I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
Robatoy wrote:
>
>
> The 'Good Guys' would like nothing more than being the ONLY supplier
> of seeds to the planet. The muscle they build into their contracts,
> certainly overseas, is nothing short of extortion.
> That 'wanting to feed the world' is driven purely by the kind-hearted
> members of the Monsanto BoD?
The Sterile Seed thing is a biggie in my book.
Genetically engineered plants to prevent a farmer from saving seed...
There's only one reason for that, and it's not to enhance world food
availability.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:16:10 +0100, sweet sawdust wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>
>
Because in the popular mind, there is no difference between science and
technology.
sorry, it's a question posted a long time ago. What the heck
On Jul 16, 5:16=A0pm, "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of th=
e
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. =A0The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. =A0I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather=
then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
Not afraid but very wary. Too many things are done "in the name of
science" without regard to consequences.
Also the arrogance is unmatched:
Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply
Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work
Plum Island
Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart
enough to keep it under control. That is why we have Frankenstein, I
Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
books/movies about the need to be carfeul.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>
> Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you post.
> Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god. That happens on a
> daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the scientific community.
There is also a segment that points out that you can't disprove it either.
I'm not choosing a side, but simply stating there are plenty of
scientists on either side.
On Jul 18, 8:09 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:9e8ac435-3f40-465b-ae39-77436f6e3600@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
> > don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
> > anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
> > throughout history.
>
> Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you post.
> Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god. That happens on a
> daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the scientific community. You
> hear all sorts of slanderous comments associated with the beliefs of
> "religious" people - things like "fear", "irrational", "uneducated", etc.
> Likewise, Religionists can often do the same. Either camp is equally guilty
> of the same behaviors and either camp is equally populated with those who
> don't succumb to that type of behavior. It's not a science vs. religion
> thing - it's a human nature thing. There are those who can be comfortable
> with ideas outside of their own beliefs and understandings, and there are
> those who can't. The former recognizes that they don't and can't know
> everything, the latter hasn't figured that out yet. Both science and
> religion can be found fighting within their own little camps. It's the
> human nature at work - not the issue of science vs. anything else.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
As someone who lives amongst the fundamentalists, I guess my point is
influenced by their proximity. There are scientists around here, too,
of course, but mostly they keep a low profile.
You want a religious fight? Put three Southern Baptists together and
get them to discuss theology. Hide the weapons first.
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of
> the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she
> has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
> science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give
> her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to post
> before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a fun
> thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst candiate
> stuff going around.
>
>
>
Here's a few thoughts, from someone who had to take certain classes
because of the word "Science" in his degree name.
First, math is rarely seperable from science. Science is generally easy
to understand (if you punch a wall, it will hurt), but mathematics get
hard. Most people deal with this by avoiding mathematics, but you can
only do that for so long before the science you want to use requires it.
So why are people afraid of science/scientists? Mathematics. Since most
scientists use it every day, they're not afraid to break out the slide
rule to explain something.
Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is that
scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth the
cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple
letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of K, we
could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit multiplication makes
things harder than they have to be.
Puckdropper
--
If you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lFwfk.395$kf4.265@trnddc03...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Where do they get their funding?
>
> Totally immaterial to the process.
You think, LOL. They too can be bought.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Where do they get their funding?
>
> Totally immaterial to the process.
>
>
You are dead wrong. The process is more-or-less neutral,
but *what gets funding in the first place* is not. You can
control information flow by simply not funding areas you don't
like ideologically/politically.
P.S. I am a Computer Scientist by training - the theoretical kind,
not the MIS kind - and I have personally watched the grant process.
It utterly lays to waste your naive notions of impartiality.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
spaco <[email protected]> wrote:
>-In a "publish or perish" academic world, once a scientists project
>doesn't pan out, what are they to do? Answer: fudge the data so they
>get the degree, credit,______ etc.--- you fill in the blanks.
Getting caught at this, and it is almost certain for any interesting work, is
professional death. Out of your job, no one will hire you, no one will fund
you, no one will publish your work. Better learn how to drive a taxi.
>-Lastly, I think they must teach a course to ALL "scientists" where they
>MUST learn to think of themselves as superhuman (better than everone
>else) and, by the way, infallible. This is the course where they are
>taught how to talk down to the rest of us in 10 syllable words and to
>make abstract jokes that only they can understand.
I have had occasion to know some world class scientists at a beer drinking,
poker playing level. Not one of them was like this. Oh, they were smart and
they knew it. But they also knew smart is only worth so much. It is the basic
nature of science to keep its practitioners humble. Nature keeps proving you
wrong.
-- Doug
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
>other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
>write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
>answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
>evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
>the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>
Howdy,
It seems to be an odd premise...
In fact, science, and scientists, are generally held in high
regard.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
=A0The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. =A0I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather=
then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
I believe that it is ignorance. People just don't know enough about
science
and how scientists work. To them, it's all "too complicated" or
even in many ways their discoveries or technologies are in opposition
of what they WISH to believe. If you're attacking someone's basic
beliefs,
to many that is frightening and dangerous.
In a related way, Michael Shermer, answers this question in
his book "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience,
Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
I DAGS and found this review of the book that speaks to
your friends question:
--
Even so, Shermer seems to have overlooked or underemphasized some
fundamental reasons why people believe weird things. Ignorance, for
example, seems to be the main reason many people believe weird things.
They simply do not know any better. If they had some knowledge about
physics, chemistry, biology, memory, the brain, the body, etc., they
would not even consider many of the crackpot ideas put forth for their
consideration.
--
More here:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/weird.html
--
Science education in the US has dramatically taken a hit in
the last 20 or so years. We now depend so much on foreign nationals
to stock our advanced technology/science courses and
degree programs. Therefore, people have little exposure to
science.
Also, there's been a lot of "bad" science as well. In that, advances
in nuclear technology, biology and such, that on the face of it
are extremely scary. Science gets the blame for opening up
those "Pandora boxes". This, I think also puts people off.
MJM
On Jul 17, 12:39=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 10:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Limp Arbor wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>> Also the arrogance is unmatched:
> >>> Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
> >>> supply
> >> This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
> >> in a usenet thread is pointless so...
>
> > Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
> > Patented seeds are cool?
>
> In many ways, yes, Monsanto and the others developing more productive
> and cost-effective ways to produce food to feed the world's growing
> population are, indeed, "the good guys".
The 'Good Guys' would like nothing more than being the ONLY supplier
of seeds to the planet. The muscle they build into their contracts,
certainly overseas, is nothing short of extortion.
That 'wanting to feed the world' is driven purely by the kind-hearted
members of the Monsanto BoD?
Yea right.
>
> Patented seeds are a new concept, granted; I never said anything about
> "perfect world", did I? =A0OTOH, drugs and other technology is patented
> and is at least part of the driving mechanism that continues to fund
> research so it's part of "pay the fiddler".
Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And they
care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob can
fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is
THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad
name.
Shareholders first, screw the people.
>
> --
krw wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Markem
> <markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> says...
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:11:08 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll take a few of those Elm. Thanks.
>> Make sure it is not a Siberian Elm, messy tree.
>
> The story I saw was definitely about Dutch Elm Disease resistant
> American Elms. I haven't heard anything more since, though.
I remember seeing that a couple of years ago. Hope it's going well.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:25:00 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 9:58 pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>>
>> I'm not. I don't know anyone who is.
>>
>> Could it be that the premise is not statistically valid?
>>
>> Frank
>
>Where do you live, Frank? I can take you into a series of churches
>around here where everyone from the preacher on down (or up, given the
>parlous state of today's preacherdom amongst fundamentalist
>Protestants) espouses a hate for the results of scientific inquiry.
>You know, they're all good Christians, so they have to have something
>to hate. Science works for that, because they can't understand the
>difference between scientific theory and their theories that Saturday
>night dances are nothing but good, clean fun.
I trust that if I looked hard enough, I could find the same thing
around here. My point is that the inference by the researcher is that
a majority of the population holds those views. I think (or at least
hope) not.
There will always be the extreme element on either side of any issue,
but they don't represent the views of those who live in the massive
middle of the bell curve.
Be careful around that third standard deviation Charlie :~)
Frank
On Jul 17, 11:58=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> Either way, I am repulsed by companies who genetically mess with my
> food. Finding more efficient ways to grow food, fine, but why do they
> have to splice the DNA of an onion into the genes of of a donkey? So I
> can have a piece of ass that will bring tears to my eyes?
Best line of this thread.
On Jul 18, 7:14 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
> > in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
> > today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
> > the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
> > with." Maybe we should go back to Mendel and his fruit flies, drop all
> > the modern improvements.
>
> Europe is pretty much leading the charge in rejecting(fear) genetically
> modified foods.....The U.S. is leading the charge in developing such
> foods.....are you claiming that Europe is under- educated? Rod
Comapred to what? Europe as a continent doesn't have any more
education than North America as a continent does. I've met some
incredibly undereducated Europeans, and some incredibly over-educated
ones (just as likely there as here).
How would you measure education, by the way? I have a tendency to
consider stupid actions the actions of those with either little sense
or little education, or a combination of the two. No group, or area,
has a monoply on those two.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9e8ac435-3f40-465b-ae39-77436f6e3600@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
> throughout history.
Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you post.
Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god. That happens on a
daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the scientific community. You
hear all sorts of slanderous comments associated with the beliefs of
"religious" people - things like "fear", "irrational", "uneducated", etc.
Likewise, Religionists can often do the same. Either camp is equally guilty
of the same behaviors and either camp is equally populated with those who
don't succumb to that type of behavior. It's not a science vs. religion
thing - it's a human nature thing. There are those who can be comfortable
with ideas outside of their own beliefs and understandings, and there are
those who can't. The former recognizes that they don't and can't know
everything, the latter hasn't figured that out yet. Both science and
religion can be found fighting within their own little camps. It's the
human nature at work - not the issue of science vs. anything else.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jul 18, 5:43=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 3:04 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > On Jul 17, 2:06 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > >> ...
>
> > >>> Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And th=
ey
> > >>> care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob ca=
n
> > >>> fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is
> > >>> THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad
> > >>> name.
> > >> Monsanto has plenty of competitors...
>
> > >>> Shareholders first, screw the people.
> > >> So become a shareholder...
>
> > >> --
>
> > > Who says I'm not? I just find it distasteful to pretend it is all for
> > > the common good. I have no problem when people make money, even a lot
> > > of it. But I just wish they'd stop apologising for it, ...
>
> > I've certainly never seen Monsanto (or ADM for that matter) apologize
> > for making a profit...in fact, if I read their annual report it seems
> > quite concerned about doing so.
>
> > That they happen to make useful products and technology innovation is
> > one of the prime if not the prime manner in which they do that is a
> > primary motivation for doing so and that these products are useful is
> > why they are profitable--if their products weren't any good or weren't
> > meeting needs it seems highly unlikely they would be very profitable,
> > doesn't it?
>
> > > Either way, I am repulsed by companies who genetically mess with my
> > > food. Finding more efficient ways to grow food, fine, ...
>
> > Well, that's the prime technique by which we can do that. =A0I don't
> > believe there's any way you would have any way you could tell such a
> > thing had happened if it weren't in the papers. =A0So, if you can't tel=
l,
> > what's the point in being so outraged other than for some irrational
> > reason that you "just are"??? =A0What difference does it make other tha=
n
> > raise the blood pressure and what difference would it make that you
> > could tell from what you're eating if it were to go away? =A0The answer
> > is, absolutely nothing other than price would go up and availability
> > down. =A0Hence, much ado over essentially nothing.
>
> > --
>
> Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
> in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
> today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
> the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
> with."
Never to be one to pass up an opportunity to get a free dig at the
under-educated, Charley again proves he can't have any thoughts of his
own and decides to piggy-back onto someone else's post.
As you seem so desperate to join in on an intellectual discussion,
allow me to educate you first.
History is full of anecdotes of companies unleashing inadequately
tested products (thalidomide just to name one of hundreds).
Do a little reading on aspertame, saccharine, red-dye number ?? AMC
Pacers, hormones in milk, cigarettes were no health risk for
decades... the list is endless.
And I am at risk to waste my breath talking to those who worship at
the altar of infallible corporations, the worshippers can't hear
anything, their heads are shoved THAT far up their asses. Must be nice
to go through life denying the existence of corporate greed. Dream on!
On Jul 17, 1:41=A0pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Limp Arbor wrote:
> > Made up?
> > "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
> > people=92s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
> > might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial insects,
> > or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
> > fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
> > wild populations to extinction."
> > source:
> >http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>
> Ummm... Then why do they continue to create them? It isn't the
> janitorial staff that engineers new organisms.
Maybe not intentionally....
Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
> throughout history.
Good food for thought...
I was going along the "Science to back up my legislation" angle.
On Jul 16, 9:05 pm, "Curran Copeland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...>I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> >other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> >write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> >Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> >answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> >evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather
> >then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
> >Talked to another group and got this answer:
>
> Because they lie. They say something and then it turns out to be false, you
> can never trust what they say.
Uh, sure. An example, please?
J. Clarke wrote:
> Limp Arbor wrote:
>>Made up?
>>"Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
>>peoples health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
>>might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
>>insects,
>>or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
>>fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
>>wild populations to extinction."
>>source:
>>http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>
>
> "May", "might". You're going on like it's actually happened.
It's not that far-fetched.
Monsanto tried to grow a test plot of genetically modified rice right in
the middle of India's Basmati-growing region (and got spanked by the
Indian government for the possibility of contaminating the rest of the
region with patented rice).
In British Columbia, tens of thousands of atlantic salmon are escaping
from fish farms each year, and there is evidence that they are
outcompeting the native pacific salmon. It seems likely that
genetically modified fish would escape at similar rates.
Chris
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
>other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
>write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
>answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
>evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather
>then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
I didn't know "we" are afraid of science/scientists!
Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of the
consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether social,
environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Puckdropper wrote:
>> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one
>>> of the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper
>>> she has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
>>> science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will
>>> give
>>> her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to
>>> post before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a
>>> fun thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst
>>> candiate stuff going around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here's a few thoughts, from someone who had to take certain classes
>> because of the word "Science" in his degree name.
>>
>> First, math is rarely seperable from science. Science is generally
>> easy to understand (if you punch a wall, it will hurt), but
>> mathematics get hard. Most people deal with this by avoiding
>> mathematics, but you can only do that for so long before the science
>> you want to use requires it.
>>
>> So why are people afraid of science/scientists? Mathematics. Since
>> most scientists use it every day, they're not afraid to break out
>> the
>> slide rule to explain something.
>>
>> Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is
>> that
>> scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth
>> the
>> cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple
>> letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of
>> K,
>> we could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit
>> multiplication
>> makes things harder than they have to be.
>
> Using single letter variable names one gets expressions that fill two
> boards sometimes. Using "SPRING_CONSTANT" and the like would make
> them much much longer and add no real clarity.
>
> If you're having trouble with implicit multiplication wait until you
> get to nonlinear differential equations.
>
>
Well, the obvious solution is to get a longer board. 2x4s are available
in multiples of 2' at many lumber yards. ;-)
You can use insanely long variable names and add much noise. Or you can
add enough extra letters to express what it is you're trying to express
without adding extra noise. This way you won't have to either provide a
legend of variables or hope you remember what all of them are. It sure
helps when you put something away and come back to it later...
Puckdropper
--
If you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
Puckdropper wrote:
> Well, the obvious solution is to get a longer board. 2x4s are available
> in multiples of 2' at many lumber yards. ;-)
Or you could do what my favorite math prof did: as he wrote with his
right hand, he erased with his left...
...and never ran out of board space. :-)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
This pendulum swings. As a result of World War II, there was an
explosion in science and its accompanying technology (the application of
science to practical, commercialized consumer products). The results of
all the research money that The War Department pumped into the
scientific community produced not only technologies which helped the War
Effort, but also created production capacity which could be shifted to
making consumer, as opposed to military, products. The GI Bill also
made it possible for returning vets to go to college, and industry was
in need of engineers and scientists to either adapt and improve military
products to consumer products. And in the late 40s and early 50s there
was an epidemic of a horrible disease which struck acrossed racial and
socio-economic boundaries - polio - which our most popular president
happened to be a victim of.
And the new crop of scientists, along with some from the previous
generation had a significantly different approach to why they "did
science" - Jonas Salk being a wonderful example of this way of seeing
things. Salk made polio basically a thing of the passed, not for fame
and fortune, but because it needed doing.
Then along came Sputnik, the Space Race and John F. Kennedy's "We shall
go to the moon by the end of decade" speech. Colleges and Universities
cranked up their science and engineering departments and high school
counselors started encouraging students to become scientists and
engineers. The Boomers went either into "business" or "science and
engineering". The latter meeting Kennedy's challenge - by mid 1969. The
spinoffs of the Space Program never really got heralded - the
semi-conductor industry whose products now permeate our society,
satellites with all their capabilities - and don't forget TANG.
Then Pat Buchanon and Richard Nixon got together. Two very ambitious,
and to my mind, ruthless, politicians. It was Buchanon who came up with
a Divide & Conquer / Win At All Cost / Us vs THEM strategy for getting -
and keeping - Richard M. Nixon in the White House. And one of the major
elements of that strategy was to silence or marginalize the Ivory Towers
Academics, the thinkers - the scientists and engineers swept into that
garb of THEM. Another prong of the strategy was to bring those guided
by "faith", which, by its very nature doesn't lend itself to critical
thinking, or opposition to authority, into the new Big Tent being
created. And they went after "liberal intellectuals" and ACADEMIA with
avengence.
Now remember the context of Nixon's presidency. We were in a "war",
though congress, which according to the Constitution, is the only branch
of government which can "declare war", never did. And that "war" was
"unpopular", especially with the college students who were about to be
forced to become an active participant, and perhaps a victim, of that
"war". There was a lot of oppostion to that war, and most of it was
centered around "academia" since that was were future cannon fodder were
concentrated. There were also two other movements coming into being -
the Feminist Movement and the Environmental Movement. The latter had
two major opponents - "industry" which wasn't happy with laws which
prevented them from polluting the environment - for free - and what
would become known as The Religious Right, now called Evangelicals, who
weren't real thrilled with the idea of Feminists or Women's Liberation -
"cause GOD said so"
So Pat put together a "coalition" of "minorities" and got Nixon elected
and re-elected. To his credit, though Republicans blame it on Democrats
and Tree Huggers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created
- by Nixon.
Now Pat's Divide and Conquer / Them vs US approach to governing - or at
least getting and keeping, power sort of got over shadowed by Nixon's
paranoia - and the Plumbers and break ins and we got Gerald Ford -
briefly - along with Dan Quail, who one could describe as the
Anti-Intellectual, he not being able to spell potato - at a Spelling
Bee.
And as is typical of such times, the country swung in the opposite
direction from Law and Order - towards - a peanut famer - who actualy
had been a governor AND a nuclear engineer as well. Carter came at
governing from an engineer's perspective, not a politician's perspective
- especially the New Politicians - the What's In It For ME?! folks. Not
a good strategy within The Beltway.
The China Syndrome that nearly took place at Three Mile Island didn't do
much for how people saw scientists and engineers - and Carter, being a
nuclear engineer, it didn't help him much either. Nor did the Iran
Hostage Crisis.
Which gets us to Ronald Reagan - and Star Wars - which the scientific
community kept pointing out couldn't work 100% or even 80% of the time,
if at all. Reagan kept saying it could and must in order to sell the
voters on spending billions on what became The Strategic Defense
Initiative - Star Wars being way too Science Fiction. Faced with facts,
Ronnie ignored the scientists and engineers and trod right along,
poo-poohing those nay sayer scientists. (This was another part of Pat's
strategy - when faced with creditable oppostion, who have facts on their
side, discredit them, not with facts, but with smear tactics. What do
those dumb scientists know - this is AMERICA and WE can do any god
damned things we chose to do - no matter what. And if that didn't
work, call them Unpatriotic and Un-American - or - ATHEISTS!
Fortunately the Soviet Union went bankrupt before we did - and Gorbechov
happened to want to change the Soviet System - which conveniently is
overlooked in the American Version of The Fall of Communism and The
Reagan Victory. And unlike the scientific community, which has a built
in peer review process to act as bullshit filters, politically motivated
authors can say anything they want about a historical event and aren't
required to provide verifiable evidence to support their claim.
So given the politics of the last 30 years, and this administrations
contempt for scientific evidence - is it any wonder scientists are not
respected - or believed?
You have heard of Intelligent Design right?
On Aug 21, 8:36 am, "Dr. Deb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> B A R R Y wrote:
>
> >> > Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >> >> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
> >> >> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
> >> >> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
> >> >> throughout history.
>
> >> If you put "some" in front of each of those, I could agree. As a
> >> general statement, I disagree wholeheartedly..
>
> >> --
>
> > I had forgotten this thread. No, I wouldn't put "some" in front of
> > those, but I can agree to changing it to "most."
>
> Charlie, it all depends on the group, both religious and scientific. "Some"
> may well be the best answer.
> ...
I daresay it usually depends a lot more strongly on the individual
than
on the group. There are *some* reasonable people in *almost*
any group.
Spammers are the first exception that comes to mind...
--
FF
On Jul 16, 5:16 pm, "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this?
Sure.
Can you tell us who these people are who are afraid of science/
scientists?
The only people whom I can think of who are consistently, as a group,
afraid of science or scientists are people who are either heavily
invested
in a belief system that runs contrary to nature, or are even more
heavily
involved in convincing others of one, whether they believe it or not.
This is neither unique nor necessarily common among religious
persons, some famous scientists were clergy, Gregor Mendel
for instance.
I'm thinking more along the lines of various con-artists, psychics,
fraudulent medical practitioners, that sort of thing.
They fear and hate science and scientists because it is science that
proves them wrong, culpable, or criminal and it is scientists who
can do so.
For instance, I only just today received a note from a dentist
who is on the advisory board of a group that exists to raise
awareness about medical fraud. He wrote, in part:
I have also found that with people with delusionary,
grandiose borderline personality disorders that attempting
to communicate with them in any way yields only more lies,
defamations, and hostility.
I really can't think of any honest and sane people who are afraid
of scientists. Many are apprehensive about science education
because the find it a hard subject, but plenty of other people
feel the same way about other subjects--Art for example.
So what is the next question, why are people afraid of art/artists?
--
FF
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>
I'm not. I don't know anyone who is.
Could it be that the premise is not statistically valid?
Frank
J. Clarke wrote:
> Woodie wrote:
>> Limp Arbor wrote:
>>> Made up?
>>> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
>>> peoples health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
>>> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
>>> insects, or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins.
>>> Engineered fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps
>>> even driving wild populations to extinction."
>>> source:
>>> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>> Ummm... Then why do they continue to create them? It isn't the
>> janitorial staff that engineers new organisms.
>
> Some scientists are concerned, others are not. Always check the
> credentials of the ones who are "concerned"--many "concerned
> scientists" are not scientists and of the ones who are they are often
> "concerned" about matters way outside their field, and outside their
> field a scientist's opinion is no better than anybody else's.
What about concerned janitors?
On Jul 17, 3:04=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>. =A0I don't
> believe there's any way you would have any way you could tell such a
> thing had happened if it weren't in the papers. =A0So, if you can't tell,
> what's the point in being so outraged other than for some irrational
> reason that you "just are"???
=A0
Being concerned about people messing with my food is a rational
concern.
And just because I can't tell, doesn't mean that the cute waitress
doesn't have a disease that will kill me.
Staying deliberately uninformed of the facts will get you into deep
trouble.
Ignorance might be bliss. It doesn't work for me.
On Jul 17, 3:04 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2:06 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>> Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And they
> >>> care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob can
> >>> fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is
> >>> THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad
> >>> name.
> >> Monsanto has plenty of competitors...
>
> >>> Shareholders first, screw the people.
> >> So become a shareholder...
>
> >> --
>
> > Who says I'm not? I just find it distasteful to pretend it is all for
> > the common good. I have no problem when people make money, even a lot
> > of it. But I just wish they'd stop apologising for it, ...
>
> I've certainly never seen Monsanto (or ADM for that matter) apologize
> for making a profit...in fact, if I read their annual report it seems
> quite concerned about doing so.
>
> That they happen to make useful products and technology innovation is
> one of the prime if not the prime manner in which they do that is a
> primary motivation for doing so and that these products are useful is
> why they are profitable--if their products weren't any good or weren't
> meeting needs it seems highly unlikely they would be very profitable,
> doesn't it?
>
> > Either way, I am repulsed by companies who genetically mess with my
> > food. Finding more efficient ways to grow food, fine, ...
>
> Well, that's the prime technique by which we can do that. I don't
> believe there's any way you would have any way you could tell such a
> thing had happened if it weren't in the papers. So, if you can't tell,
> what's the point in being so outraged other than for some irrational
> reason that you "just are"??? What difference does it make other than
> raise the blood pressure and what difference would it make that you
> could tell from what you're eating if it were to go away? The answer
> is, absolutely nothing other than price would go up and availability
> down. Hence, much ado over essentially nothing.
>
> --
Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
with." Maybe we should go back to Mendel and his fruit flies, drop all
the modern improvements.
One thing for damned sure, though. Without science, the world wouldn't
have its current over-population problems. Probably 85% of the
population wouldn't have been born, or would have died of some
extremely nasty disease at a relatively early age. Think of the
problems having only 1/5th today's population would solve. Plenty of
oil. Plenty of food (oops, no, we have to do a give-back on that,
too). Well, hell. Plenty of oil. People can always drink that.
I wonder if what we're seeing today is a result of piss poor education
in, or about (probably more important), the sciences at an early
level. My science education wasn't good, but the education about
science was. I'm not scientist, but I do appreciate the methods used,
and try to understand some of the results. Gallumphing off into the
territory of the raucous never seems to have helped. Letting emotion
interfere with understanding is something no accountant would do in
his work, but many of the public seem to believe that scientists
should let their emotions interfere with their work. Let's face it. If
it looks or sounds "icky", then don't mess with it.
On Jul 17, 10:54=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Limp Arbor wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Also the arrogance is unmatched:
>
> > Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
> > supply
>
> This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
> in a usenet thread is pointless so...
>
Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
Patented seeds are cool?
Oh boy.... tear those blinders off your head, man.
On Jul 18, 1:25 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Limp Arbor wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 12:55 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Chris Friesen wrote:
> >>>....
> ...
> >>> In British Columbia, tens of thousands of atlantic salmon are
> >>> escaping
> >>> from fish farms each year, and there is evidence that they are
> >>> outcompeting the native pacific salmon. It seems likely that
> >>> genetically modified fish would escape at similar rates.
>
> >> When one genetically modified fish escapes then I'll worry about
> >> it.
>
> > then you should have been worrying for years now, and its not one
> > fish
> > but 600,000
>
> > "Since 1996, almost 600,000 Atlantic salmon have escaped from net
> > pens
> > in Washington waters, and at least 60,000 into Canadian waters."
> > source:
> >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/fish22.shtml
>
> Read that article very carefully with a map in hand. The genetically
> engineered salmon are being raised on Prince Edward Island. The
> 600,000 salmon that have escaped escaped into the Pacific ocean.
> Since Prince Edward Island has the whole of North America between it
> and the Pacific Ocean one is hard pressed to imagine how such an
> escape could occur.
>
No. It says that genetically engineered salmon are being raised on
Prince Edward island. It does not say that _the_ 600,000 genetically
engineered salmon that have escaped into the pacific Ocean escaped
from Prince Edward Island. It says they escaped from net pens in
Washington waters.
In fact, you quoted the relevant text above.
> Clearly a case of fear-mongering, juxtaposing two unrelated events to
> lead to a false impression that they are related.
> ...
I think you read the article a bit hastily.
--
FF
On Jul 16, 2:16=EF=BF=BDpm, "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of th=
e
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. =EF=BF=BDThe paper she =
has to
> write asks the question:
Sweet Sawdust
First thing that comes to my mind is why is not the other instructor
doing her own work instead of benefitting from yours and ours?
Sort of like someone else doing my homework for me!!
Bob AZ
On Jul 16, 9:58 pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>
> I'm not. I don't know anyone who is.
>
> Could it be that the premise is not statistically valid?
>
> Frank
Where do you live, Frank? I can take you into a series of churches
around here where everyone from the preacher on down (or up, given the
parlous state of today's preacherdom amongst fundamentalist
Protestants) espouses a hate for the results of scientific inquiry.
You know, they're all good Christians, so they have to have something
to hate. Science works for that, because they can't understand the
difference between scientific theory and their theories that Saturday
night dances are nothing but good, clean fun.
On Jul 17, 1:37=A0pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> sweet sawdust wrote:
> > I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of =
the
> > other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. =A0The paper she has =
to
> > write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> > Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> > answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> > evening. =A0I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rath=
er then
> > the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>
> What's NOT to be afraid of? I mean - just think of the lab coats! They
> have those big pockets in which all manner of things might be hidden.
> Anal probes for one - it's not "aliens" - it's scientists drugging and
> probing innocent citizens on lonely roads at night. Why?! Because you
> can't get the average guy to sit still for that kind of treatment - and
> so how else can these scientists get their "DATA"? They're not really
> doing it for the data you know, more for their own sick science-y pleasur=
e.
>
> UFOs are no more extraterrestrial than than your average Chevrolet.
> Scientists just have these ultra cool advanced vehicles in which they
> zip around doing their mischief. The selfish, evil science hogs don't
> want to share with us average Joes.
>
> Even their lowly lab assistants get to fly around in spiffy black
> helicopters.
>
> Flitting about and rectally violating the unsuspecting is merely a fun
> distraction for the science community. Their true evil intent is
> apparent in their "creation of new life forms" thing... First it's
> cloning individual cells. Next came plants. Then sheep and all manner of
> livestock. And now politicians!
>
> Just look at W. He's obviously an early attempt. The limited intellect
> and the perpetually blank expression. The very definition of
> Zombie-like! And the ears. The all telling deformed ears. They just
> haven't been able to get those right in their creations.
>
> Obama is obviously one of their experiments. (remember the ears) If you
> look closely you can even see the bolts in his neck. And that blank
> stare - as if he sees nothing but the objective of his programming.
>
> Sciences earliest attempts at creating human-like beings were aimed at
> creating social leaders and philosophers. They wanted to change the way
> people think - to create a society in which science and scientists were
> revered. But their created life forms lack the mental capacity for
> philosophy and social engineering, so they settled for the next best
> thing. Politicians.
>
> American scientists are now creating political leaders in order to
> further their evil agendas. To create strife and war to mask their
> horrible experiments, and to create need for new weapons and chemicals.
> The eras of greatest scientific advance have all been during wars. They
> got tired of waiting for new ones.
>
> And it's hard to afford new deeper pocketed lab coats and ultra cool
> vehicles if the proletariat isn't taxed stiffly enough to fund them.
>
> Zombie v.1 was to create strife, zombie v.2 is programmed to raise
> taxation to the 80% level as proscribed by the science elite.
>
> Heaven help us when the yet to be revealed zombie v.3 is unleashed with
> its as of now secret mission.
>
> Who's afraid of scientists? All those who would see beyond the veil of
> secrecy into the inner circle of science elite who would rule the world.
Yup! You're certified. <G> That's some funny stuff right there....
On Jul 17, 12:55=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> >> Limp Arbor wrote:
>
> >>> Made up?
> >>> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
> >>> people=92s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
> >>> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
> >>> insects,
> >>> or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins.
> >>> Engineered
> >>> fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even
> >>> driving
> >>> wild populations to extinction."
> >>> source:
> >>>http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>
> >> "May", "might". =A0You're going on like it's actually happened.
>
> > It's not that far-fetched.
>
> > Monsanto tried to grow a test plot of genetically modified rice
> > right
> > in the middle of India's Basmati-growing region (and got spanked by
> > the Indian government for the possibility of contaminating the rest
> > of the region with patented rice).
>
> Where, exactly, in India did this happen? =A0Do you have a link? =A0And
> what was the nature of the patent?
>
> > In British Columbia, tens of thousands of atlantic salmon are
> > escaping
> > from fish farms each year, and there is evidence that they are
> > outcompeting the native pacific salmon. =A0It seems likely that
> > genetically modified fish would escape at similar rates.
>
> When one genetically modified fish escapes then I'll worry about it.
then you should have been worrying for years now, and its not one fish
but 600,000
"Since 1996, almost 600,000 Atlantic salmon have escaped from net pens
in Washington waters, and at least 60,000 into Canadian waters."
source:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/fish22.shtml
On Jul 17, 3:33=A0pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Woodie wrote:
> >> Limp Arbor wrote:
> >>> Made up?
> >>> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
> >>> people=92s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
> >>> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
> >>> insects, or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins.
> >>> Engineered fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps
> >>> even driving wild populations to extinction."
> >>> source:
> >>>http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
> >> Ummm... Then why do they continue to create them? It isn't the
> >> janitorial staff that engineers new organisms.
>
> > Some scientists are concerned, others are not. =A0Always check the
> > credentials of the ones who are "concerned"--many "concerned
> > scientists" are not scientists and of the ones who are they are often
> > "concerned" about matters way outside their field, and outside their
> > field a scientist's opinion is no better than anybody else's.
>
> What about concerned janitors?
I saw two janitors sneaking out of a closet at the hospital... when
they noticed that I had seen them, they certainly LOOKED concerned.
Ipso facto... there *are* concerned janitors.
Charlie Self wrote:
> Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
> in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
> today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
> the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
> with." Maybe we should go back to Mendel and his fruit flies, drop all
> the modern improvements.
Europe is pretty much leading the charge in rejecting(fear) genetically
modified foods.....The U.S. is leading the charge in developing such
foods.....are you claiming that Europe is under- educated? Rod
On Jul 16, 7:05 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> sweet sawdust wrote:
> > Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>
> I'm not.
>
> My best guess would boil down to contradictions between some religious
> beliefs and science, the fear of the unknown, and the inability or
> unwillingness of many to open the mind and ask questions.
>
> Many religions tend to discourage questions and gaining understanding of
> the "why" outside of the accepted religious teachings. To ask questions
> in such a setting is blasphemous and unfaithful.
>
> Non-religious folks might be truly afraid of things, so they don't want
> to know. For instance, extra terrestrial life, or the potential for
> large scale natural disaster or disease. It's much more relaxing not
> to think about this stuff!
>
> Still others be afraid of looking stupid when they can't immediately
> understand a concept. Further pursuit of knowledge, which also requires
> effort, is too easy not to do.
>
> I tend to lean towards the Buddhist view of science with religion, which
> is we are a delicate part of the big picture. We MUST question "why?"
> in order to try and understand it all and move forward.
>
> Then there's the way science has become politicized...
Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
throughout history.
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
>other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
>write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
>answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
>evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather
>then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>Talked to another group and got this answer:
Because they lie. They say something and then it turns out to be false, you
can never trust what they say.
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:16 pm, "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of
>> the
>> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
>> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>> Would anyone like to comment on this?
>
> Sure.
>
> Can you tell us who these people are who are afraid of science/
> scientists?
>
> The only people whom I can think of who are consistently, as a group,
> afraid of science or scientists are people who are either heavily
> invested
> in a belief system that runs contrary to nature, or are even more
> heavily
> involved in convincing others of one, whether they believe it or not.
>
> This is neither unique nor necessarily common among religious
> persons, some famous scientists were clergy, Gregor Mendel
> for instance.
>
> I'm thinking more along the lines of various con-artists, psychics,
> fraudulent medical practitioners, that sort of thing.
>
> They fear and hate science and scientists because it is science that
> proves them wrong, culpable, or criminal and it is scientists who
> can do so.
>
> For instance, I only just today received a note from a dentist
> who is on the advisory board of a group that exists to raise
> awareness about medical fraud. He wrote, in part:
>
> I have also found that with people with delusionary,
> grandiose borderline personality disorders that attempting
> to communicate with them in any way yields only more lies,
> defamations, and hostility.
>
>
> I really can't think of any honest and sane people who are afraid
> of scientists. Many are apprehensive about science education
> because the find it a hard subject, but plenty of other people
> feel the same way about other subjects--Art for example.
>
> So what is the next question, why are people afraid of art/artists?
>
> --
>
> FF
Fred, you are right - it is important to note that the folks you describe
are found in all walks of like and all belief systems.
Deb
sweet sawdust wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
What's NOT to be afraid of? I mean - just think of the lab coats! They
have those big pockets in which all manner of things might be hidden.
Anal probes for one - it's not "aliens" - it's scientists drugging and
probing innocent citizens on lonely roads at night. Why?! Because you
can't get the average guy to sit still for that kind of treatment - and
so how else can these scientists get their "DATA"? They're not really
doing it for the data you know, more for their own sick science-y pleasure.
UFOs are no more extraterrestrial than than your average Chevrolet.
Scientists just have these ultra cool advanced vehicles in which they
zip around doing their mischief. The selfish, evil science hogs don't
want to share with us average Joes.
Even their lowly lab assistants get to fly around in spiffy black
helicopters.
Flitting about and rectally violating the unsuspecting is merely a fun
distraction for the science community. Their true evil intent is
apparent in their "creation of new life forms" thing... First it's
cloning individual cells. Next came plants. Then sheep and all manner of
livestock. And now politicians!
Just look at W. He's obviously an early attempt. The limited intellect
and the perpetually blank expression. The very definition of
Zombie-like! And the ears. The all telling deformed ears. They just
haven't been able to get those right in their creations.
Obama is obviously one of their experiments. (remember the ears) If you
look closely you can even see the bolts in his neck. And that blank
stare - as if he sees nothing but the objective of his programming.
Sciences earliest attempts at creating human-like beings were aimed at
creating social leaders and philosophers. They wanted to change the way
people think - to create a society in which science and scientists were
revered. But their created life forms lack the mental capacity for
philosophy and social engineering, so they settled for the next best
thing. Politicians.
American scientists are now creating political leaders in order to
further their evil agendas. To create strife and war to mask their
horrible experiments, and to create need for new weapons and chemicals.
The eras of greatest scientific advance have all been during wars. They
got tired of waiting for new ones.
And it's hard to afford new deeper pocketed lab coats and ultra cool
vehicles if the proletariat isn't taxed stiffly enough to fund them.
Zombie v.1 was to create strife, zombie v.2 is programmed to raise
taxation to the 80% level as proscribed by the science elite.
Heaven help us when the yet to be revealed zombie v.3 is unleashed with
its as of now secret mission.
Who's afraid of scientists? All those who would see beyond the veil of
secrecy into the inner circle of science elite who would rule the world.
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>
>> > Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
>> >> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
>> >> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
>> >> throughout history.
>>
>> If you put "some" in front of each of those, I could agree. As a
>> general statement, I disagree wholeheartedly..
>>
>> --
>
> I had forgotten this thread. No, I wouldn't put "some" in front of
> those, but I can agree to changing it to "most."
Charlie, it all depends on the group, both religious and scientific. "Some"
may well be the best answer.
Deb
I am not a scientist. I have been around a long time and here are some
of the things people have told me over the years and some of my own
thoughts:
Well, let's see:
-Scientists told us early on that AIDS wouldn't become a big deal.
-In 1979 scientists told us the the earth was cooling off. Now they say
its heating up. Hmmm.
-I suspect it was scientist that recommended introducing the Japanese
beetle (looks like a lady bug) to get rid of aphids or something. Now
they are a major pest all over the part of the midwest where I live.
- I just watched "Young Frankenstien last night. She should watch it
to get the idea.
-In a "publish or perish" academic world, once a scientists project
doesn't pan out, what are they to do? Answer: fudge the data so they
get the degree, credit,______ etc.--- you fill in the blanks.
-As a commoner, I don't feel that all scientists are bad, just as I
don't feel that all MD's are bad but, the "quality" of both scientists
and MD's is probably normally distributed like many other things. This
means that while, let's say, 5% of the "science" is super-duper, the 5%
at the other end of the distribution is absolutely horrible.
Unfortunately for scientists, those "ends" probably both get
publicized with equal qusto, but by different methods.
-Lastly, I think they must teach a course to ALL "scientists" where they
MUST learn to think of themselves as superhuman (better than everone
else) and, by the way, infallible. This is the course where they are
taught how to talk down to the rest of us in 10 syllable words and to
make abstract jokes that only they can understand.
If she doesn't (or you don't) understand the above, it's because you
have already taken the course I mention above.
Pete Stanaitis
-------------------------------------
sweet sawdust wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>
>
Hey, guys, I thought that "shoot the messenger" was dead. You asked for
input and you got it. If you simply wanted to argue with somebody, you
should have said so at the onset.
Maybe your cohort should ask the question: "How did these opinions
(be they right or wrong) get to the street?"
Pete Stanaitis
-------------------------
Douglas Johnson wrote:
> spaco <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>-In a "publish or perish" academic world, once a scientists project
>>doesn't pan out, what are they to do? Answer: fudge the data so they
>>get the degree, credit,______ etc.--- you fill in the blanks.
>
>
> Getting caught at this, and it is almost certain for any interesting work, is
> professional death. Out of your job, no one will hire you, no one will fund
> you, no one will publish your work. Better learn how to drive a taxi.
>
>
>>-Lastly, I think they must teach a course to ALL "scientists" where they
>>MUST learn to think of themselves as superhuman (better than everone
>>else) and, by the way, infallible. This is the course where they are
>>taught how to talk down to the rest of us in 10 syllable words and to
>>make abstract jokes that only they can understand.
>
>
> I have had occasion to know some world class scientists at a beer drinking,
> poker playing level. Not one of them was like this. Oh, they were smart and
> they knew it. But they also knew smart is only worth so much. It is the basic
> nature of science to keep its practitioners humble. Nature keeps proving you
> wrong.
>
> -- Doug
In article <9e8ac435-3f40-465b-ae39-77436f6e3600
@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Jul 16, 7:05 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> > sweet sawdust wrote:
> > > Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> >
> > I'm not.
> >
> > My best guess would boil down to contradictions between some religious
> > beliefs and science, the fear of the unknown, and the inability or
> > unwillingness of many to open the mind and ask questions.
> >
> > Many religions tend to discourage questions and gaining understanding of
> > the "why" outside of the accepted religious teachings. To ask questions
> > in such a setting is blasphemous and unfaithful.
> >
> > Non-religious folks might be truly afraid of things, so they don't want
> > to know. For instance, extra terrestrial life, or the potential for
> > large scale natural disaster or disease. It's much more relaxing not
> > to think about this stuff!
> >
> > Still others be afraid of looking stupid when they can't immediately
> > understand a concept. Further pursuit of knowledge, which also requires
> > effort, is too easy not to do.
> >
> > I tend to lean towards the Buddhist view of science with religion, which
> > is we are a delicate part of the big picture. We MUST question "why?"
> > in order to try and understand it all and move forward.
> >
> > Then there's the way science has become politicized...
>
> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
> throughout history.
"Religionists" like the AGWists? This doesn't look much like a
woodworking post either Charlie.
--
Keith
In article <%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Robatoy wrote:
> >
> >
> > The 'Good Guys' would like nothing more than being the ONLY supplier
> > of seeds to the planet. The muscle they build into their contracts,
> > certainly overseas, is nothing short of extortion.
> > That 'wanting to feed the world' is driven purely by the kind-hearted
> > members of the Monsanto BoD?
>
> The Sterile Seed thing is a biggie in my book.
Most of what has been planted in the West in the past century are
hybrids which, by definition, do not reproduce themselves.
> Genetically engineered plants to prevent a farmer from saving seed...
There is nothing about GE plants that makes this so. Also seed that
is inferior.
> There's only one reason for that, and it's not to enhance world food
> availability.
No, there is another very good reason. Hybrids do cross-polinate
but do not reproduce themselves, rather a mutt that isn't desired.
A sterile seed would eliminate this cross-polination.
Are only religionists afraid of science?
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > saying that scientists should not research disease cures because
> > there's a chance that the sample of the organism that they are working
> > with might escape? Then how would treatments ever be developed?
>
> That's an easy one to answer. Let people die off until someone who is
> resistant to the disease is found and then harvest his antibodies.
ISTR that that has happened with the American Elm. They've found
two Dutch Elm resistant trees, though I haven't heard any more for a
couple of years.
> Or else,
> breed them like a puppy mill until the resistance has been passed throughout
> society. :)
I'll take a few of those Elm. Thanks.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "Morris Dovey" wrote:
> >
> >> Or you could do what my favorite math prof did: as he wrote with
> >> his
> >> right hand, he erased with his left...
> >>
> >> ...and never ran out of board space. :-)
> >
> > WE must have had the same prof<G>
Make that three.
> OTOH, Einstein often ran out of board.
They wouldn't let him have an eraser.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> B A R R Y wrote:
> > sweet sawdust wrote:
> >> Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> >
> > I'm not.
> >
> > My best guess would boil down to contradictions between some religious
> > beliefs and science, the fear of the unknown, and the inability or
> > unwillingness of many to open the mind and ask questions.
> >
> > Many religions tend to discourage questions and gaining understanding of
> > the "why" outside of the accepted religious teachings. To ask questions
> > in such a setting is blasphemous and unfaithful.
>
> Then you understand neither science nor religion. Science is about
> *mechanism*. Religion is about *meaning and purpose*. Anyone who
> believes that these two systems of epistemology are inherently at
> odds is poorly informed.
It's when the two cross those lines (and both do) that things get
ugly.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, Markem
<markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> says...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:11:08 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'll take a few of those Elm. Thanks.
>
> Make sure it is not a Siberian Elm, messy tree.
The story I saw was definitely about Dutch Elm Disease resistant
American Elms. I haven't heard anything more since, though.
--
Keith
Limp Arbor wrote:
> Made up?
> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
> peoples health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial insects,
> or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
> fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
> wild populations to extinction."
> source:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
Ummm... Then why do they continue to create them? It isn't the
janitorial staff that engineers new organisms.
"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>
>>
> I'm not. I don't know anyone who is.
>
> Could it be that the premise is not statistically valid?
May not be and that may be the answer to the question, who knows? A lot of
books and movies have been made on science from Frankinstien to the Swarm
and all are scary. I think we are scared of "science" until we get used to
the new idea and it proves not to be a boogy man under the bed. It was/is
an interesting question to think on, sort of like how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin.
>
> Frank
"Bob AZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 16, 2:16?pm, "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. ?The paper she has to
> write asks the question:
Sweet Sawdust
First thing that comes to my mind is why is not the other instructor
doing her own work instead of benefitting from yours and ours?
Sort of like someone else doing my homework for me!!
Bob AZ
I just found the question intriging and thought I would bring it up before
the group and see how it flew. I don't think she has a preconcived answer
to this it is a question and she is just throwing it around to see where it
lands.
Curran Copeland
Sweet Sawdust
dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> EXT wrote:
> ...
>> Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
>> their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of
>> the consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether
>> social, environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.
>
> Is that somehow restricted to scientists?
>
It isn't berestricted to scientists, but scientists are expected to be
impartial, and to be led only by the facts. Unfortunately, they are only
human, and big pharma, research funding, promotions etc, they all influence
behavior.
I'm of course totally unbiased in my (our) research, but still hope that
CD39 will fulfill its promises as an antithrombotic modality.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> That's why (amongst other reasons) there's replication and peer review...
>
Yes and it works more often than not <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Agreed. As one who holds what I call fundamental beliefs (though that
> is not to be confused with what the term fundamentalist has become
> today), and one who has plenty of room for the findings of the
> sciences, the ironclad ideology of both sides frustrates me.
I have only one ironclad belief, and that is that everyone and anyone
should believe what he/she/they want, with the only proviso that
subscribing to this notion is a precondition for my respect. This
includes automatically that I won't bother you with my beliefs, and you
should not bother me with yours. Discussing beliefs is a totally
different matter that is completely up to the consent of all discussants.
> I have a
> keen appreciation for a good argument and the inclusive point, counter
> point of good discussion - when either side slides into their own form
> of intellectual dishonesty I just hate it. A good argument stands on
> its own and does not need bolstering. If it doesn't - it ain't a good
> argument. It's just a cat-fight. Now that's something else all
> together - well worth the watching, just not to be taken seriously.
I'm not sure whether I subscribe totally to that. I believe <grin> that
catfights may have losers who physically get hurt, and that is not my
idea of a good argument <big grin>.
> Swingman - that's your cue to enter, stage left...
Huh???
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Leon" wrote:
> You think, LOL. They too can be bought.
Precisely why funding MUST be totally immaterial to the process.
Perhaps a better choice of words would be "divoriced".
--
Lew Hodgett
Box 2302
Whittier, CA, 90610-2302
E-Mail: [email protected]
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
> > Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
> >> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
> >> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
> >> throughout history.
>
> If you put "some" in front of each of those, I could agree. As a
> general statement, I disagree wholeheartedly..
>
> --
I had forgotten this thread. No, I wouldn't put "some" in front of
those, but I can agree to changing it to "most."
On Jul 17, 5:30=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Ignorance might be bliss. It doesn't work for me.
>
> As a farmer who raises it, I suspect I have a far greater knowledge of
> the crop genetics than you have (other than your apparent penchant for
> sensationalistic "news").
>
> --
I have no doubt that you know more about crop genetics than I. You
talk/write like a farmer.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
And if you want to label the 'news' I read/watch as sensationalistic,
just because you disagree with it, you're welcome to that too. The
corporate greed which overrules ethics at Monsanto et al, is something
you couldn't get your head around... for many reasons. Taking the
nukes away from Saddam was a good move too, eh?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> saying that scientists should not research disease cures because
> there's a chance that the sample of the organism that they are working
> with might escape? Then how would treatments ever be developed?
That's an easy one to answer. Let people die off until someone who is
resistant to the disease is found and then harvest his antibodies. Or else,
breed them like a puppy mill until the resistance has been passed throughout
society. :)
sweet sawdust wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>
>
Because Science is dispassionate, but Scientists are not. Oh, I know,
peer review will fix that ... not. There is a scientist establishment.
It decides what does- and does not get funding and/or publication.
It makes little difference if the method of science leads to new and
useful information if the high priests of the discipline are controlling
the flow of money and thus the focus of research.
Scared? Not really. Disgusted with scientists who make common cause
with scummy politicians - right and left - so that their pet causes get
funded. There would be no particular outcry on the global warming
"problem" today, for example, if it was not a rich money vein to be
mined by scientists in the form of grants and other tax-funded money
support.
Bah.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Jul 18, 8:09 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9e8ac435-3f40-465b-ae39-77436f6e3600@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
>>> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
>>> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
>>> throughout history.
>> Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you post.
>> Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god. That happens on a
>> daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the scientific community. You
>> hear all sorts of slanderous comments associated with the beliefs of
>> "religious" people - things like "fear", "irrational", "uneducated", etc.
>> Likewise, Religionists can often do the same. Either camp is equally guilty
>> of the same behaviors and either camp is equally populated with those who
>> don't succumb to that type of behavior. It's not a science vs. religion
>> thing - it's a human nature thing. There are those who can be comfortable
>> with ideas outside of their own beliefs and understandings, and there are
>> those who can't. The former recognizes that they don't and can't know
>> everything, the latter hasn't figured that out yet. Both science and
>> religion can be found fighting within their own little camps. It's the
>> human nature at work - not the issue of science vs. anything else.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>
> As someone who lives amongst the fundamentalists, I guess my point is
> influenced by their proximity. There are scientists around here, too,
> of course, but mostly they keep a low profile.
>
> You want a religious fight? Put three Southern Baptists together and
> get them to discuss theology. Hide the weapons first.
You want a *real* religious fight? Put three scientists in a room
and ask them to demonstrate why their particular areas of research
are more worthy of funding than the other two. You're kidding yourself.
Science has been elevated as a secular religion and the moronic
and ill-educated public continues to buy into it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:023a72e0-1051-4cbb-9f67-bcebed11b652@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> As someone who lives amongst the fundamentalists, I guess my point is
> influenced by their proximity. There are scientists around here, too,
> of course, but mostly they keep a low profile.
>
> You want a religious fight? Put three Southern Baptists together and
> get them to discuss theology. Hide the weapons first.
Agreed. As one who holds what I call fundamental beliefs (though that is
not to be confused with what the term fundamentalist has become today), and
one who has plenty of room for the findings of the sciences, the ironclad
ideology of both sides frustrates me. I have a keen appreciation for a good
argument and the inclusive point, counter point of good discussion - when
either side slides into their own form of intellectual dishonesty I just
hate it. A good argument stands on its own and does not need bolstering.
If it doesn't - it ain't a good argument. It's just a cat-fight. Now
that's something else all together - well worth the watching, just not to be
taken seriously. Swingman - that's your cue to enter, stage left...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jul 17, 2:06=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And they
> > care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob can
> > fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is
> > THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad
> > name.
>
> Monsanto has plenty of competitors...
>
> > Shareholders first, screw the people.
>
> So become a shareholder...
>
> --
Who says I'm not? I just find it distasteful to pretend it is all for
the common good. I have no problem when people make money, even a lot
of it. But I just wish they'd stop apologising for it, or trying to
give it a more acceptable spin. Like Gore pretending NOT to be flying
around in a jet. Why can't he just talk about the fact that his choice
of Gulfstream is more efficient than McCain's Straight Talk Express?
Either way, I am repulsed by companies who genetically mess with my
food. Finding more efficient ways to grow food, fine, but why do they
have to splice the DNA of an onion into the genes of of a donkey? So I
can have a piece of ass that will bring tears to my eyes?
On Jul 17, 10:54=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Limp Arbor wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Also the arrogance is unmatched:
>
> > Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
> > supply
>
> This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
> in a usenet thread is pointless so...
Made up?
"Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
people=92s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial insects,
or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
wild populations to extinction."
source:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>
> > Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work
>
> So you would prefer we simply don't bother to try to market curative
> agents? =A0How, precisely, would you go about gaining this perfect
> knowledge a priori?
I would prefer that they understood how & why they work before they
are released.
Ex.
Minoxodil was developed to treat blood pressure problems, a side
effect is hair grwoth.
Viola! Rogaine.
>
> > Plum Island
>
> And we're supposed to not do research on how to contain and control and
> prevent future outbreaks of animal diseases that can also in some cases
> be transmitted to humans? =A0These are existing pathogens that have done
> tremendous damage elsewhere but are almost completely unknown in the US.
> =A0 That is _NOT_ by accident but by very diligent effort including such
> places as Plum Island.
Agreed that they have good intentions but accidents happen, that is
why some people fear science.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24065416/
>
> > Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart
> > enough to keep it under control. =A0That is why we have Frankenstein, I
> > Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
> > books/movies about the need to be carfeul.
>
> > Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
>
> That you think "we" shouldn't doesn't mean that you can prevent someone
> else (not a personal judgment, simply reality). =A0It's probably better t=
o
> have more responsible folks doing the research than trying to drive
> abolish it entirely and thereby drive it underground or into clandestine
> locations only.
Not all scientists are responsible, 31,000+ 'scientists' disagree with
Al Gore.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
So one side or the other (probably both) is being irresponsible and
they're all scientists. No doubt some believe they are right, some do
it for pilitical or grant$ reasons, and some are just plain stupid.
Point is they're all scientists and they disagree so some of them are
basing their opinions on faulty 'science'.
I'm not against science I just want them to be more careful.
sweet sawdust wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>
>
A few things come to mind. They're loosely connected I suppose, but
there could be a myriad of reasons why some people may be threatened by
science or scientists. My interpretation would be "threatened by" rather
than "afraid of". Maybe they're close enough to mean the same.
1. Previous perception of arrogance by "higher intellect"
2. The mystery of science unexplained is unknown, therefore a threat
and/or fear.
3. Science might be at odds with religious beliefs, therefore creating
an unsurpassable paradox. (ie. Evolution vs. strict biblical interpretation)
4. Results of science lead to lifestyle choices and/or changes. (ie
belief global warming and the changes that ensues)
There's a starter list. I'm sure there are many more.
--
Tanus
http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/
EXT wrote:
...
> Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
> their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of
> the consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether
> social, environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.
Is that somehow restricted to scientists?
--
Curran Copeland wrote:
...
> Because they lie. They say something and then it turns out to be false, you
> can never trust what they say.
I would contend that particular fault is far more prevalent outside the
scientific community than in.
I would also say if you really believe that publishing the results of
research which are later either modified or maybe even rebutted simply
indicates you don't understand the scientific process.
--
sweet sawdust wrote:
> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
> other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
> write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
That would seem to have prejudged the conclusion, pretty much the
antithesis of the scientific method.
How about she test whether the hypothesis can actually be verified to be
so or not?
> Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
> answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
> evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
> the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
Where do I report where to send my degree having done the work?
--
Han wrote:
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> EXT wrote:
>> ...
>>> Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
>>> their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of
>>> the consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether
>>> social, environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.
>> Is that somehow restricted to scientists?
>>
> It isn't berestricted to scientists, but scientists are expected to be
> impartial, and to be led only by the facts. Unfortunately, they are only
> human, and big pharma, research funding, promotions etc, they all influence
> behavior.
...
That's why (amongst other reasons) there's replication and peer review...
--
spaco wrote:
...
> -Scientists told us early on that AIDS wouldn't become a big deal.
...
I have much trouble recollecting that having come from the scientific
and epidemiologic communities.
I do remember, otoh, some very specific political figures that were
totally ignorant of the science who prevented many actions that would
have had a major impact in reducing the spread.
I'd offer a rebuttal to most of the other points as well but simply not
worthy the time/effort...
--
Puckdropper wrote:
...
> Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is that
> scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth the
> cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple
> letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of K, we
> could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit multiplication makes
> things harder than they have to be.
...
I don't know what "implicit multiplication" is by that name, but
certainly writing SPRING_CONSTANT everywhere in an expression is _NOT_
an answer to any problem with "scientific mathematics" (again, whatever
your definition of that phrase is). Concise notation is critical in
boiling down an otherwise excessively "busy" expression.
That things are complicated in some places is mostly a reflection of
reality.
--
Puckdropper wrote:
> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one
>> of the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper
>> she has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
>> science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will
>> give
>> her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to
>> post before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a
>> fun thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst
>> candiate stuff going around.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Here's a few thoughts, from someone who had to take certain classes
> because of the word "Science" in his degree name.
>
> First, math is rarely seperable from science. Science is generally
> easy to understand (if you punch a wall, it will hurt), but
> mathematics get hard. Most people deal with this by avoiding
> mathematics, but you can only do that for so long before the science
> you want to use requires it.
>
> So why are people afraid of science/scientists? Mathematics. Since
> most scientists use it every day, they're not afraid to break out
> the
> slide rule to explain something.
>
> Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is
> that
> scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth
> the
> cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple
> letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of
> K,
> we could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit
> multiplication
> makes things harder than they have to be.
Using single letter variable names one gets expressions that fill two
boards sometimes. Using "SPRING_CONSTANT" and the like would make
them much much longer and add no real clarity.
If you're having trouble with implicit multiplication wait until you
get to nonlinear differential equations.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Limp Arbor wrote:
...
> Also the arrogance is unmatched:
>
> Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
> supply
This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
in a usenet thread is pointless so...
> Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work
So you would prefer we simply don't bother to try to market curative
agents? How, precisely, would you go about gaining this perfect
knowledge a priori?
> Plum Island
And we're supposed to not do research on how to contain and control and
prevent future outbreaks of animal diseases that can also in some cases
be transmitted to humans? These are existing pathogens that have done
tremendous damage elsewhere but are almost completely unknown in the US.
That is _NOT_ by accident but by very diligent effort including such
places as Plum Island.
> Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart
> enough to keep it under control. That is why we have Frankenstein, I
> Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
> books/movies about the need to be carfeul.
>
> Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
That you think "we" shouldn't doesn't mean that you can prevent someone
else (not a personal judgment, simply reality). It's probably better to
have more responsible folks doing the research than trying to drive
abolish it entirely and thereby drive it underground or into clandestine
locations only.
--
On Jul 18, 4:07=C2=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:00 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Jul 18, 5:43=EF=BF=BDam, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 17, 3:04 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > >> Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally result=
ed
> > >> in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
> > >> today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
> > >> the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
> > >> with."
>
> > >Never to be one to pass up an opportunity to get a free dig at the
> > >under-educated, Charley again proves he can't have any thoughts of his
> > >own and decides to piggy-back onto someone else's post.
>
> > >As you seem so desperate to join in on an intellectual discussion,
> > >allow me to educate you first.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Instead of reflexively chewing on the ankles of your betters you would
> > do better to consider the core of Charlie's argument. =C2=A0For instanc=
e,
> > you might try looking at the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Norman E.
> > Borlaug, often referred to as, 'the man who fed the world', for an
> > instance of genetic manipulation that has unquestionably benefitted
> > humankind.
>
> > It might also be instructive for you to read up on Gregor Mendel, so
> > as to have a sense of the history that Charlie references.
>
> > You might further consider this:
>
> >http://www.political-humor.org/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-...
>
> > Regards, Tom.
>
> > Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmakerhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
> > tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
>
> Tom,
>
> Treat the counterman like any other wet fart. Just spray the air and
> open the windows, in that order.
That might clear the air, but you'd still be walking around with
poopie pants.
Rejnold Byzio <[email protected]> wrote in news:mn.95807d8700250254.67227
@netscape.net:
>
> If there were a man who one could call 'the man who fed the world', it
> would be Fritz Haber. It is said that a full third of the world's
> population - that's about two billion - are kept alive because of his
> ammonia production process.
>
*snip*
Me, I think I'd vote for Dave Thomas, Founder of Wendy's. Well, at least
for "the man who should feed the world." Good hamburgers, especially for a
fast food restaurant.
Puckdropper
--
If you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Jul 18, 9:00 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jul 18, 5:43=EF=BF=BDam, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 17, 3:04 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
> >> in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
> >> today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
> >> the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
> >> with."
>
> >Never to be one to pass up an opportunity to get a free dig at the
> >under-educated, Charley again proves he can't have any thoughts of his
> >own and decides to piggy-back onto someone else's post.
>
> >As you seem so desperate to join in on an intellectual discussion,
> >allow me to educate you first.
>
> (snip)
>
> Instead of reflexively chewing on the ankles of your betters you would
> do better to consider the core of Charlie's argument. For instance,
> you might try looking at the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Norman E.
> Borlaug, often referred to as, 'the man who fed the world', for an
> instance of genetic manipulation that has unquestionably benefitted
> humankind.
>
> It might also be instructive for you to read up on Gregor Mendel, so
> as to have a sense of the history that Charlie references.
>
> You might further consider this:
>
> http://www.political-humor.org/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-...
>
> Regards, Tom.
>
> Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmakerhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Tom,
Treat the counterman like any other wet fart. Just spray the air and
open the windows, in that order.
On Jul 18, 9:00=A0am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jul 18, 5:43=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 17, 3:04 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
> >> in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
> >> today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
> >> the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
> >> with."
>
> >Never to be one to pass up an opportunity to get a free dig at the
> >under-educated, Charley again proves he can't have any thoughts of his
> >own and decides to piggy-back onto someone else's post.
>
> >As you seem so desperate to join in on an intellectual discussion,
> >allow me to educate you first.
>
> (snip)
>
> Instead of reflexively chewing on the ankles of your betters you would
> do better to consider the core of Charlie's argument. =A0For instance,
> you might try looking at the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Norman E.
> Borlaug, often referred to as, 'the man who fed the world', for an
> instance of genetic manipulation that has unquestionably benefitted
> humankind.
>
> It might also be instructive for you to read up on Gregor Mendel, so
> as to have a sense of the history that Charlie references.
>
> You might further consider this:
>
> http://www.political-humor.org/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-...
>
> Regards, Tom.
>
> Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmakerhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Go play with your marble countertops, Tom... and if I want an opinion
on something from you, I'll ask for it, okay? Oh, and next time you
post a link, try to find something that's original and isn't covered
in dinosaur shit.
BTW 'benefited only has one 't', o, literary genius!
Tom Watson :
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 5:43 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 3:04 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
> (snip)
>>> Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
>>> in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
>>> today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
>>> the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
>>> with."
>>
>> Never to be one to pass up an opportunity to get a free dig at the
>> under-educated, Charley again proves he can't have any thoughts of his
>> own and decides to piggy-back onto someone else's post.
>>
>> As you seem so desperate to join in on an intellectual discussion,
>> allow me to educate you first.
> (snip)
> Instead of reflexively chewing on the ankles of your betters you would
> do better to consider the core of Charlie's argument. For instance,
> you might try looking at the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Norman E.
> Borlaug, often referred to as, 'the man who fed the world', for an
> instance of genetic manipulation that has unquestionably benefitted
> humankind.
> It might also be instructive for you to read up on Gregor Mendel, so
> as to have a sense of the history that Charlie references.
If there were a man who one could call 'the man who fed the world', it
would be Fritz Haber. It is said that a full third of the world's
population - that's about two billion - are kept alive because of his
ammonia production process.
On the other hand he was an asshole who would never have got the Nobel
Peace Prize, being the 'father of chemical warfare'. He got the Nobel
Prize in Chemistry instead.
But then, if you see which people get the Peace Prize...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 18, 5:43 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 3:04 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
(snip)
>> Food manipulation began many centuries ago, and has generally resulted
>> in better foods, better choices and other benefits. Oddly enough,
>> today's attempts to more speedily make changes in foods are drawing
>> the ire of the under-educated because "their food is being messed
>> with."
>
>Never to be one to pass up an opportunity to get a free dig at the
>under-educated, Charley again proves he can't have any thoughts of his
>own and decides to piggy-back onto someone else's post.
>
>As you seem so desperate to join in on an intellectual discussion,
>allow me to educate you first.
(snip)
Instead of reflexively chewing on the ankles of your betters you would
do better to consider the core of Charlie's argument. For instance,
you might try looking at the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Norman E.
Borlaug, often referred to as, 'the man who fed the world', for an
instance of genetic manipulation that has unquestionably benefitted
humankind.
It might also be instructive for you to read up on Gregor Mendel, so
as to have a sense of the history that Charlie references.
You might further consider this:
http://www.political-humor.org/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up.shtml
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
RE: Subject
As usual, given enough time, "Nan, na, nan nah", seems appropriate.
--
Lew Hodgett
Box 2302
Whittier, CA, 90610-2302
E-Mail: [email protected]
Limp Arbor wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:16 pm, "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one
>> of the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper
>> she has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
>> science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will
>> give
>> her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to
>> post before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a
>> fun thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst
>> candiate stuff going around.
>
> Not afraid but very wary. Too many things are done "in the name of
> science" without regard to consequences.
>
> Also the arrogance is unmatched:
>
> Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
> supply
Which specific "experiments" were these?
> Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they
> work
So let's see, it treats a specific form of cancer but nobody knows
why, so it should be withheld from dying patients until its mechanism
is understood. Is that what you are saying?
> Plum Island
What about "Plum Island"?
> Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are
> smart
> enough to keep it under control. That is why we have Frankenstein,
> I
> Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
> books/movies about the need to be carfeul.
Or about irrational fear of science.
> Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
So when have "we"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 17, 10:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Limp Arbor wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Also the arrogance is unmatched:
>>> Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
>>> supply
>> This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
>> in a usenet thread is pointless so...
>>
>
> Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
> Patented seeds are cool?
In many ways, yes, Monsanto and the others developing more productive
and cost-effective ways to produce food to feed the world's growing
population are, indeed, "the good guys".
Patented seeds are a new concept, granted; I never said anything about
"perfect world", did I? OTOH, drugs and other technology is patented
and is at least part of the driving mechanism that continues to fund
research so it's part of "pay the fiddler".
--
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:18:08 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Go play with your marble countertops, Tom... and if I want an opinion
>on something from you, I'll ask for it, okay? Oh, and next time you
>post a link, try to find something that's original and isn't covered
>in dinosaur shit.
>
>BTW 'benefited only has one 't', o, literary genius!
...ecce homo...
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
dpb wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 10:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Limp Arbor wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Also the arrogance is unmatched:
>>>> Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
>>>> supply
>>> This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even
>>> begin in a usenet thread is pointless so...
>>>
>>
>> Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
>> Patented seeds are cool?
>
> In many ways, yes, Monsanto and the others developing more
> productive
> and cost-effective ways to produce food to feed the world's growing
> population are, indeed, "the good guys".
>
> Patented seeds are a new concept, granted; I never said anything
> about
> "perfect world", did I? OTOH, drugs and other technology is
> patented
> and is at least part of the driving mechanism that continues to fund
> research so it's part of "pay the fiddler".
This "sterile seeds" business is just plain ignorance. If they were
"sterile" then they wouldn't sprout.
As for "patented seeds", patents are a legal issue, not a scientific
one, scientists didn't write the patent laws, politicians did.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Limp Arbor wrote:
...
> Point is they're all scientists and they disagree so some of them are
> basing their opinions on faulty 'science'.
No, not all of them are scientists despite news reports that may make
them out to be. OTOH, of the ones who are, they're people, too, and
people make mistakes and are occasionally driven by other motives than
the ones they publicly profess and are, sometimes, simply wrong. Or,
given the type of scientific questions being addressed by the global
warming question, there's certainly no lack of uncertainty in models and
so there's no surprise whatsoever that there can be conflicting
conclusions drawn from competing models of the same phenomena--that's
science.
> I'm not against science I just want them to be more careful.
Well, your wanting isn't going to change the actions of either the
majority who are quite careful imo and nor the very small minority who
are exceedingly reckless or the ones in between. Again, people are
people the world 'round. For the most part, things are in reasonable
situations of checks and balances. Like all other areas of human
endeavor, things could undoubtedly be better in some areas; one can be
thankful they're not worse in others.
--
J. Clarke wrote:
...
> This "sterile seeds" business is just plain ignorance. If they were
> "sterile" then they wouldn't sprout.
Well, no it isn't. It's the ability to introduce a gene modification
that makes the seeds of the plants that are grown from a specific seed
be sterile when _they_ mature. Afaik, they've not yet been released
commercially but the technology does exist. It was developed as a means
to enforce the ban against using seed from patented hybrids as seed for
next year's crop--rather than requiring detective work and legal action
to enforce the patent holders rights, this eliminates the possibility
the end user could use the seed for planting, hence no enforcement expense.
As a farmer, it's a problematic area--I don't much cotton to the
practice of patenting seed that prevents the hold-back of crop for the
next year's crop as a a personal matter. OTOH, many hybrids don't come
back "true", so one has always bought much seed annually anyway, even
before it was actually patented.
Where one could envision problems here would be if this particular trait
could be one that can be transmitted in the wild by
cross-pollination--there are certainly areas in which there are
concerns; nothing I've written before is to meant to say no concerns
only that imo much is overblown on the edible food end; much more is at
stake in some of the possible interactions in the wild, agreed.
It would be good if there were sufficient resources available that all
of this research could be at the land grant universities w/ their own
research budgets and therefore could be released as public domain, but
that simply isn't a viable economic model. So, if there is private
investment, those who have made the investment and taken the risk need
some manner in which to recoup that or it will cease to happen.
--
Robatoy wrote:
...
> Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And they
> care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob can
> fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is
> THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad
> name.
Monsanto has plenty of competitors...
> Shareholders first, screw the people.
So become a shareholder...
--
dpb wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>> This "sterile seeds" business is just plain ignorance. If they
>> were
>> "sterile" then they wouldn't sprout.
>
> Well, no it isn't. It's the ability to introduce a gene
> modification
> that makes the seeds of the plants that are grown from a specific
> seed
> be sterile when _they_ mature. Afaik, they've not yet been released
> commercially but the technology does exist. It was developed as a
> means to enforce the ban against using seed from patented hybrids as
> seed for next year's crop--rather than requiring detective work and
> legal action
> to enforce the patent holders rights, this eliminates the
> possibility
> the end user could use the seed for planting, hence no enforcement
> expense.
If the technology exists could you provide a link to more information?
>
> As a farmer, it's a problematic area--I don't much cotton to the
> practice of patenting seed that prevents the hold-back of crop for
> the
> next year's crop as a a personal matter.
So don't use the patented seed.
> OTOH, many hybrids don't
> come back "true", so one has always bought much seed annually
> anyway,
> even before it was actually patented.
>
> Where one could envision problems here would be if this particular
> trait could be one that can be transmitted in the wild by
> cross-pollination--there are certainly areas in which there are
> concerns; nothing I've written before is to meant to say no concerns
> only that imo much is overblown on the edible food end; much more is
> at stake in some of the possible interactions in the wild, agreed.
I'm not sure what concerns there are. Any plant that doesn't
reproduce dies out in one generation so natural selection will kill it
in the wild right quick.
> It would be good if there were sufficient resources available that
> all
> of this research could be at the land grant universities w/ their
> own
> research budgets and therefore could be released as public domain,
> but
> that simply isn't a viable economic model. So, if there is private
> investment, those who have made the investment and taken the risk
> need
> some manner in which to recoup that or it will cease to happen.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Woodie wrote:
> Limp Arbor wrote:
>> Made up?
>> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
>> peoples health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
>> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
>> insects, or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins.
>> Engineered fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps
>> even driving wild populations to extinction."
>> source:
>> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>
> Ummm... Then why do they continue to create them? It isn't the
> janitorial staff that engineers new organisms.
Some scientists are concerned, others are not. Always check the
credentials of the ones who are "concerned"--many "concerned
scientists" are not scientists and of the ones who are they are often
"concerned" about matters way outside their field, and outside their
field a scientist's opinion is no better than anybody else's.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Limp Arbor wrote:
> On Jul 17, 10:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Limp Arbor wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Also the arrogance is unmatched:
>>
>>> Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
>>> supply
>>
>> This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even
>> begin in a usenet thread is pointless so...
>
> Made up?
> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
> peoples health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
> insects,
> or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
> fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
> wild populations to extinction."
> source:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
"May", "might". You're going on like it's actually happened.
>>> Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they
>>> work
>>
>> So you would prefer we simply don't bother to try to market
>> curative
>> agents? How, precisely, would you go about gaining this perfect
>> knowledge a priori?
>
> I would prefer that they understood how & why they work before they
> are released.
> Ex.
> Minoxodil was developed to treat blood pressure problems, a side
> effect is hair grwoth.
> Viola! Rogaine.
I see. When you are dying of cancer be sure to turn down any
treatment for which the doctors cannot tell you "how & why they work".
>>> Plum Island
>>
>> And we're supposed to not do research on how to contain and control
>> and prevent future outbreaks of animal diseases that can also in
>> some cases be transmitted to humans? These are existing pathogens
>> that have done tremendous damage elsewhere but are almost
>> completely
>> unknown in the US. That is _NOT_ by accident but by very diligent
>> effort including such places as Plum Island.
>
> Agreed that they have good intentions but accidents happen, that is
> why some people fear science.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24065416/
It's not like that lab _invented_ hoof-and-mouth disease. They're
trying to find ways to treat or prevent it. If they don't have
samples of disease to work with then they can't do that. Are you
saying that scientists should not research disease cures because
there's a chance that the sample of the organism that they are working
with might escape? Then how would treatments ever be developed?
I'm sorry, but you're going off the deep end here.
>>> Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are
>>> smart enough to keep it under control. That is why we have
>>> Frankenstein, I Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and
>>> countless other books/movies about the need to be carfeul.
>>
>>> Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
>>
>> That you think "we" shouldn't doesn't mean that you can prevent
>> someone else (not a personal judgment, simply reality). It's
>> probably better to have more responsible folks doing the research
>> than trying to drive abolish it entirely and thereby drive it
>> underground or into clandestine locations only.
>
> Not all scientists are responsible, 31,000+ 'scientists' disagree
> with
> Al Gore.
> http://www.petitionproject.org/
Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a politician. You _really_ need to
learn the difference. This is the second time you've blamed science
for the actions of a politician.
> So one side or the other (probably both) is being irresponsible and
> they're all scientists.
One side is engaging in political activism because they believe that
the consequences if their untested models are correct are so dire that
action must be taken. The other wants the models to be tested.
> No doubt some believe they are right, some do
> it for pilitical or grant$ reasons, and some are just plain stupid.
> Point is they're all scientists and they disagree so some of them
> are
> basing their opinions on faulty 'science'.
Uh, you clearly have not the slightest clue how science works. The
idea is that you throw out an idea and it gets tested. If it doesn't
pass the test then it was an invalid idea. This is the way science
_works_. If all scientists agreed on everything then there would be
no science happening.
>
> I'm not against science I just want them to be more careful.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2:06 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And they
>>> care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob can
>>> fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is
>>> THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad
>>> name.
>> Monsanto has plenty of competitors...
>>
>>> Shareholders first, screw the people.
>> So become a shareholder...
>>
>> --
>
> Who says I'm not? I just find it distasteful to pretend it is all for
> the common good. I have no problem when people make money, even a lot
> of it. But I just wish they'd stop apologising for it, ...
I've certainly never seen Monsanto (or ADM for that matter) apologize
for making a profit...in fact, if I read their annual report it seems
quite concerned about doing so.
That they happen to make useful products and technology innovation is
one of the prime if not the prime manner in which they do that is a
primary motivation for doing so and that these products are useful is
why they are profitable--if their products weren't any good or weren't
meeting needs it seems highly unlikely they would be very profitable,
doesn't it?
> Either way, I am repulsed by companies who genetically mess with my
> food. Finding more efficient ways to grow food, fine, ...
Well, that's the prime technique by which we can do that. I don't
believe there's any way you would have any way you could tell such a
thing had happened if it weren't in the papers. So, if you can't tell,
what's the point in being so outraged other than for some irrational
reason that you "just are"??? What difference does it make other than
raise the blood pressure and what difference would it make that you
could tell from what you're eating if it were to go away? The answer
is, absolutely nothing other than price would go up and availability
down. Hence, much ado over essentially nothing.
--
J. Clarke wrote:
...
Look for information on GURT (genetic use restriction technology) or
"Monsanto Terminator" -- one has to be fairly selective to avoid the
paranoia as opposed to information of course.
Monsanto has announced they are not and don't have intentions of
implementing or releasing a product (but that, of course, isn't the same
thing as research). AFAIK, there's not a whole lot outside the
scientific literature readily available outside the popular media which
has been typically scathing.
Besides the patent-infringement issue, there are other potential
benefits that could, as you note, be useful for undesirable species
control owing to them non-proliferating. Others are concerned this
could become too easy.
...
> So don't use the patented seed.
Well, easy enough to say, but there may be economic disadvantage to that
as well. As in any question of any depth, it's not an easily solved
problem other than totally superficially. Some of these patented
hybrids actually far better suited varieties for certain areas so one is
faced w/ the choice of probably lower yields w/ the benefit of the open
seed as opposed to higher yield but the controlled seed source.
...
> I'm not sure what concerns there are. Any plant that doesn't
> reproduce dies out in one generation so natural selection will kill it
> in the wild right quick.
...
A couple of concern areas at a minimum -- first, that the seed is
sterile doesn't imply the pollen is so, for example, I could be the
neighbor next door not using patented seed and planning on keeping back
part of my crop for next year. Neighbor, otoh, buys this particular
seed and it cross-fertilizes w/ my crop. I've been damaged economicall,
perhaps relatively severely.
If it were to become widespread and prone, it could have such effects on
a wide enough scale to be problematic perhaps. Or, say it isn't perfect
but only weakens so that subsequent generations have sprouting rates of
only 50% or so rather than 95% or greater--that's a great cost as well.
--
Chris Friesen wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Limp Arbor wrote:
>
>>> Made up?
>>> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
>>> peoples health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
>>> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
>>> insects,
>>> or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins.
>>> Engineered
>>> fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even
>>> driving
>>> wild populations to extinction."
>>> source:
>>> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>>
>>
>> "May", "might". You're going on like it's actually happened.
>
> It's not that far-fetched.
>
> Monsanto tried to grow a test plot of genetically modified rice
> right
> in the middle of India's Basmati-growing region (and got spanked by
> the Indian government for the possibility of contaminating the rest
> of the region with patented rice).
Where, exactly, in India did this happen? Do you have a link? And
what was the nature of the patent?
> In British Columbia, tens of thousands of atlantic salmon are
> escaping
> from fish farms each year, and there is evidence that they are
> outcompeting the native pacific salmon. It seems likely that
> genetically modified fish would escape at similar rates.
When one genetically modified fish escapes then I'll worry about it.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
...
> corporate greed which overrules ethics at Monsanto et al, ...
What, specifically, do you think Monsanto has done that is unethical?
Invent one of the best combinational herbicide/production crop systems
known to the history of man? That, somehow, is unethical to feed more,
less expensively, w/ fewer inputs (water, fuel, etc., ...)?
Strange set of ethics it seems to me... :(
--
Puckdropper wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Puckdropper wrote:
>>> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and
>>>> one
>>>> of the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The
>>>> paper
>>>> she has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
>>>> science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will
>>>> give
>>>> her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to
>>>> post before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be
>>>> a
>>>> fun thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst
>>>> candiate stuff going around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a few thoughts, from someone who had to take certain
>>> classes
>>> because of the word "Science" in his degree name.
>>>
>>> First, math is rarely seperable from science. Science is
>>> generally
>>> easy to understand (if you punch a wall, it will hurt), but
>>> mathematics get hard. Most people deal with this by avoiding
>>> mathematics, but you can only do that for so long before the
>>> science
>>> you want to use requires it.
>>>
>>> So why are people afraid of science/scientists? Mathematics.
>>> Since
>>> most scientists use it every day, they're not afraid to break out
>>> the
>>> slide rule to explain something.
>>>
>>> Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is
>>> that
>>> scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth
>>> the
>>> cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be
>>> multiple
>>> letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of
>>> K,
>>> we could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit
>>> multiplication
>>> makes things harder than they have to be.
>>
>> Using single letter variable names one gets expressions that fill
>> two
>> boards sometimes. Using "SPRING_CONSTANT" and the like would make
>> them much much longer and add no real clarity.
>>
>> If you're having trouble with implicit multiplication wait until
>> you
>> get to nonlinear differential equations.
>>
>>
>
> Well, the obvious solution is to get a longer board. 2x4s are
> available in multiples of 2' at many lumber yards. ;-)
There are only so many boards that you can fit in a room.
> You can use insanely long variable names and add much noise. Or you
> can add enough extra letters to express what it is you're trying to
> express without adding extra noise. This way you won't have to
> either provide a legend of variables or hope you remember what all
> of
> them are. It sure helps when you put something away and come back
> to
> it later...
And every step in the derivation you have to write all those extra
letters and multiplication signs.
Your suggestion may sound fine from your viewpoint but from the
viewpoint of someone who at one time in his life did mathematical
analysis for a living it's a horror.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
dpb wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>
> Look for information on GURT (genetic use restriction technology) or
> "Monsanto Terminator" -- one has to be fairly selective to avoid the
> paranoia as opposed to information of course.
>
> Monsanto has announced they are not and don't have intentions of
> implementing or releasing a product (but that, of course, isn't the
> same thing as research). AFAIK, there's not a whole lot outside the
> scientific literature readily available outside the popular media
> which has been typically scathing.
>
> Besides the patent-infringement issue, there are other potential
> benefits that could, as you note, be useful for undesirable species
> control owing to them non-proliferating. Others are concerned this
> could become too easy.
>
> ...
>
>> So don't use the patented seed.
>
> Well, easy enough to say, but there may be economic disadvantage to
> that as well. As in any question of any depth, it's not an easily
> solved problem other than totally superficially. Some of these
> patented hybrids actually far better suited varieties for certain
> areas so one is faced w/ the choice of probably lower yields w/ the
> benefit of the open seed as opposed to higher yield but the
> controlled seed source.
>
> ...
>> I'm not sure what concerns there are. Any plant that doesn't
>> reproduce dies out in one generation so natural selection will kill
>> it in the wild right quick.
> ...
> A couple of concern areas at a minimum -- first, that the seed is
> sterile doesn't imply the pollen is so, for example, I could be the
> neighbor next door not using patented seed and planning on keeping
> back part of my crop for next year. Neighbor, otoh, buys this
> particular seed and it cross-fertilizes w/ my crop. I've been
> damaged economicall, perhaps relatively severely.
Seems to me that you have good grounds for a lawsuit against somebody
then.
> If it were to become widespread and prone, it could have such
> effects
> on a wide enough scale to be problematic perhaps. Or, say it isn't
> perfect but only weakens so that subsequent generations have
> sprouting rates of only 50% or so rather than 95% or greater--that's
> a great cost as well.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Chris Friesen wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>> Monsanto tried to grow a test plot of genetically modified rice
>>> right
>>> in the middle of India's Basmati-growing region (and got spanked
>>> by
>>> the Indian government for the possibility of contaminating the
>>> rest
>>> of the region with patented rice).
>>
>>
>> Where, exactly, in India did this happen? Do you have a link? And
>> what was the nature of the patent?
>
> There's lots of information out there..ah, here we go.
>
> Looks like I had some details wrong...it was the locals that burnt
> down a farm in Haryana, and now their Supreme Court has suspended
> all
> food trials.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6103700.stm
Doesn't say anything there about Monsanto.
> Here's another one from a while back...Monsanto patented the gene
> sequence of an existing wheat variety that is a staple in India.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jan/31/gm.food
No, they _tried_ to patent it and got their asses kicked in court.
> Monsanto has also tried to patent specific types of pigs. In both
> of
> these cases, they're patenting a discovery, rather than an
> invention.
> You're not supposed to be able to get patents on discoveries, but
> that
> doesn't seem to make any difference.
Once again, patents have to do with LAW, not SCIENCE. If you don't
like the patent laws then blame the POLITICIANS not the SCIENTISTS.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" wrote:
>
>> Or you could do what my favorite math prof did: as he wrote with
>> his
>> right hand, he erased with his left...
>>
>> ...and never ran out of board space. :-)
>
> WE must have had the same prof<G>
OTOH, Einstein often ran out of board.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Limp Arbor wrote:
> On Jul 17, 12:55 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> Limp Arbor wrote:
>>
>>>>> Made up?
>>>>> "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
>>>>> peoples health or the environment. For example, engineered
>>>>> crops
>>>>> might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial
>>>>> insects,
>>>>> or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins.
>>>>> Engineered
>>>>> fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even
>>>>> driving
>>>>> wild populations to extinction."
>>>>> source:
>>>>> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
>>
>>>> "May", "might". You're going on like it's actually happened.
>>
>>> It's not that far-fetched.
>>
>>> Monsanto tried to grow a test plot of genetically modified rice
>>> right
>>> in the middle of India's Basmati-growing region (and got spanked
>>> by
>>> the Indian government for the possibility of contaminating the
>>> rest
>>> of the region with patented rice).
>>
>> Where, exactly, in India did this happen? Do you have a link? And
>> what was the nature of the patent?
>>
>>> In British Columbia, tens of thousands of atlantic salmon are
>>> escaping
>>> from fish farms each year, and there is evidence that they are
>>> outcompeting the native pacific salmon. It seems likely that
>>> genetically modified fish would escape at similar rates.
>>
>> When one genetically modified fish escapes then I'll worry about
>> it.
>
> then you should have been worrying for years now, and its not one
> fish
> but 600,000
>
> "Since 1996, almost 600,000 Atlantic salmon have escaped from net
> pens
> in Washington waters, and at least 60,000 into Canadian waters."
> source:
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/fish22.shtml
Read that article very carefully with a map in hand. The genetically
engineered salmon are being raised on Prince Edward Island. The
600,000 salmon that have escaped escaped into the Pacific ocean.
Since Prince Edward Island has the whole of North America between it
and the Pacific Ocean one is hard pressed to imagine how such an
escape could occur.
Clearly a case of fear-mongering, juxtaposing two unrelated events to
lead to a false impression that they are related.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
B A R R Y wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you
>> post. Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god.
>> That
>> happens on a daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the
>> scientific community.
>
> There is also a segment that points out that you can't disprove it
> either.
>
> I'm not choosing a side, but simply stating there are plenty of
> scientists on either side.
You know how the theomarketing scammers go on about how the Big Bang
is contrary to the Bible? Well the guy who came up with it was a
priest, and not some mail order priest either, a Roman Catholic priest
who later became head of the Vatican's Academy of Science. Newton was
more interested in theology than physics--he always saw physics as a
sideline. Darwin was studying for the priesthood, however it seems
that he couldn't reconcile what he observed on the Beagle expedition
with the views that were held by the Anglican dogma at the time, so he
bailed on religion.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
B A R R Y wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually, IMO, it is the way religion has been politicized. Scientists
>> don't object to anyone's belief in a god. Religionists do object to
>> anyone believing in scientific findings. It has been that way
>> throughout history.
If you put "some" in front of each of those, I could agree. As a
general statement, I disagree wholeheartedly..
--
dpb wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>> ... Newton was more interested in theology than physics--he always
>> saw physics as a sideline. ...
>
> That is certainly taking Newton out of the context of the period in
> which he lived...
Would you care to explain that remark?
Before you do you might want to google "newton theology".
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, sweet sawdust wrote:
{snip}
>Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists? Would anyone like to
>comment on this?
{snip}
I would comment, but the math is too hard.
Trust me on this: Way too many people equate science with the poor way
they learned Mathematics.
And nobody will ever believe anyone who starts off with:
"If I let one inch equal the time between now and the 1st Gulf war,
then the equivalent in distance between now and the domestication of the
dog is......"
(BTW: Everyone knows the 1st Gulf war was SO-o-o- last century and who
cares about before that! OMG!!)
Phil
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:YXzfk.407$kf4.379@trnddc03...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>
>> You think, LOL. They too can be bought.
>
> Precisely why funding MUST be totally immaterial to the process.
>
> Perhaps a better choice of words would be "divoriced".
Agreed, that they should not be paid by the political machine and the
politicians. Gore certainly has a few on board to back up his business plan
of selling snake oil.
"Leon" wrote:
> Where do they get their funding?
Totally immaterial to the process.
--
Lew Hodgett
Box 2302
Whittier, CA, 90610-2302
E-Mail: [email protected]
B A R R Y wrote:
> sweet sawdust wrote:
>> Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>
> I'm not.
>
> My best guess would boil down to contradictions between some religious
> beliefs and science, the fear of the unknown, and the inability or
> unwillingness of many to open the mind and ask questions.
>
> Many religions tend to discourage questions and gaining understanding of
> the "why" outside of the accepted religious teachings. To ask questions
> in such a setting is blasphemous and unfaithful.
Then you understand neither science nor religion. Science is about
*mechanism*. Religion is about *meaning and purpose*. Anyone who
believes that these two systems of epistemology are inherently at
odds is poorly informed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
J. Clarke wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>> Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you
>>> post. Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god.
>>> That
>>> happens on a daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the
>>> scientific community.
>> There is also a segment that points out that you can't disprove it
>> either.
>>
>> I'm not choosing a side, but simply stating there are plenty of
>> scientists on either side.
>
> You know how the theomarketing scammers go on about how the Big Bang
> is contrary to the Bible?
I am pretty well educated in both theology and science. I know of
no/few people of faith that deny the Big Bang theory and most I know
defer to scientists. If you want to see a major scam, take a look
at the people peddling Global Warming as a huge threat to humanity.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Curran Copeland wrote:
> ...
>> Because they lie. They say something and then it turns out to be false,
>> you can never trust what they say.
>
> I would contend that particular fault is far more prevalent outside the
> scientific community than in.
>
> I would also say if you really believe that publishing the results of
> research which are later either modified or maybe even rebutted simply
> indicates you don't understand the scientific process.
>
> --
I agree but that is the answer I got from one group and thought it was
interesting. Not trying toprove anything myself just and interesting
question no matter what the answer.
Curran Copeland
Sweetsawdust
J. Clarke wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>Monsanto tried to grow a test plot of genetically modified rice
>>right
>>in the middle of India's Basmati-growing region (and got spanked by
>>the Indian government for the possibility of contaminating the rest
>>of the region with patented rice).
>
>
> Where, exactly, in India did this happen? Do you have a link? And
> what was the nature of the patent?
There's lots of information out there..ah, here we go.
Looks like I had some details wrong...it was the locals that burnt down
a farm in Haryana, and now their Supreme Court has suspended all food
trials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6103700.stm
Here's another one from a while back...Monsanto patented the gene
sequence of an existing wheat variety that is a staple in India.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jan/31/gm.food
Monsanto has also tried to patent specific types of pigs. In both of
these cases, they're patenting a discovery, rather than an invention.
You're not supposed to be able to get patents on discoveries, but that
doesn't seem to make any difference.
Chris
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
>other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
>write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
>Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
>answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
>evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather
>then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
>
Gosh, are Scientists getting that vibe? I guess if they act like a
politically swayed group, tend to be biased like politically swayed groups
they must be a politically swayed groups. Where do they get their funding?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT), Limp Arbor wrote:
> Not all scientists are responsible, 31,000+ 'scientists' disagree
> with Al Gore.
> http://www.petitionproject.org/
Are you asserting that Al Gore is correct?
Peer review (and potentially resulting disagreement among those peers)
is necessary to the scientific method. These 31,000+ people are
asserting their belief that the scientifc method hasn't been properly
used in coming to the conclusion that global warming is human induced. I
don't think their saying that is irresponsible, but rather quite the
opposite.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
sweet sawdust wrote:
> Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
I'm not.
My best guess would boil down to contradictions between some religious
beliefs and science, the fear of the unknown, and the inability or
unwillingness of many to open the mind and ask questions.
Many religions tend to discourage questions and gaining understanding of
the "why" outside of the accepted religious teachings. To ask questions
in such a setting is blasphemous and unfaithful.
Non-religious folks might be truly afraid of things, so they don't want
to know. For instance, extra terrestrial life, or the potential for
large scale natural disaster or disease. It's much more relaxing not
to think about this stuff!
Still others be afraid of looking stupid when they can't immediately
understand a concept. Further pursuit of knowledge, which also requires
effort, is too easy not to do.
I tend to lean towards the Buddhist view of science with religion, which
is we are a delicate part of the big picture. We MUST question "why?"
in order to try and understand it all and move forward.
Then there's the way science has become politicized...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:11:08 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'll take a few of those Elm. Thanks.
Make sure it is not a Siberian Elm, messy tree.
Mark
B A R R Y wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you
>> post. Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god. That
>> happens on a daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the scientific
>> community.
>
> There is also a segment that points out that you can't disprove it either.
>
> I'm not choosing a side, but simply stating there are plenty of
> scientists on either side.
There are no "sides" if the issues are properly understood. Faith
systems and empirical systems are complementary not contradictory.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/