In Defense of Science

[beebskadoo]

I guess it depends on what the agenda is. Let's just say for American politics at least, neither side is really all that good on the extreme ends. My country has such a damaged reputation abroad because of policies that I don't support.

 

And no, everyone has their own take on how things should be, no harm in that. It's what debate is all about so long as people stay civil.

 

PS: The 'greater good' for me is not trying to sway people with sweet lies to get votes..so many people fell for that when Obama first ran for office. We were so sick of Bush that we'd believe in anything. The greater good is the government protecting the people, not enslaving them. Not starting conflict with other nations, but to advance itself and its people. I mean damn, a prisoner in Norway is way better off than the poorest "free" American.

Neither of the candidates where honest in the least, I guess it was about picking the lesser of the two evils... 

[NeoZeon]

Are you all meaning natural sciences when you're talking about science?

Because I also consider the arts/the humanities as sciences.

 

That's an interesting stance, because the classical (and intellectual) interpritations of Arts and Sciences make them Antonyms of oneanother. I'm interested, Have you taken an upper/graduate level philosophy course and an upper level/graduate level science course at the university level? From my expierence (I went to a liberal arts undergrad, ~1300 studnets with only about 100 science majors) those two classes are taught very different and information is passed very differently. Often times, in philosphy, an article is publsihed and then is subject to scruiteny. That vetting process starts much earlier in the sciences, thats why they call most scientific journals "peer reivewed". There is some of that in the humanties, but that is genreally through the publsihing company and less through actual peers. I'm not saying your wrong, but it would be intersting to see if your opinion is based on actually going through the intellectual strokes of these diciplines. I am fortunate enough to have a BA in both Physics and Mathematics with a minor in philosophy.

 

Beyond all other subjects, the natural and applied sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering, Geology, Computer Science, Mathematics, others) is the teaching of wondrement. No other dicipline demands you to wonder the way that you must to be a sucessful science. Science exists, as a way to feed our wonderment. This is something that not just Homo Sapiens have had, but largely evidenced from Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. We humans wonder, and we will stop feeing that wonderment when we stop funding science. That wonderment separates us from other species, and thus, defunding it is an absolute rejection of those differences. The rejection of science is a rejection of those differences, and thus mankind.

 

While there might be some funding issues with the other diciplines, such as the humanties, thats largely because a lot more humanties are taught; think about your secondary education scedual. In highschool, most students take 2-3 years of math, 2-3 years of science, and then the rest are comprised of History, English, Foriegn Language, Social Sciences, Art and other electives. It turns out that the average student, less that 1/4 of their education is devoted to math or science in this country. In california, you are only required to take geometry (something I took in 7th grade) to exit highschool. Science is not only not taught enough, but under funded. This is probably because access to the less tedius aspects of science requires significant intelletual capital, something that the average person, say with an IQ of 100, probably does not have. But there are innovative science programs at the secondary level, particualry in private schools, that have achieved major gains in scientific literacy. That type of thing simply isn't possible with the amount of funding and training that science teachers have in plublic school. Less than 30% of science teachers at public school have a degree in science. I teach the future science teachers, they are education majors, and simply put, my future kids will be put into private school for that reason.

 

On the subject of ethics, science is nondiscrimintory. Nuclear, or any type of energy cannot be bad. People use them poorly, but thats a different matter. Science is wonderment for the sake of wonderment. There is no inbetween, for nuclear energy to be 'bad', so must all science.

[TideRower]

That's an interesting stance, because the classical (and intellectual) interpritations of Arts and Sciences make them Antonyms of oneanother. I'm interested, Have you taken an upper/graduate level philosophy course and an upper level/graduate level science course at the university level? From my expierence (I went to a liberal arts undergrad, ~1300 studnets with only about 100 science majors) those two classes are taught very different and information is passed very differently. Often times, in philosphy, an article is publsihed and then is subject to scruiteny. That vetting process starts much earlier in the sciences, thats why they call most scientific journals "peer reivewed". There is some of that in the humanties, but that is genreally through the publsihing company and less through actual peers. I'm not saying your wrong, but it would be intersting to see if your opinion is based on actually going through the intellectual strokes of these diciplines. I am fortunate enough to have a BA in both Physics and Mathematics with a minor in philosophy.

 

Beyond all other subjects, the natural and applied sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering, Geology, Computer Science, Mathematics, others) is the teaching of wondrement. No other dicipline demands you to wonder the way that you must to be a sucessful science. Science exists, as a way to feed our wonderment. This is something that not just Homo Sapiens have had, but largely evidenced from Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. We humans wonder, and we will stop feeing that wonderment when we stop funding science. That wonderment separates us from other species, and thus, defunding it is an absolute rejection of those differences. The rejection of science is a rejection of those differences, and thus mankind.

 

While there might be some funding issues with the other diciplines, such as the humanties, thats largely because a lot more humanties are taught; think about your secondary education scedual. In highschool, most students take 2-3 years of math, 2-3 years of science, and then the rest are comprised of History, English, Foriegn Language, Social Sciences, Art and other electives. It turns out that the average student, less that 1/4 of their education is devoted to math or science in this country. In california, you are only required to take geometry (something I took in 7th grade) to exit highschool. Science is not only not taught enough, but under funded. This is probably because access to the less tedius aspects of science requires significant intelletual capital, something that the average person, say with an IQ of 100, probably does not have. But there are innovative science programs at the secondary level, particualry in private schools, that have achieved major gains in scientific literacy. That type of thing simply isn't possible with the amount of funding and training that science teachers have in plublic school. Less than 30% of science teachers at public school have a degree in science. I teach the future science teachers, they are education majors, and simply put, my future kids will be put into private school for that reason.

 

On the subject of ethics, science is nondiscrimintory. Nuclear, or any type of energy cannot be bad. People use them poorly, but thats a different matter. Science is wonderment for the sake of wonderment. There is no inbetween, for nuclear energy to be 'bad', so must all science.

Ok, I probably have to talk about the education system in my country first (it's also nearly the same in Austria):

The first 8 years are the same for everybody and you can't choose the courses you want to take.

Then you can choose the highschool you want to attend. This will predefine your courses. So you can't make your individual curriculum.

The highschool I attended was focused on science, at least the name suggests it. So I had 5 years of: math, 'science' (first two years practical and biology then physics and chemistry), history, 4 languages (German, Italian, English, Latin),PE and religion (1h). The last three years I had philosophy (3 hours a week) and the last 4 years arts and drawing (2h). Math and science made up approximately 1/3 of the school time. Also all my natural-science teachers have a degree.

At the moment I'm studying maths at university. I hope that answers your question, because I have no idea what's 'upper/graduate level'.

 

For my reasoning: If you include math to science then you should also include philosophy. I know that they are very different, but they are both based on logic. Also some early scientists were also philosophers (e.g. Aristotle).

But I think I my major reasoning was a language mistake. My first language is German and there the noun 'science' (= Wissenschaft) includes the subdivision 'humanities' /'arts' (=Geisteswissenschaften). So you see that the world for 'arts' icludes the word for 'science'.  Also 'Wissen' means knowledge, so I connect science with knowledge. But I think now that the word 'science' is used differently.

 

I think the natural sciences and the wonderment is true, but for non-specialists our knowledge is already enough/too much. So the politicians cut fundings, because they don't understand the importance of it which is surely a problem (you don't have to convince me)

I would also include arts as something that makes us different from other animals. Both arts and science need their part in the education (the right balance of these two differs from person to person). And I think it's an even bigger problem if a state is cheaping out on education than on science. Both is bad and both are the first two things the governments start saving on. I think my country is making a really big error doing this. Some public universitys are really bad equipped, that's why I'm studying in Austria (and because the university there costs nothing, only 36€/year).

On the ethics of science: I meant more the scientists doing something unethic (e.g. experimenting with humans like they did in concentration camps).

 

PS: Do you have obligatory subjects at high school?

[TideRower]

I guess it depends on what the agenda is. Let's just say for American politics at least, neither side is really all that good on the extreme ends. My country has such a damaged reputation abroad because of policies that I don't support.

 

And no, everyone has their own take on how things should be, no harm in that. It's what debate is all about so long as people stay civil.

 

PS: The 'greater good' for me is not trying to sway people with sweet lies to get votes..so many people fell for that when Obama first ran for office. We were so sick of Bush that we'd believe in anything. The greater good is the government protecting the people, not enslaving them. Not starting conflict with other nations, but to advance itself and its people. I mean damn, a prisoner in Norway is way better off than the poorest "free" American.

I thought you were against agendas in general. What do you mean with 'enslaving'? Not creating opportunities, surveillance, meaningless restrictions?

For me the US had a pretty good reputation after Bush was gone. With the NSA stuff, drones, Guantánamo it was damaged a bit, but it's still alright. (I'm talking about Europe right now). Talking about lying politicans, I think we (Italy) are still the number one.

Seriously, I don't know why this is still going on (privileges and exorbitant wages the politicians have). For instance the governor of the province with approximately 1/2 a million population has a higher income then your president.

Do americans in general want more a welfare state or not?  (I'm just curious about the political situation in other countries.)

[Mooshi]

I thought you were against agendas in general. What do you mean with 'enslaving'? Not creating opportunities, surveillance, meaningless restrictions?

For me the US had a pretty good reputation after Bush was gone. With the NSA stuff, drones, Guantánamo it was damaged a bit, but it's still alright. (I'm talking about Europe right now). Talking about lying politicans, I think we (Italy) are still the number one.

Seriously, I don't know why this is still going on (privileges and exorbitant wages the politicians have). For instance the governor of the province with approximately 1/2 a million population has a higher income then your president.

Do americans in general want more a welfare state or not?  (I'm just curious about the political situation in other countries.)

 

To understand why Obama is the worst president in recent US history, you have to live in the US. His entire political platform was based around lies. For example, he promised to end the damage that Bush has caused abroad and what does he do? He gets a Nobel Peace Prize...and he wants conflict with Syria. Obama made speech upon speech that he would bring the troops back home from the Middle East to end that war (which I'm strictly against because there is no way to win a war on ideological - you can't force people to think a certain way especially if there is a lot of religion involved..it's an un-winnable holy war) He's on the verge of creating World War III. Another thing Obama lied about to get votes was to claim he was going to repeal the illegal surveillance on American citizens and he extends it...

 

Then there is destroying the American economy with racking in so much debt that it would make Bush himself blush! Obama is putting America under so much debt that it's higher than past presidents combined! On top of his carelessness, the folks in DC are raising our debt ceiling and printing out more currency which is only devaluing it even further. What you have are a bunch of frauds and domestic terrorists..traitors running the country and the rest of the world that think "At least he isn't Bush" are unaware that Obama is Bush2 and in some ways, worst. On a more personal note, I made less an hr on my first job, but took more money home under Bush than I did under a higher paying job under Obama because of "Obamacare". The cousins I live with, we are not rich by any means and live in a modest 2 bedroom home. Because of Obamacare, my cousin Jesse had 700usd taken out recently when all this stuff kicked in and this is a man with kidney failure that needs a transplant. All Obama is doing is pissing off honest Americans. (and no, Obamacare doesn't = a free trip to doctors or free anything, things cost, but now there is more money being taken out on the federal level to fund more bullshit abroad whilst treating it's own citizens like criminals)

 

What do Americans want? The sane ones want the US to stop dicking around other countries with conflicts and occupations. We want the US to stop depending on China for making everything to give Americans manufacturing jobs. We want the debt ceiling to stop being raised and instead fix the bloated budget. But most of all, we want the government to butt out of our lives and do their jobs.

[Mattbball53097]

Personally, I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools (assuming it's not a religious school). Creationism, as you mentioned, isn't a theory, it's a myth. When I say myth, I am referring to a traditional story not a false belief. With no proper evidence to support Creationism, there isn't a proper way to teach it in a classroom. Why would we teach our children something that we can't prove or have evidence of? Living in the Bible Belt, I know that almost everybody here is a Christian. My problem isn't that people here are religious, or even that they didn't teach us about evolution. My problem is that they didn't teach us evolution until 10th grade. Evolution should be taught like any other material at school. You start out at a younger age and you teach the basics, but as they progress through school, you add on to those basics.

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

 

[TideRower]

To understand why Obama is the worst president in recent US history, you have to live in the US. His entire political platform was based around lies. For example, he promised to end the damage that Bush has caused abroad and what does he do? He gets a Nobel Peace Prize...and he wants conflict with Syria. Obama made speech upon speech that he would bring the troops back home from the Middle East to end that war (which I'm strictly against because there is no way to win a war on ideological - you can't force people to think a certain way especially if there is a lot of religion involved..it's an un-winnable holy war) He's on the verge of creating World War III. Another thing Obama lied about to get votes was to claim he was going to repeal the illegal surveillance on American citizens and he extends it...

 

Then there is destroying the American economy with racking in so much debt that it would make Bush himself blush! Obama is putting America under so much debt that it's higher than past presidents combined! On top of his carelessness, the folks in DC are raising our debt ceiling and printing out more currency which is only devaluing it even further. What you have are a bunch of frauds and domestic terrorists..traitors running the country and the rest of the world that think "At least he isn't Bush" are unaware that Obama is Bush2 and in some ways, worst. On a more personal note, I made less an hr on my first job, but took more money home under Bush than I did under a higher paying job under Obama because of "Obamacare". The cousins I live with, we are not rich by any means and live in a modest 2 bedroom home. Because of Obamacare, my cousin Jesse had 700usd taken out recently when all this stuff kicked in and this is a man with kidney failure that needs a transplant. All Obama is doing is pissing off honest Americans. (and no, Obamacare doesn't = a free trip to doctors or free anything, things cost, but now there is more money being taken out on the federal level to fund more bullshit abroad whilst treating it's own citizens like criminals)

 

What do Americans want? The sane ones want the US to stop dicking around other countries with conflicts and occupations. We want the US to stop depending on China for making everything to give Americans manufacturing jobs. We want the debt ceiling to stop being raised and instead fix the bloated budget. But most of all, we want the government to butt out of our lives and do their jobs.

Do you think another one could have done a better job? You shouldn't forget the financial crisis. In my opinion it's very common right now that no government and no party has a real plan how to solve the financial problems. I'm not for no-debts at all, making depts to improve the education system or the infrastructure is fine, but spending it for military not.

There are some ways to lower debts more taxes or more growth. I would add 'fair taxation' (the big companies are paying nearly no taxes) and stricter controls on the financial system. (I could talk a lot about that).

 

Health insurance organized by the country shouldn't hit the lower and middle incomes. Our own health system isn't good either (in some regions it's quite good), but in another way: we don't have to pay a lot on the other hand the quality of public hospitals isn't great.

 

So do you want less interference from the state? (thats really stereotypical for Americans)

I agree that the government shouldn't spy out their citizen (if they do so, then it should be done in public and they should be monitored too) or make over complicate laws (or taxation systems) or too many that just annoy the normal citizen. But I think a stronger regulation on the economy is necessary to lower the possibilities of a financial crisis like the last one and a state should try to provide social justice (don't know whether that's the right word for it).

In my opinion neo-liberalism is just a bad idea.

[Wulfgar]

It's more than a rejection of mankind, it's a rejection of reality and the world around us. Unfortunately, human nature compels many people to preserve the status quo no matter what (conservatism, traditionalism) and serves as an obstacle to understanding ourselves and the universe.

[Mentalguy]

*Disclaimer, this rant is stemming from an argument I had with one of my students who questioned the age of the earth. I teach intro geology at the university level, and we were learning about plate tectonics, a process that occurs over millions of years.

*This rant will probably have very little organization, I'm fairly upset right now.

I'm sure that most of you do not need convincing, but I will make the claim anyway: a rejection of science is equivalent to rejecting mankind itself. This is important to say, because in recent years, the primary contributor to scientific funding, the United States, is cutting funding to the National Science Foundation, NASA, and other objective science funding sources. For those of you that do not know, the National Science Foundation is pretty much the pay source of all academic scientists in the fields ranging from the Natural Sciences to the Applied sciences. They are the people that are currently funding my graduate education, without which it would cost me upwards of 500k to complete my degree, not including research expenses. This funding makes my accomplishments, and the rest of sciences accomplishments (most is publicly funded in academia), not just my own, but society's. Scientists truly stand on the shoulders of giants.

For those of you who are approaching voting age, in any country, its time to start thinking about what kind of world you want. The Dark ages in Europe coincided with the massive reduction in scientific funding, and ended with a renewing interest in science and natural law. What does the candidate you favor think about scientific funding?

In the United States, there is a push to have creationism taught alongside science in classrooms; fine, with the exception that they want to use money budgeted for science classes to do so. This is not acceptable. This might offend you, but creationism has no place in a liberal (think classical Greek definition, not political definition) environment. Creationism is less than a theory, which requires observable evidence. When a school board, makes you qualify evolution as "The Theory of Evolution", it's not to correctly define a scientific idea, but to provide a contrast where creationism is not a theory and therefore seems more substantiated. You may believe creationism is the Truth, with a capital T, but if you claim that there is more evidence supporting creationism than Evolution you really need to evaluate your sources.

When you attack science, you attack yourself. Every scientist, no matter what they study, has one goal: to change the world. In a few years, New Horizons will swing by Pluto, and take hi-resolution photos of the icy surface. Once those pictures are taken, the people born after that will never know a world where Pluto was just some flickering ball in a high powered telescope. The normal of knowledge will have changed, along with the world. Why are people so adamant to stop this? Why do people choose to hurt themselves, and their children so much? When you vote, defend science, as it directly defends society as well.

 

 

If this post is unacceptable, too political, or what ever, please delete it, and accept my apologies. I don't intent to start a war, I just want people to realize what they are doing when they hurt the scientific community.

For the benefit of debate i'm gonna argue all the points of Intelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*hits you over the head with a Bible*