Slashdot Log In
NASA Science Under Attack
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Feb 06, 2006 08:33 AM
from the when-is-science-not-under-attack dept.
from the when-is-science-not-under-attack dept.
The Bad Astronomer writes "The New York Times is reporting that NASA science is being harassed and even sometimes suppressed by presidential political appointees. The article details how NASA scientists dealing with such topics as global warming and the Big Bang are under attack for ideological and religious reasons." The submitter also has a running commentary summarizing a bit of the background of the story on his blog.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
To some other influential republicans, however, science is already too left, and therefore, not right.
Parent
Meet George Deutsch (Score:5, Informative)
His memo reads:
Religious issues at NASA. I only wish this were some loony story, but it appears legit.
Given his young age (twenty four), you might imagine George Deutsch having an impeccable resume. He graduated in 2003 from Texas A&M with a degree in journalism, then in 2004 was an intern in the Bush-Cheney re-election "war room". Here is a link [salon.com] to some of his articles he wrote while at the Texas A&M Battalion.
These people's religion vitiates *everything* (Score:5, Insightful)
The position that IDers' "Teach kids the controversy" position was a slippery slope has just been vindicated, again. Deutsch is right, his position is "more than a science issue." No matter what the area of discussion, he's going to bounce things off his religious beliefs. The thing is, his religious beliefs aren't about truth or morality or justice; they're about reinforcing human authority to speak for God with absolute authority. If it's convenient to cast doubt on a murder conviction because it'll fan the spectacular claims of rampant satanic cults running loose in America, so be it. That helps keep the flock in line. Good deal, write it up George.
In a theocracy, religion gets inserted into every area of life, with the aim being to reinforce the power of those in charge. That's what these people want. They want scientists to be running scared from the local party representative. It's their very own Cultural Revolution, albeit with different idols to worship. And it can happen, even here.
Parent
IT's not about whether it is a theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the minister of your local church teach the controversy? Or does he teach that ID is right and everything else is wrong? Should he be forced to teach the controvercy and not impose any particular idea?
A minister of a church can teach whatever idea he wants, including ID, because it is an institution of religious philosophy and that is what they do.
On the other hand, NASA is an institute of science. What they do there is science research. They will refer to all sorts of scientific ideas there because it is part of their job. Discussing ID is not part of their job because it is not relevent to what they are doing. So they shorthand the word "theory" out for brevity and convenience.
So:
1. Which institutions should be allowed to stick to their basic reason for existance and be allowed to narrowly focus on that topic (be it theology or research)?
2. which institutions should be forced to "teach the controvercy" even though it may not be relevent to them?
Should churches be forced to "teach the controvercy" rather than just teach genesis? Or is "teaching the controvercy" only something the other side should? Should they be allowed to shorten their discussions so they focus only on those aspects that are important and relevant to them?
I'm not looking for right or wrong. I'm looking for consistency. If you have a rule, apply it the same everywhere, not just where it is most convenient to one point of view.
Parent
Sad really (Score:5, Insightful)
such a young life, wasted
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
you have to feel pity , that such a young person (24) can have have such a magnitude of delusion and be in a position to corrupt others with their issues
Re:Sad really (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the way things are going, this might be a better way to bet your career at that age, than siding with the left wing.
Parent
Re:Sad really (Score:5, Informative)
The bad thing on his part is that he hasn't even done his research on religion. If you read, Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time", he talks about how the Vatican in the mid 80's had declared that the Big Bang theory conforms to their doctrine and is the preferable sicentific explanation. Wheras, Hawking had expressed his doubt at one time shortly before this proclamation that there might have not been a singular big bang, but a possible "no begining, no end universe" (which he of course speculates but doesn't really go for) which would make Creationism impossible.
In fact the Big Bang is almost required for a creationist type of event.
Parent
Re:Sad really (Score:5, Informative)
[Deutsch's email] continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
Or is that the worst part? It's certainly the scariest.
Parent
Stop it, (Score:5, Insightful)
Balance the argument (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Balance the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW I demand you spend equal time to the FSM, invisible pink elephants and every other devine creature some idiot might have thought of.
Parent
Re:Balance the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Only scientific theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable. Nonscientific theories do not need to be falsifiable. Don't fall into the trap of equating scientific theory with nonscientific theory; they mean very different things.
Parent
Not all religious people are like this (Score:5, Insightful)
presidential appointee (Score:5, Informative)
more info on this guy here
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_
A Little Over Blown (Score:5, Insightful)
Throwing the word "theory" after big bang is technically the right treatment for the word. It is a theory. It is a pretty damn strong theory, but theory none the less.
As far as the PR office stuffing a reference to the presidential vision on space exploration in every single press release, while irritating, really isn't much of a crime in my opinion. Press releases are not scientific journals; they are the PR office at work. Part of the PR offices job is to drum up support for various initiatives. Claiming everything under the sun could help the study of other plants is probably technically correct. The NASA earth scientist are really just pissed that they got their work mentioned in the context that it could do something good for the presidential vision. NASA earth science and the rest of NASA have always had a problem with each other. I am not terribly surprised to see them feuding over the wording of press releases.
As far as earth sciences taking a hit and going under major restructuring, this shouldn't come as a surprise. The president pretty explicitly stated that NASA was to be realigned to focus on manned missions to space. Unsurprisingly, the means cuts in everything unrelated. Now, you might very well disagree with this, but it is certainly not secret sinister plot.
The only thing "scary" going on that the NYT article brought up is that they let some 24 year old idiot who clearly has no idea what he is doing into NASA's PR office. This "gem" shows pretty clearly that his head is deeply implanted up his ass.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
Now yes, the big bang theory IS a theory and should e called as such. That said, it isn't called a theory for religious reasons. Further, this fucking moron seems to be under the delusion that the big bang theory is something that religious folks don't like. Most Christians absolutely LOVE the big bang theory as it upset the long held scientific belief that the universe was forever and stats that the universe has a beginning.
Honestly, I think the news story here is that an idiot 24 year old kid got appointed into a job way over his head and acted like a moron.
Re:A Little Over Blown (Score:5, Funny)
Pass the popcorn!
Parent
I'm very happy (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers!
Och
(Sarcastic mood. Sorry)
Redundant language & A call for a resignation (Score:5, Insightful)
However being forced to add the word theory to every mention of the phrase "big bang" provides no real benefit in delivering clear and understandable explanations of scientific discoveries or ideas. Simply using the phrase "big bang" does not give anyone the false impression we are discussing an absolute fact, you would hope most people would be educated well enough to have at least some grasp of the underlying science and the way language is used and be able to avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Instead you would have to suspect that anyone advocating this policy has an ulterior motive and in this case the muppet involved has been so kind as to outline his motive for us. Surprisingly from someone who would seem to be in a position where he was supposed to help scientists present their work clearly and coherently to the public he is instead more concerned with pushing his own private religious agenda than the job he is, presuambly, supposed to be doing.
I don't know the guy but already I don't like him. Whether I like him or not is irrelevant however, I think there is enough evidence here of him abusing his position for him to do the honourable thing and resign, or be fired.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read The Washington Post and see if you can name which way it leans. If you read it for a few weeks you might find yourself rather confused on that question. I have heard just about everyone say it leans each possible direction. I have found the people who say it is right-leaning are often people who are on the left and do not like what the paper is telling them. The opposite is true for those who say it is left-leaning because they are right and do not agree with what the paper is telling them.
The problem is not the media being right or left and who listens to it, so much as it is people not agreeing with what they are hearing, so they attach labels to justify their own ignorance of the facts. Surely G.W. cannot be wrong if we say the sources are "leftist media", and surely G.W. cannot be right if we say the sources are "rightist media".
But of course, I hope you have an open enough mind to challenge your view on traditional media because right now you do not sound much better then the "right wing nuts" and "left wing loonies" to which you refer.
Parent
NoReg NYT Link Generator (Score:5, Informative)
Try it. [nytimes.com]
Parent
Re:Big Bang is not a "theory" (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'm not quite through my first coffee of the day, so what the heck...
First off, the observations of the CMB and the Hubble flow demonstrate that the Universe was smaller and hotter in the past. It's pretty simple physics, I'm sure you can figure it out without hurting yourself.
Second, you must be channelling Halton Arp: he tends to pull numbers out of his *ss without any data to back them up. He also tends to point at random line-of-sight alignments of objects at different distances and make weird claims about how those objects support his bogus claim of the day.
Third, superluminal motions are a geometric effect and do not show real 'faster than light' motions. This was explained in the 60s.
Fourth, time for more coffee.
Have a nice day!
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
An analogy: if I take my car to the mechanic and he says that my defrobinator is broken, but won't suggest a course of action, I'll never go to him again. I expect my mechanic to not only find the problem but also *fix* it.
I'd be concerned about the scientist's biases if he were suggesting a course of action counter to what the research indicated, but if his thoughts follow that research, what's the concern? That he's biased towards facts and away from myth?
Progress is the job of a scientist. Improving the human condition and furthering our knowledge of universe. 'Presenting research' is the method, not the goal.
Parent
Re:Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the current administration has taken a perfectly good word ("theory") and corrupted it to mean something entirely different. That's a political trick they are quite good at; consider how they have corrupted other perfectly good words to mean something bad, like "liberal" and "fiscal responsibility."
They have redefined "theory" to include things that are *not* scientific, like intelligent design, and the "theory" of the Liberal Global Warming Hoax Conspiracy. By selectively changing the definitions of words, they can couch the debate in a way more favorable to their political ends. In this case, it is a complete discrediting of science as a method of obtaining Truth, when in fact only the Bible has the ability to give us Truth.
Instead of the enlightened viewpoint you express, most of these people are not interested in using science to discover the face of God. Most of them realize if they do that, the world will not be 8,972 years old like they think; the rapture will most likely not happen in our lifetimes; and worse, the difference between good and evil is not so clear-cut as the difference between Us and Them. Oh, and maybe the US isn't God's Chosen Ones. Maybe the whole world is God's Chosen Ones.
And where will that leave them?
Parent
Re:Two sides to every issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This yahoo's attempt to insert "theory" after "Big Bang" in press releases is not out of want for scientific rigor; it is the point of a very disturbing wedge, one whose ultimate goal is a society in which everything is subservient to theology, even the physical sciences. We are sliding down the slippery slope, toward Sagan's Demon-Haunted Land.
Parent