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.
Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Has this happened before? (Score:3, Interesting)
Two sides to every issue (Score:3, Interesting)
I know the group-think is that Mr. Deutch is out of line, a right-wing religious political hack. And that's accurate, I think.
On the other hand, "The Big Bang is a theory, like relativity. It's there because it explains something in a workable way, until someone comes along with something better. That needs to be noted in NASA's work if we want to be credible." Deutch should have said that, but he didn't. Anyone attending a scientific conference knows that the Big Bang is a theory.
The real trouble isn't trying to balance NASA's coverage of the origins of the universe, but editing the individual works of other people. It's one thing to edit a web site, but it's over the line when you start editing conference presentations.
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!
Re:Not all religious people are like this (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A Little Over Blown (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to remember that to these morons, a "theory" isn't a well-defined scientific term... it's code to their followers (who don't understand science) that implies "this is stuff the scientists made up."
Like anytime the theory of evolution is mentioned, you hear these idiots screaming "IT'S JUST A THEORY!!!"
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Interesting)
The first stories appeared at the end of 2001 with 5 top microbiologists dying within approximately one month of each other, all were murdered or died suspiciously. By 3/2002 14 "world class" microbiologists had died in similar "muggings," murders or freak accidents.
By the beginning of 2005 the number had grown to over 40. It's not just people who worked in the field, these are prominent scientists, many with connections to biowarfare, the engineering of viruses, and the MIC.
Every year there are several watchdog type books and publications which list and rank the top censored or buried news stories of each year. This story has been among the top "censored" news stories almost every year since 2002.
If you doubt this information, check it out for yourself.
"Theory"... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, did he say the same thing about the theory of gravity or theory of relativity?
Re:Big Bang is not a "theory" (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right about hypotheses versus theories, but a law is not something "higher up" in the ladder of proof, it is something else entirely - whilst a theory is a large model to explain something, a law is a simple observation (eg, in the form of an equation). Whilst laws are often considered absolutely correct, this is not always so - eg, there are doubts as to the strength of the force of gravity, and we know that the gas laws are certainly only an approximation.
Re:Meet George Deutsch (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm an atheist and this doesn't sound wrong to me; it's a theory. What's the big deal in insisting it be called such? Is the truth so damaging to somebody's agenda here?
Dropping out of science (Score:4, Interesting)
However, all of that changed with the selection of the Bush regime. First and foremost, I simply couldn't believe that my fellow citizens would elect someone like this (hell, even Reagan looks moderate by comparison). Rational thinking certainly suffered a huge blow with that one. Since then, all I have seen is an administration increasingly under the influence of intolerant Christian fanatics and frankly, I'm not even sure if it's limited to just the administration. Everywhere I look, I see people turning to religion and superstitition. If it isn't evangeligal Christianity, then it's a bunch of new-age hocus pocus and astrology. Even in my own family, I have become an outcast as other members of the family have turned to various forms of religion. The fact that the administration is trying to manipulate scientific results is only icing on the cake---and not at all surprising. One thing is certain though---science is under attack everywhere I look.
Sadly, all of this has really made me re-evaluate why I went into science in the first place. I will always love science, but what actual incentive is there for doing it anymore? The administration attacks it and my fellow citizens would rather build churches than support it. At some point, you just reach a point where you have to ask yourself "why am I working so hard to help these people and *this* society?"
In my case, I didn't have an answer. I often thought of ways I could voice a dissenting opinion. Do I protest? Do I write articles? Do I send money? Do I sell out? Do I stay and fight? If I take a stand, will anyone be listening? Or will they just continue shouting at each other? In my case, I quietly withdrew into myself. I stopped publishing and I stopped caring about everything I had worked so hard to achieve. In the end, I could not reconcile my desire to help mankind with my unwillingness to help a society largely populated by hostile religious fanatics. Thus, I simply left my academic position and dropped out of science altogether. To hell with it, "the people are going to get what they deserve in the end" I thought.
Today, I'm still interested in science, but it's mostly just a private affair--I keep it to myself and underground. Mostly, I'm waiting to see what happens with the next few years. Maybe the pendulum will swing back to the left and we'll return to some level of sanity. If that happens, I might consider re-entering public service. If things keep going as they are though, I'll probably just pack it up and leave altogether. It was fun while it lasted---I guess.
I suppose that many will say that "dropping out" is not a solution. I would largely agree with that, but I'd also add that I think everyone has a breaking point. I certainly reached mine and did what I felt I had to do to maintain my sanity. On the other hand, maybe this is how the administration really intends to kill science. I just don't know.
Re:Honestly... (Score:2, Interesting)
Any pointers?
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is sad. I'm not registered as a Republican, but often vote that direction. Not because of (really, more despite) the positions inspired by relgiosity (which I abhor), but because of at least a stronger inclination towards a more hands-off functioning of the markets, businesses, and personal lives. Yes, both parties love spending tax dollars... but at least the red-staters are at least a little more squeamish about it than their more lefty-socialist counterparts. I suppose I'm a little more red-statey about illegal immigration, law-and-order type stuff (they say it only takes a being mugged or having your house robbed a couple of times to make you a Republican on some issues - and there's a grain of truth to that, if you ask around).
I also like to grab a shotgun and tromp around in farm fields with my bird dogs. Hell, sometimes I like to use an auto-loading shotgun that actually lets me be sure to knock down that pair of pheasants. But despite the "we don't think hunters should be penalized" rhetoric, much of the left that's "in control" (as you put it) of their agenda in that area would see even hunting weapons confiscated. So, I vote for people that push that argument back the other direction. I'm no Republican partisan, but I find much of the shrill carping and contradictory twittering from the Democrats to be non-productive to the point of losing my vote on many issues/candidates.
But more to your point: I think there are many, many more people like me out there than you'd guess. Leaning Republican on many fiscal/justice/defense type issues, and just rolling our eyes on the noisy social issues. Of course, my opinions of the social stuff are not driven by religion, but frequently overlap with some of those that are (i.e., I think there are objectively right and wrong things that humans can do or permit/correct). I find many Republicans' morality to be flawed (especially on the issues of marriage, creationism, and whatnot), but I find many Democrats' moral relativism to be dangerously self-destructive, too. In other words, I'm as likely to call an evil bastard an evil bastard as a religious-minded Republican is, but for different reasons. But I'm never going to get caught up in the "we all have our own truth" and "who are we to judge?" drivel that oozes up from the left - especially when life and limb are at stake.
Wow, a Monday morning rant. Sorry about that! I was cut off in traffic and given the finger by a guy with a "Hate Is Not The Answer" bumper sticker, so it sort of set the tone. On the other hand, I parked next to a guy with a "Stop Global Whining" sticker, so there's hope.
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
The original poster seems to have it in his mind that there is a pre-existing space, in which at some point (0,0,0) at time 0 there was an explosion, and from which since then all the matter in the Universe has been receding. It's a common misconception. Certainly he is correct in his view that, if this is the case, then therefore the glow of the Big Bang, as seen by Penzias and Wilson and later by COBE and WMAP, ought to be racing out ahead of us all, a shell of light further out than the shell of matter, and quite invisible to us.
The mistake is in the initial assumptions. The Big Bang is not an explosion IN space, it is an explosion OF space.
Here's a gross oversimplification for purposes of visualisation: let us picture a toy Universe with only one space dimension and one time dimension, containing twelve galaxies. The space dimension curves around on itself, like the face of a clock. For someone living in this Clockland, the directions around the circle constitute Space, while the directions toward or away from the centre constitures Time. The twelve galaxies sit at the twelve hour points.
Now, let's expand this Universe. Enlarge the clock face. What happens? All twelve galaxies stay right where they are in space, right on the hour marks. They have not moved around the clock at all. But, because the face has become larger overall, the distance between them has increased.
An intelligent observer in this Universe would notice the other galaxies receding away from him, and if he were of Einstein-level intellect he might well deduce that this was down to an overall expansion of all of space. Should Clockland also contain a Hubble, they might then realise that by back-tracking the expansion, they could estimate a date at which all twelve galaxies were together at the centre, and at which all points in space were equivalent.
Now, we might ask, which point in Clockland was the location of the Big Bang? Where is the centre of expansion? Nowhere. Or everywhere. From our vantage point we can see that the centre of expansion is the centre of the clock face, that's easy - but that's not a point in Clockland's space. It is, however, a point in the past of every part of Clockland. In a sense, everywhere in Clockland can claim to have been the location of the Big Bang, because at that time, the whole of Clockland was the same place - right at the centre.
And had a flash of light been emitted at some point in Clockland's past, as the hot gas that filled the universe became transparent, it would not escape and run ahead of the galaxies. It would remain within the circle of the world, but would gradually become redshifted, as the expansion of space stretched out its wavelength.
This is something like what's happening with the Big Bang. The galaxies aren't moving significantly through space (though they do drift somewhat); space is expanding between them. No point in the Universe of space is the centre of expansion.
It's an absolute bugger to get your head around, I admit, but that's general relativity for you. I should also add that the Clockland analogy is also potentially misleading: we don't know if the Universe curves back on itself like this, and indeed we have good reason to think it does not. Things work out similarly with an infinite, open universe - but that's even harder to picture :)
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Interesting)
believe that you are given a magic 'truth/morality compass' by the holy spirit and therefore have the magical ability to determine the rightness of science without resort to arguments or facts
You said it perfectly. It's not just the religious crowd that feel this way, although I'm sure it's much more prevelant among them. Hopefully in the near future this belief you speak of will wear off... Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but it seems it wears a little thinner with each passing day. Then things like I.D. come up and throw us back a few centuries in progress.
Don't suppose you have any ideas on what it takes to facilitate this change?
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Both parties love spending tax dollars. Democrats are honest about it, and more often than not programs pushed by Democrats are well run and provide services to those who are without. Republicans lie when they say that they are the party of small government. Clinton cut the share of the total economy taken by the federal government; G.W. Bush has grown it dramatically.
Republicans frequently say they have passed tax cuts. They're lying again; they have only passed tax deferrments. They increase spending dramatically, cut taxes, and borrow the difference. The government debt held by the public was at $3.3 Trillion and falling at the end of Fiscal Year 2001. After years of Republican rule, the debt held by the public is at $4.6 Trillion and rising. Interest payments on that debt increase have to come from taxes.
Red States ARE Welfare States (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course 'red' vs 'blue' is kind of a lame division...but I think it is a telling comparison.
Re:Big Bang is not a "theory" (Score:1, Interesting)
Bush isn't really a Christian (Score:2, Interesting)
Christians follow Christ. Christians forgive. Christians don't sign execution warrants as Bush did as Governor, nor send teenagers to kill and be killed. KILLING IS A SIN, no exceptions. Period.
As to Mr. Robertson, Christians don't suggest that we should "take out" (kill) heads of state... OR ANYBODY ELSE.
Christians don't hate Jews, Muslims, gays, blacks, drug addicts, or anybody else.
Read your fucking bible. The book of Matthew alone should show you what the people who rule the US (and the world) really are.
Go get your rabies booster. (Score:2, Interesting)
You, sir, are nothing more than a bigot who has selected a Politically Correct target to focus your bigotry upon.
We need a new Science (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:2, Interesting)
"Liberals" claim to know "the one truth" on just as many topics as "conservatives". (From the "right" car to drive, to the "right" way to teach kids about sex, to the "right" way to throw out my fucking garbage.)
"Conservatives" tend wrap themselves in religion and/or the flag, where "liberals" prefer (pseudo)Science and/or emotional appeals. It all adds up to the same thing in my book.
This is why I reject "both" parties. Neither places enough emphasis on freedom. We can't have any real freedom if we don't tolerate other people making choices we disagree with.
-Peter
Remember the Challenger? (Score:3, Interesting)
Six astronauts and one school teacher died.
This account is based on a chapter in "Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative" by Edward R. Tufte, in which evidence from the Congressional hearings on the Challenger accident is presented.
Administration is mostly spin (Score:3, Interesting)
Example of "Wedge Strategy" in action (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what it is, the "Wedge Strategy?"
This is from a document, put together by the Discovery Institute, called "The Wedge Strategy":
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html [antievolution.org]
The wedge document is several years old now. If a new version was produced, the accomplishments section would now include:
Stefan
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm serious. I want to know which of the New Deal Great Society Welfare State projects have actually solved the problems they set out to solve.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:3, Interesting)
Another possibility, I suppose, is that (like far too many people) you have some minor "hot button" issue and allow that one thing to bias your voting choices.
Well, then, you appear to be living in a black & white world, and not the one where there are a myriad of issues, and you won't agree with all of the positions taken by any given president. Yes, "teh Republicans" do vote for what their party leaders tell them, as do "the Democrats", because that's the way the political game is played. It doesn't mean that one can't work to get those "leaders" changed. Those of us that are more center leaning have tended to be less vocal, and that's definately a problem. One of the things that the party leadership doesn't seem to understand is that they really don't need to kiss the asses of the far right because they're going to vote party line no matter what. It's those in the middle that cause elections to be won and lost. When you say that I'm voting against my own interests, it's all a matter of which issues I feel are most important, and which candidate I think will do the most good (or least harm). I tend not to vote for candidates like Ted "Chappaquidock" Kennedy, Jessie "paternity" Jackson, Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, Tom "finance fraud" Delay, or anyone that surrounds themselves with people like these, and holds them up as "leaders. I was taught that you can judge a person by the friends they keep, and if you think it's wrong to judge people then what exactly are you doing when you cast a vote?
Re:The Vatican (Score:2, Interesting)