Tweet
Look at my location field for the most accurate description ever.
-
Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
-Richard Dawkins -
If it hasn't been done yet, why the hell should I read about it? Unless your presenting the science behind the experiment...Originally posted by Starchild
Except for the fact that the science matters diddly squat all until it gets done.
It may be very all well and good that the Higgs Boson is out there or that fusion reactions occur under X conditions but until we actually do the long, hard process of getting the actual science done (the lab work, the data gathering, the long hours spent repeating the experiment, publishing, peer review, etc) then they might as well be magical pixies.
The point being that it doesn't say anything about science at all to devote articles to the politics of it.Comment
-
If I want to read about that then I'll open the Washington Post. Not SciAm. Not Discover.Comment
-
It's the politics that determines what sciences gets done and it's no longer the case that scientists can just sit back and accept our funding. Your own government is eager to use bad or misleading science to support its own political aims so we're forced to fight back. That we do through our publications.Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
-Richard DawkinsComment
-
But the POLITICS ISN'T SCIENCE. I doubt a scientific journal would have an article about ABM tests; while SciAm is for the layman, it shouldn't either.Comment
-
Why not? The science underlying such experiments is interesting.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
I meant about ZOMFG teh ABM tests had teh FAILURES.
If I want to read a news report containing no actual science, I'll read the newspaper. Not Scientific American.Comment
-
Just a couple of small points: When I was growing up, people who pointed out that South America and Africa appeared to have once been joined where on the outs from the weight of informed science; and people who thought that the extinction of dinosaurs and other changes in species could only be explained by catastophisms were similar poo-pooed. Now we know that both disdained theories were correct.
Science is not immune from bias based upon "weight" of opinion so that it resists as implausible theories that are eventually proved to be true.
Also, that science should ignore economics to inform a politically correct solution is a disasterous approach to policy. That said, I have no problem with science ignoring a priori religion. The Catholic Church learned its lesson in this regard long ago. It's doctrine now is that the bible must be taken as allegory and, as such, the Church's doctrine is compatible with evolution.http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=enComment
-
No thanks. It's not worth the time. That article provides no basis from which to begin discussions.Post reputable challenges to what Oerdin posted above. I'll counter.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
If I want to read about that then I'll open the Washington Post. Not SciAm. Not Discover.
WaPo Editors aren't educated in technical matters. Why the **** should I trust them wrt the viability of ABM? SciAm is a far better place for that.
As such, it often actually illuminates the topic at hand, and it's often actual science (just like they explain the history of ideas in physics in physics class - but they skip anything unscientific like Aristotle).
But it has nothing to do with the current scientific theory, besides being its precursor. If I read something that has nothing to do with current scientific theory, it's like my balls getting cut up into little pieces or something. Why not keep the history in the history book!?!?
There's an entire column, and always an article or two.
IOW, you're saying that it takes up a little more than history. Still didn't answer the first question. Should the 50, 100, 150 years ago page be axed?
But the POLITICS ISN'T SCIENCE. I doubt a scientific journal would have an article about ABM tests; while SciAm is for the layman, it shouldn't either.
Why? You keep repeating this without any justification.
Incidentally, the American Physical Society did produce a paper on the viability of boost-phase ABM systems, concluding that they're ****."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
How much education in technical matters do you need to report "4 out of 5 missed" or whatever?Originally posted by Ramo
If I want to read about that then I'll open the Washington Post. Not SciAm. Not Discover.
WaPo Editors aren't educated in technical matters. Why the **** should I trust them wrt the viability of ABM? SciAm is a far better place for that.
But it has nothing to do with the current scientific theory, besides being its precursor. If I read something that has nothing to do with current scientific theory, it's like my balls getting cut up into little pieces or something. Why not keep the history in the history book!?!?
Reread what I said.
There's an entire column, and always an article or two.
IOW, you're saying that it takes up a little more than history. Still didn't answer the first question. Should the 50, 100, 150 years ago page be axed?
Why would it be?
It takes up one page, it IS science (though obsolete science) and it's not like it detracts from anything. Bringing politics does detract, because they substitute it for science.
Why? You keep repeating this without any justification.
It's a SCIENCE MAGAZINE. People read it to LEARN ABOUT SCIENCE. Not to learn about the political issues of the day.Comment
-
How much education in technical matters do you need to report "4 out of 5 missed" or whatever?
To write about the problems inherent in the system. To be able to write about technical studies wrt ABM systems with competence.
It takes up one page, it IS science (though obsolete science) and it's not like it detracts from anything. Bringing politics does detract, because they substitute it for science.
"But it has nothing to do with the current scientific theory, besides being its precursor. If I read something that has nothing to do with current scientific theory, it's like my balls getting cut up into little pieces or something. Why not keep the history in the history book!?!?"
And your distraction argument doesn't make any sense.
It's a SCIENCE MAGAZINE. People read it to LEARN ABOUT SCIENCE. Not to learn about the political issues of the day.
That may be what YOU do. But you're not everyone. Most people don't have an irrational need to seperate reading pop science and reading policy wrt science."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
But the POLITICS ISN'T SCIENCE. I doubt a scientific journal would have an article about ABM tests; while SciAm is for the layman, it shouldn't either.
Try getting Newton published in a scientific journal nowadays."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Logical fallacy; just because these theories are now accepted by the scientific community (note: Nothing can be "proven correct" technically, though they can be refined; "proven corredt" is more of a shorthand for "accepted by the scientific community") doesn't mean that all of the hypotheses currently not accepted by the scientific community, will be accepted. The vast majority of hypothesis's are not simply accepted by absolutely ALL of science. While it is true that there were some theories that the scientific community previously thought were false, are not considered true, this doesn't mean that all hypotheses will become accepted scientific theories.Originally posted by Ned
Just a couple of small points: When I was growing up, people who pointed out that South America and Africa appeared to have once been joined where on the outs from the weight of informed science; and people who thought that the extinction of dinosaurs and other changes in species could only be explained by catastophisms were similar poo-pooed. Now we know that both disdained theories were correct.
You are correct about bias; this is probably the major reason why religion and morality should be seperated from science. Actually, theories usually arn't proven true. Instead, it's that the old guard die out and the new scientists of the era believe the theory. A simple example of this is Black Holes: Technically no black hole has actually been "proven", but its existance is now taken for granted by all of science.Science is not immune from bias based upon "weight" of opinion so that it resists as implausible theories that are eventually proved to be true.
Regaring the politics in science issue: While I personally wish that politics didn't interfere with science to an upmost extent (Up to the point in believing in Technocracy, a government basically ruled by scientists
), I realize that it is a truth and thus scientists must defend and support their works.
"Compromises are not always good things. If one guy wants to drill a five-inch hole in the bottom of your life boat, and the other person doesn't, a compromise of a two-inch hole is still stupid." - chegitz guevara
"Bill3000: The United Demesos? Boy, I was young and stupid back then.
Jasonian22: Bill, you are STILL young and stupid."
"is it normal to imaginne dartrh vader and myself in a tjhreee way with some hot chick? i'ts always been my fantasy" - DisComment
-
As a Geologist I feel I have to respond to this. Continental drift/techtonics has not been poo-pooed by the scientific community by any means. Certainly not during any time which you have been alive. The puzzle like fit of certain continents was noticed and written about by geographers back in the 18th century while the theory that continents could move over long periods of time was first proposed by the German Geologist Alfred Wegener in 1915. It was highly admired and well thought of in the geological sciences community but no one could explain the mechanics of what process could move whole sections of the Earth's crust.Originally posted by Ned
Just a couple of small points: When I was growing up, people who pointed out that South America and Africa appeared to have once been joined where on the outs from the weight of informed science; and people who thought that the extinction of dinosaurs and other changes in species could only be explained by catastophisms were similar poo-pooed. Now we know that both disdained theories were correct.
In WW2 the allies greatly improved their sonar technology and began making undersea maps of the world's oceans which revealed the priences of mountain ranges known as mid-ocean ridges and improved seismic montoring allowed scientists to pinpoint these ridges as a source of large amounts of volcanic activity and earthquakes. It wasn't until the 1950's that the American scientists Vine & Mathews begun trying to form a unified theory of plate tectonics. They continued working through the early 1960's until they got the help of Heiss & Deitz and the final pieces of the theory of plate tectonics were put into place.
The maps they created based upon volcanic activity along with earthquakes were almost entirely correct and they were completely correct that the process was driven by the differences in relative density between various materials. They even theorized (since confirmed) about the existance of subduction zones, deepening earthquakes as the slabs subduct, the existance of deep sea trenches, and even deep sea smokers. for geologists tectonics is about the equivalant to Newton's theory of gravity or Quantum mechanics. It's that revolutionary.
The theory has been continuosly alive and well in the scientific community since 1915 and amoung geologists everyone was trying to figure out the reason for these movements. It took 40 years but they eventually figured it out.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
Comment