RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Apr 25, 2017 8:05:40 GMT
I'm not really sure what I think about it, there were some fantastic placards but I'm still not sure what the point was, at least not here (UK). I think it had more to do with Brexit than anything else, everyone I know at work voted remain and I think that was replicated across the country, the UK does well out of EU science grants and collaborations and a large percentage of our colleagues are EU citizens so we are natural Remain voters (I'm the only Eurosceptic in the lab and even I voted Remain).
I don't think there are many AGW deniers here, at least not enough to affect government policy though I do worry that the Tories might decide it's politically expedient to become deniers if we leave the EU and need to attract investment. The only pseudoscience that really has a grip here is anti vax and anti GMO. This isn't great but it's not in the same league as AGW deniers. I do worry about free schools and academies, they tend to be targets for takeover by religious organisations who like to put their spin on science, particularly Biology.
The US is a different story though, you have an alternative fact pushing president who has some distinctly odd ideas about science. The rest of us are constantly amazed that the country that produces the best science and universities, funds science really well and even has some respect for scientists also has a significant minority of creationists (by that I mean believe that Humans were specially created and don't share common ancestry with all other life) and some who actually believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. And you now have a president who was voted in by this section of your society and presumably he has to keep them happy, along with the anti vaxxers and AGW deniers.
My worry is that science will become politicised here but it already seems to be in the world super power of science (that's the US if you were wondering) and so the March for Science may be necessary, it's a sorry state of affairs though.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Apr 25, 2017 8:49:12 GMT
I'm not really sure what I think about it, there were some fantastic placards but I'm still not sure what the point was, at least not here (UK). I think it had more to do with Brexit than anything else, everyone I know at work voted remain and I think that was replicated across the country, the UK does well out of EU science grants and collaborations and a large percentage of our colleagues are EU citizens so we are natural Remain voters (I'm the only Eurosceptic in the lab and even I voted Remain). I don't think there are many AGW deniers here, at least not enough to affect government policy though I do worry that the Tories might decide it's politically expedient to become deniers if we leave the EU and need to attract investment. The only pseudoscience that really has a grip here is anti vax and anti GMO. This isn't great but it's not in the same league as AGW deniers. I do worry about free schools and academies, they tend to be targets for takeover by religious organisations who like to put their spin on science, particularly Biology. The US is a different story though, you have an alternative fact pushing president who has some distinctly odd ideas about science. The rest of us are constantly amazed that the country that produces the best science and universities, funds science really well and even has some respect for scientists also has a significant minority of creationists (by that I mean believe that Humans were specially created and don't share common ancestry with all other life) and some who actually believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. And you now have a president who was voted in by this section of your society and presumably he has to keep them happy, along with the anti vaxxers and AGW deniers. My worry is that science will become politicised here but it already seems to be in the world super power of science (that's the US if you were wondering) and so the March for Science may be necessary, it's a sorry state of affairs though. I doubt it really accomplished anything. Science deniers already have an aversion to reality so people marching in defense of science won't change any minds. Their minds are already made up. You can see it on this board with people who are science deniers but deny being science deniers. Almost all of them, sadly, are Americans. I just don't see people marching having any effect on idiots who claim "abiogenesis is pseudoscience" or who claim to accept the fact of evolution and then contradict themselves by denying common descent.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2017 9:31:24 GMT
I'm not really sure what I think about it, there were some fantastic placards but I'm still not sure what the point was, at least not here (UK). I think it had more to do with Brexit than anything else, everyone I know at work voted remain and I think that was replicated across the country, the UK does well out of EU science grants and collaborations and a large percentage of our colleagues are EU citizens so we are natural Remain voters (I'm the only Eurosceptic in the lab and even I voted Remain). I don't think there are many AGW deniers here, at least not enough to affect government policy though I do worry that the Tories might decide it's politically expedient to become deniers if we leave the EU and need to attract investment. The only pseudoscience that really has a grip here is anti vax and anti GMO. This isn't great but it's not in the same league as AGW deniers. I do worry about free schools and academies, they tend to be targets for takeover by religious organisations who like to put their spin on science, particularly Biology. The US is a different story though, you have an alternative fact pushing president who has some distinctly odd ideas about science. The rest of us are constantly amazed that the country that produces the best science and universities, funds science really well and even has some respect for scientists also has a significant minority of creationists (by that I mean believe that Humans were specially created and don't share common ancestry with all other life) and some who actually believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. And you now have a president who was voted in by this section of your society and presumably he has to keep them happy, along with the anti vaxxers and AGW deniers. My worry is that science will become politicised here but it already seems to be in the world super power of science (that's the US if you were wondering) and so the March for Science may be necessary, it's a sorry state of affairs though. I suspect the "glory days" of science are drawing to a close. The moon landings were the peak. Space travel science fiction carried the popularity of science well beyond those. A very significant thing about that is the new fans of science were not so good at it. Most people really good at science including me already knew there wasn't much of value on the Moon or any other object in the solar system outside Earth. We also knew how very unlikely getting to another solar system is. Yet if there is something you do not know but can know it is human nature to make some effort to know. You know it's only rocks, but they're new information and just in reach. Suddenly they're the most interesting rocks ever, and almost as interesting as the British music invasion. Of course in short time they're just ordinary rocks. The television show Star Trek nevertheless seized the imagination of a rather devoted if not huge audience. I enjoyed that show myself even though I knew how very far from realistic the math and physics of it were. It was interesting for other reasons. It dealt with real problems in society like international politics in a way that was not possible before. I was already familiar with the work of Ernst Kretschmer and noticed that the characters on Star Trek fit his predictions of their personalities. Society was still adjusting to new technologies like microwave ovens and, still on the horizon then, cell phones. This almost half century later it is becoming obvious that fans of science are out of new tricks. It is not becoming obvious to all of them though. They still believe "science" is leading us straight to some utopia. They still think science has politcal answers. It does not. There are very serious political problems science fails to even address, and Star Trek never really did. The Earth might not be "warming," but it will definitely run out of fossil fuels eventually. The only question is at what time. More important than our material well being is our spiritual well being. "Science" has not provided any foundation for morality. Only religion can do that and the fans of science won't let religion do that, at least not yet. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Apr 25, 2017 9:33:31 GMT
I'm not really sure what I think about it, there were some fantastic placards but I'm still not sure what the point was, at least not here (UK). I think it had more to do with Brexit than anything else, everyone I know at work voted remain and I think that was replicated across the country, the UK does well out of EU science grants and collaborations and a large percentage of our colleagues are EU citizens so we are natural Remain voters (I'm the only Eurosceptic in the lab and even I voted Remain). I don't think there are many AGW deniers here, at least not enough to affect government policy though I do worry that the Tories might decide it's politically expedient to become deniers if we leave the EU and need to attract investment. The only pseudoscience that really has a grip here is anti vax and anti GMO. This isn't great but it's not in the same league as AGW deniers. I do worry about free schools and academies, they tend to be targets for takeover by religious organisations who like to put their spin on science, particularly Biology. The US is a different story though, you have an alternative fact pushing president who has some distinctly odd ideas about science. The rest of us are constantly amazed that the country that produces the best science and universities, funds science really well and even has some respect for scientists also has a significant minority of creationists (by that I mean believe that Humans were specially created and don't share common ancestry with all other life) and some who actually believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. And you now have a president who was voted in by this section of your society and presumably he has to keep them happy, along with the anti vaxxers and AGW deniers. My worry is that science will become politicised here but it already seems to be in the world super power of science (that's the US if you were wondering) and so the March for Science may be necessary, it's a sorry state of affairs though. I suspect the "glory days" of science are drawing to a close. The moon landings were the peak. Space travel science fiction carried the popularity of science well beyond those. A very significant thing about that is the new fans of science were not so good at it. Most people really good at science including me already knew there wasn't much of value on the Moon or any other object in the solar system outside Earth. We also knew how very unlikely getting to another solar system is. Yet if there is something you do not know but can know it is human nature to make some effort to know. You know it's only rocks, but they're new information and just in reach. Suddenly they're the most interesting rocks ever, and almost as interesting as the British music invasion. Of course in short time they're just ordinary rocks. The television show Star Trek nevertheless seized the imagination of a rather devoted if not huge audience. I enjoyed that show myself even though I knew how very far from realistic the math and physics of it were. It was interesting for other reasons. It dealt with real problems in society like international politics in a way that was not possible before. I was already familiar with the work of Ernst Kretchmer and noticed that the characters on Star Trek fit his predictions of their personalities. Society was still adjusting to new technologies like microwave ovens and, still on the horizon then, cell phones. This almost half century later it is becoming obvious that fans of science are out of new tricks. It is not becoming obvious to all of them though. They still believe "science" is leading us straight to some utopia. They still think science has politcal answers. It does not. There are very serious political problems science fails to even address, and Star Trek never really did. The Earth might not be "warming," but it will definitely run out of fossil fuels eventually. The only question is at what time. More important than our material well being is our spiritual well being. "Science" has not provided any foundation for morality. Only religion can do that and the fans of science won't let religion do that, at least not yet. Time will tell. Wait a minute, who told you that you were good at science? You need to find that person and beat the hell out of him for lying to you.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Apr 25, 2017 9:44:17 GMT
I doubt it really accomplished anything. Science deniers already have an aversion to reality so people marching in defense of science won't change any minds. Their minds are already made up. You can see it on this board with people who are science deniers but deny being science deniers. Almost all of them, sadly, are Americans. I just don't see people marching having any effect on idiots who claim "abiogenesis is pseudoscience" or who claim to accept the fact of evolution and then contradict themselves by denying common descent. I take your point about changing people's mind but up until now the anti science lobby has been largely ignored and the scientific consensus has been accepted, even by republican presidents . I think the worry is that Trump will now encourage 'alternative facts' or it's ok to 'disagree with the facts' approach to policy decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2017 9:45:17 GMT
Wait a minute, who told you that you were good at science? I didn't have to ask anyone. People as good at science as I am do not have to ask anyone. You need to notice that is the problem today. Everyone is asking for popular support of science instead of real science which did not, does not, and never will depend on popular support.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 25, 2017 9:47:42 GMT
I strongly agree on this. The fossil fuel resources will finish. Even if they finish after 150 years from now we still need to start looking for alternatives sources. But the capitalist cronies are not letting us do that. The tacit collusion of Australia's 3 energy giants for example finished wind turbine industry. Idiot Tony Abbot had done his best to kill renewable energy industry of Australia and it is still reeling. The inefficient oligopoly market structure is destroying us. Time to think.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Apr 25, 2017 9:51:16 GMT
Wait a minute, who told you that you were good at science? I didn't have to ask anyone. People as good at science as I am do not have to ask anyone. You need to notice that is the problem today. Everyone is asking for popular support of science instead of real science which did not, does not, and never will depend on popular support. Arlon, your comprehension of science is virtually nonexistent. You might have a better understanding of the basics than someone like Erjen, Blade, Cody or Smithjgs/Cooljgs; but that's as impressive as saying the Arctic Circle is colder than the tropics.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Apr 25, 2017 9:55:39 GMT
I suspect the "glory days" of science are drawing to a close. Time will tell. I couldn't disagree more. The glory days of science may be behind you in the US but not the rest of the world. There's plenty more to come from brilliant young scientists all over the world, they just may not come to the US now. Immunotherapies for cancer treatment, next generation antibiotics, stem cell technology, 3D organ printing - all in development. I believe your loss will be Europe's gain, our universities are more than capable of taking in all the scientists put off going to the US.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 10:01:16 GMT
I suspect the "glory days" of science are drawing to a close. The moon landings were the peak. Space travel science fiction carried the popularity of science well beyond those. A very significant thing about that is the new fans of science were not so good at it. Most people really good at science including me already knew there wasn't much of value on the Moon or any other object in the solar system outside Earth. We also knew how very unlikely getting to another solar system is. Science, arguably, is in a golden age, with massive strides made in the fields of physics, cosmology, mathematics and biology to name just the obvious while the last 30 years has seen the arrival of probably the most transformational knowledge tool/system since the printing press and mass literacy. Plans are being hatched and prepared for the first Mars landing, while the exploration of the solar system continues with the recent fly by of Pluto. I think you are expressing wishful thinking, for reasons of your own, rather than a statement of reality. Many of todays scientists were inspired by Star Trek and the possibility of creating its technology in the real world. Next time you use a mobile phone remember that. mentalfloss.com/article/31876/12-star-trek-gadgets-now-exist The only thing out of new tricks is a belief in magic and the supernatural, which for instance tells a modern, largely urban and educated society the same things as it did to peasants and the shepherds of the middle east two thousand years ago, still resists the equal inclusion of half the population at levels of authority and apparently still seems fit to fight (albeit with knobs on) over who was Mohammed's rightful successor etc. Here you are behind the time. This view may have been common to HG Wells and the followers of Scientism a generation or so ago; it is less so today. Unless you are including the soft sciences of sociology, economics and etc in your view, where they have proved their worth. Even though it is. How hot was last year compared to previous ones, Arlon? Even those who claim the cause is not man made accept that things are hotting up. But don't take my word for it. Ask the glaciers. On the contrary modern research has discovered quite a lot about the processes of ageing, and modern medicine can extend life chances far beyond what most would have expected in previous centuries. That is not to say that one will ever be able to live indefinitely, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2017 10:07:27 GMT
I suspect the "glory days" of science are drawing to a close. <must read> Time will tell. ... Immunotherapies for cancer treatment, next generation antibiotics, stem cell technology, 3D organ printing - all in development. ... Perhaps you've failed to notice how much what you already have is overpriced. Where Prog lives seems like a nice place.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 25, 2017 10:25:54 GMT
the UK does well out of EU science grants and collaborations How well does the UK do out of science grants and collaborations with the rest of the world, such as the US, for example?
As a dyed-in-the-wool Brexit-voting Eurosceptic myself, who lost all faith after the ERM crisis back in 1992 that the EU would ever be able to facilitate collaboration between its member countries whenever push came to shove, I'm struggling to understand why the EU is so important when it comes to collaborating in scientific research. I sometimes get the impression (not from you, but in general) that without the EU's guiding hand, collaborative scientific research simply wouldn't exist! However did scientific breakthroughs get made before the EU existed, I wonder?
Ok, my tongue is in my cheek but I do question whether you scientists place a bit too much credence in the miracle-workings of the EU than it actually deserves. I wonder if anybody has undertaken a PhD thesis on this theory.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 25, 2017 10:41:17 GMT
I think it accomplishes exactly the same thing any other march does.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2017 11:11:40 GMT
things he mindlessly repeated that he found in the media .... There's a lot of that going around. I think you mean the slower ones. Some of us were ahead of Star Trek. As I already mentioned I was familiar with the work of Ernst Kretschmer before Star Trek. We also saw large scale integration technology before the public became enamored with it. I owned one of the first pocket calculators to run programs. Today I have one of those graphing calculators. I also have a cell phone with a graphing calculator app on it. It isn't as good as the actual graphing calculator and takes too long to load. I still use paper and pen for notes although the cell phone has a note taking function. The paper and pen is ten times faster. I also have a Bible app on my cell phone. I think everyone should have a graphing calculator app and a Bible app on their cell phones. I know I use mine. I have SDXC USB drives. I use mine. Most of you would never fill one of those in three lifetimes unless it's with porn. Where has technology to go now? What's wrong with warm? Just slow down, get in the shade, and get plenty of fluids. The sea isn't noticeably rising, but what if it did? Look! Plenty of fluids! It just needs to be purified. Look! Sunshine does that! Be careful, some of them are wicked. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/cheers.gif)
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Apr 25, 2017 11:56:37 GMT
I suspect the "glory days" of science are drawing to a close. Time will tell. I couldn't disagree more. The glory days of science may be behind you in the US but not the rest of the world. There's plenty more to come from brilliant young scientists all over the world, they just may not come to the US now. Immunotherapies for cancer treatment, next generation antibiotics, stem cell technology, 3D organ printing - all in development. I believe your loss will be Europe's gain, our universities are more than capable of taking in all the scientists put off going to the US. A new generation of antibiotics? Really? I don't think he was talking about science in terms of knowledge and discoveries. He was talking about science the way you were talking about science, as a political movement. No one is "against" test tubes and laboratories. The glory days of science ARE over, because as you admitted, distrust is growing not shrinking. You can't just put on a white lab coat and expect everyone to trust you with blind faith anymore. That's what's over. Science has become political, which you have mistakenly identified as an effect rather than a cause. And by cause, I mean the cause of your movement. Scientific authorities have too much money. There are trillions of dollars floating around to justify anything anyone might want to do politically. A "March For Science" doesn't just fail to convince, it's part of the problem. All I see is frustration and a lack of understanding. You don't even want to convince. You'd rather control.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 11:58:03 GMT
Many of today's scientists were inspired by Star Trek and the possibility of creating its technology in the real world I think you mean the slower ones. Why would they necessarily be the 'slower' ones? I not sure what someone who died in the sixties, and who is chiefly known for work on the typology of the human constitution has to do with the hard technology of Star Trek and the inspiration provided. Let alone this same Kretschmer who started to support the SS and signed the Vow of Allegiance of the professors of the German universities and high-schools to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialistic state, and did not oppose the eugenic laws of Nazi Germany & etc. Perhaps he is just the subject of your last column and you want to drag him in? We? You and your dog? Father Christmas, I can see, has been very good to you. Actually mine is full of music and movies. But to each their own. Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years. So it is noticeable - to those looking, at least. Er.. OK then. Best check your meds as well though. Only those who are demons in disguise. Didn't you know this? You know what? I won't, as always.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2017 12:28:59 GMT
... many things he will never understand. I never said scientists were known for their political acumen. I'm a rare exception in the regard of also having a thorough understanding of politics and religion. On the topic of logical fallacies my opponents often appear to find, yours is an example of an actual ad hominem fallacy. So Kretschmer had very wrong political views, if you say so. That doesn't mean physical types do not contribute to personality. It's a small group indeed, but not quite that small. I meant your own work. I was thinking. Does that count how much the tectonic plates are running the other way? In other words not anything anyone can really "see" at all.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2017 12:42:10 GMT
I strongly agree on this. The fossil fuel resources will finish. Even if they finish after 150 years from now we still need to start looking for alternatives sources. But the capitalist cronies are not letting us do that. The tacit collusion of Australia's 3 energy giants for example finished wind turbine industry. Idiot Tony Abbot had done his best to kill renewable energy industry of Australia and it is still reeling. The inefficient oligopoly market structure is destroying us. Time to think. What we need to do is learn to live within our means however limited they might be. I think it's bizarre that so many people accept the "science" of global warming yet they're enthralled with flying cars.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 13:46:13 GMT
i never said scientists were known for their political acumen. Just as well, since that would be a whole different discussion. As it was, I was simply pointing out the moral judgements known of someone you apparently have an interest in, to give a bit of background. But I am still unsure why dragging this Nazi sympathiser, albeit one who made a contribution to psychiatry, (although his big idea - that personality is somewhat based on body types - can be accused of being pseudo science today) has to do with the fact of inspirations of Star Trek to a whole generation of researchers, although not for everyone and for everything, obviously. Unless you feel that Kretschmer has made a similar impact on today's technocrats? In which case why is he even relevant? Other opinions, it ought to be said are available. Commonly so, in fact. But you are, at least, a rare exception. It would only be an ad hominem if I was making an untrue statements about K, or being insulting. I was not, just stating historical fact. Neither was I suggesting that his theories were wrong, let alone especially so because of his political views. It may be observed however that Kretschmer's idea of the association of body types with personality traits is apparently no longer influential in personality theory. Just you, the dog, and the congregation then? Most of my stuff is on line. But of course not to the same extent as the extensive, informative and interesting work produced by your good self. I don't know. As it appears you have the most thorough understanding of things, perhaps you should write and ask the relevant researchers this question. Are you saying that the plates have suddenly started to shift more than usual? Are you really saying that that is what is causing the Oceans to rise, rather than ice melting? Only if one looks closely enough, it would appear. And even then not see the bottom line.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Apr 25, 2017 13:47:48 GMT
the UK does well out of EU science grants and collaborations How well does the UK do out of science grants and collaborations with the rest of the world, such as the US, for example?
As a dyed-in-the-wool Brexit-voting Eurosceptic myself, who lost all faith after the ERM crisis back in 1992 that the EU would ever be able to facilitate collaboration between its member countries whenever push came to shove, I'm struggling to understand why the EU is so important when it comes to collaborating in scientific research. I sometimes get the impression (not from you, but in general) that without the EU's guiding hand, collaborative scientific research simply wouldn't exist! However did scientific breakthroughs get made before the EU existed, I wonder?
Ok, my tongue is in my cheek but I do question whether you scientists place a bit too much credence in the miracle-workings of the EU than it actually deserves. I wonder if anybody has undertaken a PhD thesis on this theory.
Well, I'm a eurosceptic so I have very little faith in the EU as it's organised at the moment. However, we get more back from the ERC than we put into it, UK universities are doing really well at the moment with research output and funding, we're ahead of both China and the US if you work it out per capita. Non EU countries can pay into the ERC - I think Israel, Switzerland and Norway do this - but access to funds is dependant on freedom of movement, which is tricky for Brexit negotiations. Apart from that collaboration is important for research, look at the author list of any research and you'll usually see the authors are from multiple institutions/countries. We collaborate with a group in Paris and we have no idea how that will be affected by Brexit. There's also huge projects like CERN and the EMBL labs, having said that, alot of our research is done with the US and other English speaking countries.
|
|