don't.
What else is there, in terms of serious scientific endeavors?
Ask some scientists.
Contemporary scientists known to the public are pop scientists.
I'm not certain that was a correct statement. Certain serious
scientists have gained world-wide fame. Einstein and Werner von Braun
come to mind.
Von Braun was an engineer, not a scientist. But MANY scientists have
become famous. To whom is the question. Would you call Dirac famous?
Pauli? Avogadro?
But you must be a "journalist" -...
I was, many long years ago.
...you come to the conclusions you want whether they have anything
to do with what you're told or not.
That's not exactly a scientific approach, believing something just
because somebody told it to me.
Neither is believing a dictionary, just because it says something, but
you did that.
Klein is mad because I believe what I see, not necessarily what I hear.
And the difference between seeing it in ink and seeing it in pixels
is? (BTW, I'm far from angry [and I'm not rabid - try using the
correct words]; Usenet isn't real life.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
14 Oct 2006 12:41:42 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 21:12:56 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 19:33:15 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 18:56:40 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
Does that translate into an ability to explain it to average persons?
That depends on specifics. Explain computer programming? Probably.
Explain the general theory of relativity? Probably not. Explain
quantum chromodynamics? I doubt it.
That makes my case.
That destroys your claim that a scientist who can explain his work to
the average person isn't a serious scientist.
Never so claimed.
I defined a pop scientist as one who spends the bulk of his time
explaining science to the average person, as in writing popular
literature and making documentaries.
So one who spends the bulk of his time doing research but CAN explain
his work (which is all I said) isn't a pop scientist.
Pretty much.
Serious science involves discovery of new knowledge.
Some of it does. Some of it has nothing to do with discovery.
My CD-ROM Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines science as:
Argumentum ad Dictionarium. Try allowing scientists to define
"scientist". They're better equipped to do so than dictionary
editors.
Klein doesn't present any alternative definition, not even one by a
scientist. My dictionary definition is the only one on the table.
"1 : an area of knowledge that is an object of study; esp : natural
science
Therefore, someone involved in the study of an area of knowledge is a
scientist. No, suspect right there.
Obscure.
By definition, science involves obtaining new knowledge.
By your definition, not by the definition of people who ARE
scientists.
What indication is there that any scientist would have a different
definition?
Without such indicagions, I'll go by the only definition on the table.
Serious scientists engage in research
Some do, some don't.
What else is there, in terms of serious scientific endeavors?
Ask some scientists.
Pop scientists?
Or serious scientists?
Contemporary scientists known to the public are pop scientists.
I'm not certain that was a correct statement. Certain serious
scientists have gained world-wide fame. Einstein and Werner von Braun
come to mind.
Von Braun was an engineer, not a scientist.
The Wikipedia encyclopedia says von Braun was a scientist with a
doctorate in physic from the Technical University of Berlin.
But MANY scientists have become famous. To whom is the question.
Would you call Dirac famous? Pauli? Avogadro?
Not particularly.
But you must be a "journalist" -...
I was, many long years ago.
...you come to the conclusions you want whether they have anything
to do with what you're told or not.
That's not exactly a scientific approach, believing something just
because somebody told it to me.
Neither is believing a dictionary, just because it says something, but
you did that.
A dictionary is definitely subject to challenge. However an unspecified
definition does not constitute a challenge to a dictionary definition.
Klein is mad because I believe what I see, not necessarily what I hear.
And the difference between seeing it in ink and seeing it in pixels
is?
One can see moving picures in pixels.
(BTW, I'm far from angry...
(Accusatory language indicates anger, or least annoyance.)
...[and I'm not rabid - try using the correct words];
(I didn't use the word, "rabid".)
Usenet isn't real life.)
Presumably, Usenet submissions come from real people.
The real issue is when different factions claim the sanction of
science, how do non-scientists decide whom to believe?
One possible guide would be the attitude of such factions toward
science itself. We can thus summarily dismiss claims of organizations
that uphold faith over reason.
The original poster called for scientists to speak out in favor of the
liberal agenda.
When liberals invoke science to support their positions, we should
consider the following:
Philosophically, liberals are pragmatists. Pragmatists are among the
first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
The cutting edge of liberal opinion has embraced post-modernism that
holds that all knowledge is ethnic-based, that the claims of Western
science have no more validity than the ravings of primitive, tribal
witchdoctors.
Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists and pop
scientists. They generally quote the latter and ignore the former.
Given their pragmatism, one is just as good as the other and the latter
are generally easier to understand. Klein himself resists acknowledging
the dinsinction.
Liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
political ideology.
Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
primitive existence.
This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
"rape of the natural world."
Science has always had to confront the reaction from both the right and
the left, the former against the conclusions of science, the lattar
against the results of science.
<Snip> Signature block.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
14 Oct 2006 01:56:58 AM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2006 17:41:42 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 21:12:56 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"1 : an area of knowledge that is an object of study; esp : natural
science
Therefore, someone involved in the study of an area of knowledge is a
scientist. No, suspect right there.
Obscure.
English is an area of knowledge, so someone involved in the study of
English is a scientist. I don't think so.
By definition, science involves obtaining new knowledge.
By your definition, not by the definition of people who ARE
scientists.
What indication is there that any scientist would have a different
definition?
First definition in a Google search:
A person who has studied science
Another definition:
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a
natural or physical science.
Another definition:
A scientist is a person who is an expert in one of the sciences
Another one:
a person with advanced knowledge of one of more sciences
Nothing about research.
Serious scientists engage in research
Some do, some don't.
What else is there, in terms of serious scientific endeavors?
Ask some scientists.
Pop scientists?
Or serious scientists?
Assuming your conclusion? Not very scientific. See the definitions
and ask one who fits them.
But MANY scientists have become famous. To whom is the question.
Would you call Dirac famous? Pauli? Avogadro?
Not particularly.
Then you don't know some important scientists.
Neither is believing a dictionary, just because it says something, but
you did that.
A dictionary is definitely subject to challenge. However an unspecified
definition does not constitute a challenge to a dictionary definition.
I specified. Okay?
Klein is mad because I believe what I see, not necessarily what I hear.
And the difference between seeing it in ink and seeing it in pixels
is?
One can see moving picures in pixels.
And you expect the definition to move?
(BTW, I'm far from angry...
(Accusatory language indicates anger, or least annoyance.)
Or truth. If it barks like a dog I don't immediately think "pigeon".
You were just being "accused" of being what you were acting like.
...[and I'm not rabid - try using the correct words];
(I didn't use the word, "rabid".)
You used the common form - no difference. 'Mad' refers to someone
suffering from rabies. Any journeyman journalist would know that.
"Mad dogs and Englishmen ..." and all that? Did you think it meant
"angry dogs"? (Have you even heard the phrase?)
The real issue is when different factions claim the sanction of
science, how do non-scientists decide whom to believe?
If you're intelligent enough to figure that out, you figure it out. If
you're not it won't make any difference, because you won't understand
what the scientist is saying.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he
can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell
One possible guide would be the attitude of such factions toward
science itself. We can thus summarily dismiss claims of organizations
that uphold faith over reason.
Organizations that uphold faith aren't scientific organizations, so
why look to them for scientific answers at all?
The original poster called for scientists to speak out in favor of the
liberal agenda.
When liberals invoke science to support their positions, we should
consider the following:
Philosophically, liberals are pragmatists. Pragmatists are among the
first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
Nonsense. You heard what you understood, which isn't what was said.
Scientists prefer cause and effect over things happening without cause
in this universe.
[conservative ideological claptrap snipped]
Anything more about science?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
14 Oct 2006 04:53:58 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 17:41:42 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 21:12:56 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"1 : an area of knowledge that is an object of study; esp : natural
science
Therefore, someone involved in the study of an area of knowledge is a
scientist. No, suspect right there.
Obscure.
English is an area of knowledge, so someone involved in the study of
English is a scientist. I don't think so.
OK.
By definition, science involves obtaining new knowledge.
By your definition, not by the definition of people who ARE
scientists.
What indication is there that any scientist would have a different
definition?
First definition in a Google search:
A person who has studied science
Another definition:
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a
natural or physical science.
Another definition:
A scientist is a person who is an expert in one of the sciences
Another one:
a person with advanced knowledge of one of more sciences
Nothing about research.
Klein contests my definition of "science" with quoted definitions of
"scientist," and none of those definitions has come from a scientist,
even if he suggested I ask one.
Dictionary.com define science as:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or
truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general
laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained
through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic
study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles;
proficiency.
Notice of prevalence of "knowledge" and "study".
Serious scientists engage in research
Some do, some don't.
What else is there, in terms of serious scientific endeavors?
Ask some scientists.
Pop scientists?
Or serious scientists?
Assuming your conclusion? Not very scientific. See the definitions
and ask one who fits them.
I provided my definition and reasons therefor. So far, they remain
unchallenged and uncontested.
But MANY scientists have become famous. To whom is the question.
Would you call Dirac famous? Pauli? Avogadro?
Not particularly.
Then you don't know some important scientists.
They call that a non sequitur, where not regarding somebody as famous
is illogically translated into not knowing about them.
Klein regards name dropping of obscure scientists as a sign of
sophistication. Thus he omitted my correcting his assertion of Werner
von Braun being an engineer since it shattered his self-delusion.
Neither is believing a dictionary, just because it says something, but
you did that.
A dictionary is definitely subject to challenge. However an unspecified
definition does not constitute a challenge to a dictionary definition.
I specified. Okay?
No.
He challenged my definition of a word with definitions of another word.
Klein is mad because I believe what I see, not necessarily what I hear.
And the difference between seeing it in ink and seeing it in pixels
is?
One can see moving picures in pixels.
And you expect the definition to move?
No.
(BTW, I'm far from angry...
(Accusatory language indicates anger, or least annoyance.)
Or truth. If it barks like a dog I don't immediately think "pigeon".
You were just being "accused" of being what you were acting like.
Unsupported accusations are not truth.
...[and I'm not rabid - try using the correct words];
(I didn't use the word, "rabid".)
You used the common form - no difference. 'Mad' refers to someone
suffering from rabies. Any journeyman journalist would know that.
"Mad dogs and Englishmen ..." and all that? Did you think it meant
"angry dogs"? (Have you even heard the phrase?)
My CD-ROM dictionary defines "mad" as
"1 : disordered in mind : insane
"2 : being rash and foolish
"3 : furious, enraged
"4 : carried away by enthusiasm
"5 : rabid
"6 : marked by wild gaiety and merriment
"7 : frantic"
I clearly meant number 3. If Klein wants to fixate on number 5, that's
his problem.
The real issue is when different factions claim the sanction of
science, how do non-scientists decide whom to believe?
If you're intelligent enough to figure that out, you figure it out.
I did. It was part of what Klein omitted.
If you're not it won't make any difference, because you won't understand
what the scientist is saying.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he
can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell
One possible guide would be the attitude of such factions toward
science itself. We can thus summarily dismiss claims of organizations
that uphold faith over reason.
Organizations that uphold faith aren't scientific organizations, so
why look to them for scientific answers at all?
I don't.
However, such outfits keep publicizing their claim. Thus I come up with
reasons why people can dismiss such claims without having to go into
them in detail.
The original poster called for scientists to speak out in favor of the
liberal agenda.
When liberals invoke science to support their positions, we should
consider the following:
Philosophically, liberals are pragmatists. Pragmatists are among the
first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
Nonsense. You heard what you understood, which isn't what was said.
Scientists prefer cause and effect over things happening without cause
in this universe.
Klein projects his methodology onto me and responds to what he heard,
not to what I said.
I wasn't talking about scientists. I was talking about liberals and
what they say.
[conservative ideological claptrap snipped]
I'll just reinsert what Klein is obviously ill-equipped to deal with:
"The cutting edge of liberal opinion has embraced post-modernism that
holds that all knowledge is ethnic-based, that the claims of Western
science have no more validity than the ravings of primitive, tribal
witchdoctors.
"Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists and pop
scientists. They generally quote the latter and ignore the former.
Given their pragmatism, one is just as good as the other and the latter
are generally easier to understand. Klein himself resists acknowledging
the dinsinction.
"Liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
political ideology.
"Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
primitive existence.
"This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where
the character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as
the 'rape of the natural world.'
"Science has always had to confront the reaction from both the right
and the left, the former against the conclusions of science, the lattar
against the results of science."
That Klien would regard this as ideologically conservative would be an
illistration of his quote from Bertrand Russell.
Anything more about science?
First, let Klein deal with what's already been said.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand.
Now if only athiests were consistently intellectualy honest on other
subjects.
And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
11 Oct 2006 07:12:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:40:21 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 10:21:06 -0700, "Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Serious scientists have difficulty explaining things to non-scientists.
Pop scientists are very good at it.
One of the tests of whether you really understand what you're doing is
your ability to explain it to someone not in your field.
The listener has to have the intelligence to understand it rather than
filter out what isn't in his perspective.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he
can understand" - Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
08 Oct 2006 04:36:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:39:31 -0700, Jim Austin wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate
change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to
take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a
president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
Judge for yourself:
Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers
Effective government depends on accurate, honest and timely advice from
scientists and engineers. Science demands an open, transparent process of
review and access to the best scholars from around the nation and the
world. Mistakes dangerous to the nation’s welfare and security have been
made when governments prevent scientists from presenting the best evidence
and analysis. Americans should demand that all candidates support the
following Bill of Rights:
1. Federal policy shall be made using the best available science and
analysis both from within the government and from the rest of
society.
2. The federal government shall never intentionally publish false or
misleading scientific information nor post such material on federal
websites.
3. Scientists conducting research or analysis with federal funding
shall be free to discuss and publish the results of unclassified
research after a reasonable period of review without fear of
intimidation or adverse personnel action.
4. Federal employees reporting what they believe to be manipulation of
federal research and analysis for political or ideological reasons
should be free to bring this information to the attention of the
public and shall be protected from intimidation, retribution or
adverse personnel action by effective enforcement of Whistle Blower
laws.
5. No scientists should fear reprisals or intimidation because of the
results of their research.
6. Appointments to federal scientific advisory committees shall be
based on the candidate’s scientific qualifications, not political
affiliation or ideology.
7. The federal government shall not support any science education
program that includes instruction in concepts that are derived from
ideology and not science.
8. While scientists may elect to withhold methods or studies that might
be misused there shall be no federal prohibition on publication of
basic research results. Decisions made about blocking the release
of information about specific applied research and technologies for
reasons of national security shall be the result of a transparent
process. Classification decisions shall be made by trained
professionals using a clear set of published criteria and there
shall be a clear process for challenging decisions and a process for
remedying mistakes and abuses of the classification system.
http://www.sefora.org/pages.php?submitted=1&id=97
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists look to place a pro-science president |
08 Oct 2006 06:26:02 PM |
|
|
Frank Mayhar wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:39:31 -0700, Jim Austin wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
Scientists look to place a pro-science president
06 October 2006
Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate
change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to
take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a
president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.
Would that be serious science or pop science?
Judge for yourself:
OK.
Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers
Effective government depends on accurate, honest and timely advice from
scientists and engineers. Science demands an open, transparent process of
review and access to the best scholars from around the nation and the
world. Mistakes dangerous to the nation's welfare and security have been
made when governments prevent scientists from presenting the best evidence
and analysis. Americans should demand that all candidates support the
following Bill of Rights:
Seems reasonable enough.
1. Federal policy shall be made using the best available science and
analysis both from within the government and from the rest of
society.
Who decides?
2. The federal government shall never intentionally publish false or
misleading scientific information nor post such material on federal
websites.
3. Scientists conducting research or analysis with federal funding
shall be free to discuss and publish the results of unclassified
research after a reasonable period of review without fear of
intimidation or adverse personnel action.
Works for me.
4. Federal employees reporting what they believe to be manipulation of
federal research and analysis for political or ideological reasons
should be free to bring this information to the attention of the
public and shall be protected from intimidation, retribution or
adverse personnel action by effective enforcement of Whistle Blower
laws.
5. No scientists should fear reprisals or intimidation because of the
results of their research.
How about hacks, quacks, shysters and charlatans?
6. Appointments to federal scientific advisory committees shall be
based on the candidate's scientific qualifications, not political
affiliation or ideology.
Or political correctness?
7. The federal government shall not support any science education
program that includes instruction in concepts that are derived from
ideology and not science.
How would non-scientists who make such decisions decide?
8. While scientists may elect to withhold methods or studies that might
be misused there shall be no federal prohibition on publication of
basic research results. Decisions made about blocking the release
of information about specific applied research and technologies for
reasons of national security shall be the result of a transparent
process. Classification decisions shall be made by trained
professionals using a clear set of published criteria and there
shall be a clear process for challenging decisions and a process for
remedying mistakes and abuses of the classification system.
http://www.sefora.org/pages.php?submitted=1&id=97
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
| | | |
