NASA Science Under Attack 590
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.
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, Orwell's books were not fiction, but a thinly veiled image of the then-present state of Russia. The US is still far away from this, but don't worry, it's well on it's way...
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:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
To some other influential republicans, however, science is already too left, and therefore, not right.
NASA as a research center vs. pretty space thing (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, "scientific research" at NASA is a problem. Here we have a prominent government research facility that does all kinds of research: research that requires large teams, or specialized equipment, or a permanent base beyond what the worlds' research universities can supply. And, unfortunately, much of the information it puts out, particularly in the sublunar spheres, tends to be either insignificant in terms of Lockheed Martin's participation, or contrary to the government's stated policy on environmental issues or the imminent second coming of Christ.
This administration has exercised tighter control over the bureaucratic aspects of government than any other in recent memory -- just look at what's happening in the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. The one constant has been the apparent demand for "Good News" that corroborates and does not falsify the central administration's gospel. Is it any surprise they'd go after NASA as well?
Let science be science, not politics. (Score:3, Insightful)
I (very strongly) feel that science should not be seen through the rose-colored glasses of contemporary ideological/religious beliefs. It wasn't too many years ago that excellent medical scientists were treated as village idiots because the scientists' beliefs were not in-line with ideology. Before that, if a scientist had suggested giving processed mold to people with infections, the scientist would have been burned at the stake in some rural village square.
It is incumbent on the individual to discern whether or not the results of clean, unbiased science has implications on beliefs and value systems. It is not the job of ideologues to decide on our behalf.
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.
Stop it, (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not all religious people are like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like theocracy gone awry. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Big Bang is not a "theory" (Score:1, Insightful)
Once again we see people jamming crowbars into the cracks in our knowledge so they can supernatural deities in there. That's just sad.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:4, Insightful)
And by the way, the Big Bang has not been scientifically proven (hence "theory") and the existence of God has not been scientifically disproved.
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.
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.
Re:Sounds like theocracy gone awry. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're a libertarian, then stand up for it. Don't call yourself a conservative if you know their policies are just as freedom-bashing as liberalism.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:1, Insightful)
No. This is now what theory means in scientific terms. A theory is a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning.
There are other theories - such as the earth goes round the sun. That's a theory.
Re:Not all religious people are like this (Score:2, Insightful)
Politics + Science = Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Because societies hold those in the sciences with great regard, it only makes sense that politicians and governments in need of substantiation cling to them. Scientist, in turn, are often willing participants in the symbiotic relationship, feeding off the money and influence that flow from the bosom of the rich and powerful. This isn't limited to politics; it happens in pharmaceuticals, educational institutions, the food industry, and nearly every other human endeavor that requires smart people to prove something right or wrong and announce their findings.
It is difficult to consider any science independent if its existence is funded by purveyors of mind control, greed, or world domination. I wish there were a way for science to be funded without the overarching control of the funding organization, but we all know that's just not going to happen. Therefore, we must challenge every conclusion by looking at it from different perspectives and "funding models", be it other governments, democrat/republican funding, different religions, etc.
I consider myself religious and somewhat political, but I will never ask my preacher what I should blindly think about evolution or fully embrace un-reviewed science from a government entity.
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?
Re:Time Dilation (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, according to that galaxy, 13 billion years have passed for them, and only a fraction of that for use. If you can't wrap your head around this, you can either read books to educate yourself, or just pray and continue to wallow in your own ignorence.
Well, to be fair, time dilation (note spelling) is one of the more difficult concepts to wrap one's head around in modern physics...
My father is a physicist, and I considered becoming one (became a computer geek instead), and I still have trouble with it.
I mean, the guy's not too bright, but claiming that anyone who can't wrap their head around time dilation should just give up and never try to think again would eliminate about 99.8% of the population of the world. It would be like writing off everyone who can't write a Slashdot post with perfect spelling and grammar...
Dan Aris
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.
Re:Meet George Deutsch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the scientist are biased. Biased by their better understanding of the situation.
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.
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.
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is. Who is more qualified? (Well, according to TFA, 24-year-old PR hacks.)
Re:Balance the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement is doubly flawed.
1) A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can only be disproven. It gains respect when repeated attempts to disprove it fail, but it's never 100% "true."
2) A religious belief cannot be disproven. It cannot be tested. Thus it's always 100% "true." (Or 0%)
See a trend here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Puts political fund raisers in charge of Corporation For Public Broadcasting because a politically independent organization just can't be trusted to be unbiased.
Puts Haliburton in charge of Iraq reconstruction. We're still there, the electricity still doesn't work very often.
Puts 24 year old campaign worker in charge of PR at NASA. ROFL! If it wasn't so creepy and pathetic it would be funny.
Ignorance and incompetence. The only question is how much more damage we'll take before 2008? As a Republican I'm joining with independents and Democrats to run all these fuckers out of office, then, hopefully, we can start engaging in meaningful discussions during the years we're going to spend cleaning up the mess that's going to be left behind.
Re:Meet George Deutsch (Score:5, Insightful)
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the one that most people are using when they're talking about things like the big bang theory.
6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
AKA guess, hunch, belief. This is the one that ID proponents seem to be using to defend their use of the word. Heck, it confused me when I first encountered the scientific term, but IIRC that was something I learned in school before turning 10, so intentionally misleading people over the definitions is both annoying, and sad in that its so successful.
New astronomical scale (Score:2, Insightful)
Myself, I can see the new NASA astrology gift store making some coin off the American people.
Caught me in a particular mood too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a local long form list of names of countries in the Americas:
Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Republica de Guatemala
Republica de Honduras
Republica de El Salvador
Republica de Nicaragua
Republica de Costa Rica
Republica de Panama
Republica de Colombia
Republica del Ecuador
Republica del Peru
Republica de Bolivia
Republica de Chile
Republica Argentina
Republica del Paraguay
Republica Oriental del Uruguay
Republica Federativa do Brasil
Republiek Suriname
Co-operative Republic of Guyana
Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Belize
Canada
United States of America
It makes as much sense to call someone from the USA a USian as it does to call a Mexican a EUian, or someone from Guyana a CRian, or the vast majority of people from these countries Republicans.
"United States" is just administrative details to our name America.
I mean no ill will though. This is more of an open rant than anything against what you said.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, to an outside observer, calling any mainstream party in the USA 'left' is just too fucking hilarious. Compared to any real socialist party in any other part of the world, both democrats and republicans are pretty much right-wing to extreme right. I'm not even talking about supposed socialist parties with marxist or maoist affinities, those are not proper socialist parties to begin with, I am talking about the typical social democrat party as found in many western countries.
For an outside observer, the libertarian and green parties in the USA a least look a little bit different still, but never got far enough to let any actions speak for them. Differences between democrats and republicans seem pretty superficial and created only for the purpose of having some difference at all, at least when looking at actions and not at party rhetoric.
At times it makes me wonder how peopel can make an informed choice if all there is is mud slinging, meaningless thetoric, and typical us vs them psychology.
The Vatican (Score:5, Insightful)
The Vatican are wise to do so. Big reason: they screwed up horribly over Galileo, they took way too long to catch on to the whole Darwin thing, and they don't want to look like fools again. The Vatican is therefore keen to show the world that religion can coexist with a rational understanding of the universe.
So: they are interested in scientific research, especially when it treads on ground that used to be exclusively God's. They loved the Big Bang; it's a singular creation event of absolutely enormous glory and power. Relativity and cosmology all come down, in the end, to something not far from Let there be light! No wonder the Vatican are happy. That's a tremendously impressive god, with a fabulous sense of style.
And how about evolution? How much cleverer of God to set up the system such that life can build itself! And on such a simple principle, too. That's the work of not just an intelligent designer, but a competent one. Much better than the clumsy, cack-handed work of a god who has to do everything himself.
Now, if you're an ancient religious organisation, planning to still be around and relevant a thousand years from now, isn't this the way you'd go about it? You don't fight against the discoveries made about the world by reason; Augustine understood that. You incorporate them. You show that they're fully consistent with what you've taught all along - if only you take a larger, more enlightened view of things. A view so much closer to God's, don't you think? And how better to understand God than to understand his works?
I can't believe this crap got modded up (Score:5, Insightful)
If I told you that my grandfather was German, would you immediately assume that he was an escaped Nazi war criminal? If I told you he was Russian would you assume he was one of Stalin's NKVD tortue specialists? If I told you he was of italian extraction and used to live in New York city, would you assume he was John Gotti?
It is clear that you don't know the difference between a mainstream Republican and a christian fundamentalist. The two are hardly similar to anyone actually familiar with then. If you can't tell the difference it is only because you are an extremist yourself. Only an extremest is unable discern differences in those they are ideologically opposed to.
I'm an agnostic libertarian who votes Republican, does that make me a "fundy" as well?
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:2, Insightful)
The parent post said nothing which led me to believe he/she is a fundy. And for safety reasons, not all science can be "left alone," but requires some external scrutiny. I am referring, of course to research that can be weaponized, or research into highly infectious diseases that requires oversight to avoid problems.
Re:Stop it, (Score:3, Insightful)
True. However, it can disprove (to forensic evidentiary standards sufficient to withstand a court of law) specific items of religious doctrine; EG, that the sun goes around the earth. If your doctrine also claims that the religious leaders can never be wrong, and they've been claiming this for 1600 years, then you have a Problem with science if it provides heliocentric evidence.
Similarly, if your religion insists that God created and populated the world in six days, and considered it finished at that point, you'll have Problems with discoveries suggesting that he's still tweaking at the designs on the various forms of life he created.
Science can't prove the non-existance of God(s). However, it can sometimes prove individual articles of faith to be wrong. Which leaves religion in general safe, but many specific creeds more than a little antsy in the crosshairs.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard it said that the repubs don't like scientists because they tend to vote democratic, but they've really brought that on themselves. Their real problem with science - and indeed with Reason in general - is that it often limits their power, which in their minds should be total and absolute now that they have all three branches of government locked up. Their only serious opponent now is Truth, at least until the next elections.
It's not just commercial interests with money... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worth mentioning that "corporations" can't donate more than a little cash to a particular candidate's campaign, and can't instruct their employees to each pony up, either. But you're also glossing over the enormous impact of the money thrown around by individuals (like George Soros - willing to spend millions to impact elections his way) and non-profits (like labor unions, trial lawyer associations, trade groups, environmental organizations... the moveon.org types, etc). You sound like you'd prefer maybe that a retired person to have a stronger voice in the election, but when they join a group that donates just as much money as a corporation does, what then? Is that better? Worse?
I certainly don't want my tax dollars to support every candidate that fills in the right forms. I'd rather put my money behind campaigns that actually represent what I think. As for your point about the more parlimentary approach to things - I'm not sure that the squabbling that takes place (look at the last election in Germany) allows the country to actually do anything when it really has to. There's no pleasing everybody, but certain actions (or choices not to act) are all the more frustrating when the party actually making the decision only really got 12% of the vote.
This is one of the reasons why USA is so hated around the world, their simplistic worldview does not coincide with the rest of the world's worldview.
You're right. We should be more like Denmark. See? They're only hated around the world because they allow freedom of the press. Hell, those embassies needed to be rebuilt anyway.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:4, Insightful)
Education, peace, diplomacy, and public service. No religion, no war, no big business. (He does want smaller government, a more conservative ideal.) Overall, it's startling.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the difference between science and politics.
In politics, the only thing that matters is the impression that you create. People vote for the impression, and live with the result.
In science, we try to keep politics to the minimum, and experimental investigation of empirical reality is one of the primary means of doing so. So a scientist, unaware of the impressions created by the two political parties in the U.S., looking at the data, would conclude that Democrats were the party of fiscal probity and Republicans were the party of spending money like drunken cowboys.
That people continue to trot out this incredible statement that the Republicans are less likely to run up a huge deficit and Democrats are less likely to balance the budget, when for the past twenty years exactly the opposite has been true, is a measure of how alien and anomalous science is in human experience.
This is why science is precious and must be defended. It is the only way we know of getting past impressions to something that at the very least is not the diametric opposite of the truth.
Re:Sad really (Score:1, Insightful)
A significant portion of these people believe that the Catholic Church is in league with the devil, so they'd never take anything the Vatican says regarding science, particularly Evolution or the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe, seriously.
Lot's of old school fundamentalists, especially those belonging to various "independent" congregations known as the Church of Christ, believe that Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. are all damned to hell. Only those belonging to the Church of Christ will be saved.
What makes you think they'd listen to the Vatican?
Re:Has this happened before? (Score:1, Insightful)
On a side note - ever notice how Bush's justification's flip back & forth between "It's for the good of the country (those them terr'ists again)" and "My superior morals & direct line to God have told me this is best", depending on his audience? Why do I have a hard time believing either one?
Re:Not all religious people are like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, I'm surprised that the religious right has picked this fight at all. There used to be an understanding among both scientists and theologians that science and religion operated in separate realms - Reason and Faith - and that they could coexist peacefully as masters of their own domains. By firing these shots across the border, Religion has broken the truce, and in so doing risks subjecting itself to the scrutiny of Reason in the public arena. I can see this happening already, here and elsewhere. That may not hurt yet on election day - the scientifically literate are greatly outnumbered by religious fundamentalists, I'm sure - but it will create an intellectual schism with unpredictable consequences for both sides.
Keep in mind that the Islamic countries of the middle east were once at the pinnacle of science and reason, but now have become theocracies besieged on all sides by modernity. Europe's "Dark Ages" under Christian theocracy put a lid on science for a millenium. Any good arguments why it couldn't happen again?
Re:Yes, it's COMPLETELY illogical (Score:4, Insightful)
Research simply says "this is what is happening" and draws no other conclusions.
Er, no. Research can also say "this is happening because...." and therefore it can say "this will stop happening if...."
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
And now you discover why some people (such as myself) who think that socialism is a horrible idea, that government is entirely too large, and that handouts to poor people just make them poorer hate the party you've chosen. The Republican party no longer stands for those values.
Stop believing in a party and start having some ideals of your own. Measure candidates against your ideals rather than against their party affiliation. Be open to listening to what people are saying about them instead of treating it as an attack on your community and justifying their bad behavior.
I will ask the same of Democrats who idealize their political leaders as well. The Democratic party suffers many of the same ills as the Republican party. As someone said to me recently (paraphrased) "John Kerry and George Bush (Sr.) were members of the same secret society (the one at Harvard) and shared the same secret handshake. You can't believe they're that different.".
Re:I can't believe this crap got modded up (Score:4, Insightful)
You can label yourself however you choose. But when you vote for a party whose platform and policies cater to a particular group, don't be surprised when others label you based on that platform and policies. Your actual voting behavior says more about what you believe is acceptable policy than does your personal label.
Re:Democratic Left Attack (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, Bush isn't just some wandering naif, he plays ideological hardball with the religious right as his relief pitcher. He doesn't get attacked because he's Christian, but because he makes stupid policy decisions while trying to stay in the religious right's good graces. He also gets attacked because he's a thoughtless, awkward speaker, a hypocrite of the first order, lies, launches major wars and then declares "Mission Accomplished" before it's over all the while dressed as a soldier, which the civilian leader of the armed forces should never do. I attack Bush because he pretends Christianity while his new budget hurts the poor to help the rich, because he promises environmental legislation and never delivers, and because he pretends he's a Texan, when he was born in Connecticut and went to Harvard and Yale.
Re:Not all religious people are like this (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they don't. I think the most useful classification of religious folks came from Dawkins, who characterized thus:
The know-alls, who ignore empirical evidence, and see scripture as the only valid source of information.
The know-nothings, who accept empirical evidence, but maintain that when evidence is lacking, any belief is equally valid. This group is in constant retreat, as science disproves traditional religious beliefs one after another. They are also challenged to motivate why they hold strong beliefs in certain fantastical propositions (i.e., those made by their own religion), but not in others (i.e., those made by other religions), with similar levels evidence (i.e. ancient eyewitness accounts).
And finally, the no-contests, who have accepted that religion is baloney, but feel that it would be too socially disruptive to make this claim in public. Dan Brown's protagonist would probably fall into this bucket.
Tor
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Balance the argument (Score:2, Insightful)
This statement is doubly flawed.
1) A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can only be disproven. It gains respect when repeated attempts to disprove it fail, but it's never 100% "true."
2) A religious belief cannot be disproven. It cannot be tested. Thus it's always 100% "true." (Or 0%)
Doubly flawed? Given assertions 1) and 2), the statement appears to be obvious and possibly redundant.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, generalizations are usually wrong.
My faith seems to have forgot what persecution is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Having people prove you wrong isn't persecution.
Having people hunt you down and kill you because of what you believe, is. Since this hasn't happened to christians in america, ever, at all, I think it's time the other members of my faith started shutting up and showing their faith and values through the most effective means of all: by example.
I feel most of us feel the same way, but the few of us that are loudly calling for the derailment of everyone who thinks differently, they are by far the loudest voices.
The key is to ignore them.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is, but that's math. Science (empiricism) is different. Sadly, the same word is used for mathematical "proof" and empirical "proof." They are two similar, but different, concepts.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you... science is not the search for truth. That would probably fall under philosophy.
Re:New astronomical scale (Score:3, Insightful)
More like genious, actually. These people have no principles whatsoever other than the ruthless pursuit of power and money, and they are very, very good at that. They don't care what scientists and intellectuals think about them, because scientists and intellectuals are a tiny minority compared to the vast voting bloc offered by organized religion. To them, "truth" is exactly what people believe it is, and nothing more. Their genius is in the manipulation and exploitation of that belief. They are shrewd and sociopathic, but hardly stupid.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
But their ongoing proposition isn't to spend less, it's to tax more. That's not the way to grow the economy.
Actually, it does, in a much bigger and more sustainable way over the long run. The premise, as I see it, is to tax the most weathly citizens and redistrubite that wealth as social, environmental, education, infrastrcuture, and law enforcement services to the rest of the people, enabling them to succeed in life. The more people that make money, the more people that spend it, the stronger the economy. My wife and I make a decent living, and what we pay in taxes to Federal and State is over $40,000 a year, so I think I can speak on this. Do I mind paying that much in taxes? Not really. I can open my door and see the police and fire department at work keeping my neighborhood safe, clean well maintained roads, excellent parks, schools, and hospitals. Not to mention, I like to know my tax money goes toward helping others get the same chances I had, or even helping others recover from the same issues I had as a teenager. If it wasn't for the government aid that got me into college, I don't where I would be today.
The 'trickle down' method is a bit different, but revolves around lowering the cost of doing business, so those business can hire more people or pay higher wages, and spending the minimum possible everything else. (except defense) The premise being, less government. I'm not really sure I want, less police when there is crime, less fireman when my house might burn, less road workers, less park rangers, less schools, less help for the poor, less hospitals, less clean air and water. I like those things so, I'm willing to pay. The only thing I want less of is war.
I have a friend who lives in Waynesboro VA. This is out in the middle of nowhere in Virginia, all rural. My wife and I went to visit him and he has a bueatiful stream in his backyard, perfect trout stream. I told him, "Man, do you ever fish in there?". He laughed and said "Shit, that stream hasn't had fish in it since the Dow plant opened up. I looked out my window one day and they were all day, smelled something fiece."
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had this conversation with my mother. She has all kinds of progressive attitudes, believes in justice and helping the poor and all that, but still habitually votes republican. We rarely bring up politics in conversation, but one day I asked her why she votes republican with such seemingly liberal attitudes.
Well, part of it is that she doesn't pay much attention to what the repubs are actually doing; she only listens to what they say. But the big thing for her is that she feels that the relatively uneducated son of a friend of hers makes way too much money working a lot of overtime as a skilled tradesman in an auto plant, all because of labor unions. She knows that the repubs hate labor unions, and so voting for them is her way of sticking it to her friend's son; I kid you not.
The repubs have known about this dynamic nearly forever. People will allow themselves to be screwed up the yinyang, as long as they get to watch someone even less fortunate getting screwed worse. They blame their problems on the people below, not on those above who are actually pulling the strings. It's all Machiavelli 101.
Sure hope my Mom doesn't see this...
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
America is not known a great country because of our military. America is known as a great country because people have a better chance to succeed here than in their own f**ed up country. Its called 'the American Dream' for a reason. Russia and China have a great military as well, I don't see people breaking down their door to get in. Its the social aspects and environment of this country that make it desirable place to live.
I could cut and paste stats all day on how education and a stable environment enables people to succeed, but I'm confused as to why you would be arguing such an obvious fact?
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.""
As the Blog properly points out, this view is completely contradictory. The Big Bang Theory in no way discounts the "intelligent design by a creator" and even if it did it is exactly NASA's place to be talking about the theory from a scientific perspective, not a religious perspective!
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you are thinking about me being part of the supposedly 'anti american' old Europe, and 'them' obviously being all Americans?
There is something that you should understand. Your enemies won't point out your weaknesses other then by using them to destroy you. Your friends will point them out so you can do something about it before it is too late.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a moderate democrat, but I STRONGLY side with my republican counterpart (the GP) in this case! You're going off on someone for having said that "for the most part" science should be left alone (while defending NASA in this particular case).
Let us recall that most science in the U.S. (and we're discussing U.S. politics here, sorry foreign
However, it does not stop there. It is also appropriate for us to make laws that restrict the sciences according to democratic consensus. Why? Because there are avenues of research with powerful reprecussions on our society, and it is not always appropriate for research to out-pace our ethical discourse.
If anything, I think that we should have MORE discussion about such topics, not less. I'd like to make sure that we all understand the benefits and potential drawbacks of technologies like human stem-cell research (which I see as no different from organ donation, and which has huge benefits for humanity that I don't think we discuss often enough). In many cases further understanding will likely increase support for avenues of research.
Now, in the case of NASA, there are very few space-related projects which pose strong ethical questions (except for those performed in secret with the military), but they do come up. When they do, I think it is appropriate for all of us, as a nation, to work hard at becoming informed on the topics at hand, and have our say in the direction that NASA takes.
Anything else is a technocracy, and I will not abide that.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, I comment on the political parties in the USA, and somehow you see that as being negative about Americans? To me that sounds like you are looking for the enemy.
Let me tell you something, I can see clear differences between the following things:
1. The American people (too diverse to apply any kind of generalisation)
2. The USA as a country
3. The current government of the USA
4. Political parties in the USA.
Can you?
Just to be clear, I do not believe the political parties in the USA represent the people who live in hte USA very well, at best they represent some fringe minorities that happen to have the means to obtain and keep to power. The only thing I can blame American people for is still tolerating such a system, but then, I can blame many people around the world for tolerating the systems they live under, so there is no 'us vs them' in there at all.
Re:My faith seems to have forgot what persecution (Score:3, Insightful)
While you are ignoring those few loud voices, other are listening and believing. Those loud voices are gathering adherents and getting louder and stronger. One day, you may wake up to find that those voices are no longer the few but the many and they have taken over.
Ignore those voices and one may wake up one day in the United Christian States of America, where religous freedom is extended to all who believe in Christ, abortion and evolution are outlawed, and homosexuality is a crime.
Re:Not all religious people are like this (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be materially more difficult to pull it off now.
When Rome and the Caliphs respectively killed off their science, they had a strong advantage: Knowledge in permanent form was difficult and expensive to produce. Only a few texts could be carved in stone; essentially historical markers. You had to have a flock of scribes recopying the documents every couple of generations. Only a few such operations could exist, and it was easy for them to be controlled by a central authority.
Then the Western world learned about printing, and it's been downhill for central control of knowledge ever since. By a couple centuries ago, it was possible to have a couple-person print shop, printing and disemminating anything at all with little control by the rulers. The rulers invented this thing called "copyright" to attempt to keep printing under control, but it was never all that effective as a tool of suppression.
Nowadays, it's even worse for those who would control knowledge. We have a worldwide network that allows anyone to easily and cheaply cache any sort of text, and make it available in seconds to the rest of the world. Copyright works (somewhat) for artistic control, but is a total failure at controlling facts and knowledge.
Governments as oppressive as China's are learning that they need the Net if they are to compete in the world's economy. They're doing their best to filter and censor it, but they're also learning that it's not really possible any more.
The US governmet even learned this, when they tried and failed to restrict American access to local sources of Middle-Eastern news such as aljazeera.com, and all the other sites that are in both Arabic and English. A few years back, the image of all Moslems as bomb-throwing fanatics could be used; now enough of us have gone online and checked that even George Bush had to publicly declare Islam a "peaceful religion". So many of us had read the imams' decrees against the killing of innocent bystanders that even Dubya had to face the fact that the propaganda didn't quite work anymore, except among the totally ignorant.
Yeah; the fanatics might gain control again. But they have a powerful enemy, in the form of an information system that easily gets out the truth along with the lies, and which is not easily controlled by anyone.
We just need to keep it that way.
Re:I can't believe this crap got modded up (Score:2, Insightful)
Where are the "mainstream" Republicans hiding when this kind of crap gets put into their platform?