billvon 3,130
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
jakee 1,605
QuoteAnd someday we may figure out what causes gravity. Then we can try to figure out what causes those things that cause gravity. Science and research are never ending, virtually by definition.
Religious faith starts and ends with a higher power, usually God.
Q: If God caused gravity, what caused God?
A: Nothing. God has always been and always will be. End of story.
Which, pretty much in a nutshell, is why science is cool and religion is rubbish.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteThis Wikipedia article implies that what drives science is the search for objective truth whereas in practice what drives science is the search for funding.
... How do you propose researchers do anything without a source of funding to pay for it?
By doing what Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia did--by first earning the money in a different field in order to fund their own research. Those who are truly passionate about science will have no problems with such a requirement. Einstein, in his early days at least, wasn't reliant on outside funding--he earned a living via other means.
When you accept money from others in order to do a scientific experiment, those funding the experiments have control over how the results will be presented. There may still ultimately be an unavoidable objective truth underlying the experiments but the funding agencies have control over the "spin" that is placed on the presentation of the results.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
QuoteIf one accepts your assertion (which I don't with respect to scientists and question highly w/r/t science), what would you propose to do about it?
Those who are passionate about science should earn a living--via other means--during their early adult lives. Later in life, when they are financially independent enough to not be dependent on research funding by others, then should return to their passion of science and self-fund it.
Making scientists earn a living via other means for awhile would have the side effect that they'd probably learn how to deal with people better--an additional benefit.
Quote
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has commented publicly that he think the budget of the NSF should be tripled or quadrupled. Would you concur with that policy recommendation?
At least when I did a PhD program the vast majority of funding came from DARPA (defense money). The funding to come from civilian agencies such as NSF was a very small percentage of the total. Even doubling or tripling the NSF percentage would leave it a small percentage. The lion's share of the funding--and hence the ability to control the research--would still lie with DARPA.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
nerdgirl 0
QuoteEverything is questionable, and only by being as dogmatic as zealots can we believe that a thing is true just because it can generally be proven.
Concur heartily with the first clause. Science requires continual re-examination.
That’s a critical difference between faith and science – faith entails/obliges/compels one to believe/accept and to suspend one’s skepticism to a higher power(s)/supernatural force in which one believes without physical, repeatable, measurable, public evidence.
The second clause in the sentence describes religion & faith not science.
QuoteApparent facts, I agree, we'd be silly to doubt. But science doesn't end there. How is the universe able to organize itself so tidily? Some people call it god, others call it science. I truly see little difference, depending on the function of the god.
What evidence of ‘tidiness’ do you see in the Universe?
The Universe is moving to a state of less order. It’s a mess. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics – entropy increases unless you put energy into a system – witness: your house does not clean itself, broken egg shells do not spontaneously reform unbroken eggs).
What you’re calling god is not equivalent to science. Sorry, it’s just not.
We’re talking about very different things ---> meta-physics, how science is used by humans (for good, for not, or for ambiguous intentions) versus science (a method for determining the physical nature of the world around us).
The philosophical and ethical implications for human society that are tied up in your words are fascinating intellectually and have pragmatic impacts on humans. For example, an early version of the 2007 Appropriations bill called for funding to investigate the “potential impact of nanotechnology on human dignity.” While there is a scientific component to such investigations, the scope extends far beyond the realm of the scientific. And that’s okay. It’s not a value judgement.
QuoteAnd as for my drift: I'm not confusing things. I'm attempting to remind us of the fact that people--biased, insane, and so frequently mistaken--are precisely those who use science. People confuse science, just as people confuse "the word of god." You can call it misuse. But again, the human element here will always prevent the "perfect use" or application of science.
Okay, maybe we’re getting somewhere – you’re still not talking about science. But you’re describing the possibility that scientific results, technology, power, money, sex, or religion can be misused by humans. That’s very different from science.
Perhaps you are writing about a positivist view versus a normative view as well. Faith & religion entail a perception about how things “should” be (the normative component).
Science isn’t normative … which is not to imply that science is not or cannot be applied to normative issues by humans nor that normative factors cannot impact science. For example, since 2002 the US government has substantially increased investment in biodefense research. From 2002 to 2003, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)] increased grant funding by 521% for biodefense projects compared to the 9.8% increase for non-biodefense research. The choice to direct money to that type of science was largely a normative decision, i.e., the US should be better prepared in the event of a future bioterrorist or biological weapon attack.
Perhaps you’re also writing about the kind of post-modern deconstructionalism (literary theory), which was popular in the 1980s and 1990s, that challenged the objectivity of everything. Eventually these folks invoked superficial notions on quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and string theory. And they started pontificating (intentional choice of word with religious connotation) about the ‘subjectivity’ of science. Again, one can find examples (too many im-ever-ho) of the intentional mis-use of science for profit, greed, or harm … but that’s the humans not the science. The ‘subjectivity of science’ argument exploded (metaphorically) in their faces when an intentionally farcical article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," by another well-regarded, award-winning physicist, Prof Alan D. Sokol (NYU), was published in the leading cultural studies journal with such absurdities such as "pi is an integer.”
I agree heartily that one cannot approach human interactions as one approaches a scientific inquiry. And I wouldn’t want to either. Whereas there’s a tremendous amount of science behind aircraft engineering, atmospheric fluid dynamics, and canopy design, there’s very little scientific behind what compels one to skydive.
Why do you want to force one into a proverbial box in which the other resides?
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
QuoteThose who are passionate about science should earn a living--via other means--during their early adult lives. Later in life, when they are financially independent enough to not be dependent on research funding by others, then should return to their passion of science and self-fund it.
You describe the model for funding science two hundred years ago. Vannevar Bush made a case for federal funding some 62 years ago.
How do you foresee what you propose being implemented and executed today?
QuoteAt least when I did a PhD program the vast majority of funding came from DARPA (defense money). The funding to come from civilian agencies such as NSF was a very small percentage of the total. Even doubling or tripling the NSF percentage would leave it a small percentage. The lion's share of the funding--and hence the ability to control the research--would still lie with DARPA.
Actually, per the 2008 Appropriations Bills (for reconciliation by House and Senate based on the PBR), DARPA’s budget is only 57% of NSF’s.
The proverbial “lion’s share” of S&T funding is via the NIH.
S&T Budgets:
NSF $4.9B
DoD overall S&T (i.e., 6.1-6.3) $13B (7% decrease from 2007 … my speculation is that’s due to a decrease in earmarks, as the 2008 PBR was only $10.9B)
… but DoD 6.1 (“Basic Research”) $1.6B (3% increase)
… and DARPA $2.8B (8.7% decrease)
… the Air Force has the largest share of the DoD S&T (6.1-6.4) budget: $25.9B (5.8% increase) … (the AF traditionally gets the largest number of Congressional Additions, tho’)
NIH $30.2B
NASA $12.6B
DOE $9.2B
DHS $1.0B
Graphical presentations – going back to 1976 – of overall federal S&T spending and DoD S&T funding from AAAS. DARPA's budget has never been greater than NSF's.
NB: Most agencies – not DoD or IC – are still on CR.
Now you are correct that there are some fields – such as electrical engineering – in which the DoD (not DARPA) funds the majority of the US research.
VR/Marg
p.s. You have no idea how much it made me smile when you told me DARPA is defense money.
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
QuoteQuoteAnd someday we may figure out what causes gravity. Then we can try to figure out what causes those things that cause gravity. Science and research are never ending, virtually by definition.
Religious faith starts and ends with a higher power, usually God.
Q: If God caused gravity, what caused God?
A: Nothing. God has always been and always will be. End of story.
Which, pretty much in a nutshell, is why science is cool and religion is rubbish.
why do people insist on comparing science to religion? they don't attempt to do the same thing, so why compare them to each other?
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Channman 2
> we do not take science on faith but rather hold it in a place of constant revision and, I might say, suspicion.
Do you view evolution with constant revision and suspicion, or do you believe the theory to be fact?
Do you view evolution with constant revision and suspicion, or do you believe the theory to be fact?
GeorgiaDon 385
I assume you are aware that both the examples you cite of your model for how science should be funded are nonsense? Jimbo Wales is not a scientist; even if you credit him with generating the idea for Wikipedia (and there is reason to believe that much of the concept came from Larry Sanger) he didn't write the code, he (actually, his employees) used code others had written. He did put together the funding for the project, from a soft-core porn company he had founded. Contributions to science? Nada. Although Einstein's contributions to science are beyond dispute, you are aware he was a THEORETICAL PHYSICIST? Einstein's total expeditures on actual experimental science? $0.00
I don't know what field you chose to do your PhD in, but in my field I do not know anybody who gets any money from "defense-related" sources. And I have never had NIH tell me where to publish, or that I could not publish my work, and I don't know anybody who has had that experience.
One last point, you can't learn how to do experimental science just by reading about it, any more than reading a book will make you a proficient skydiver. If experimental research was to be done only in the very few labs that would exist under your "independently wealthy self-funded" model, there would be no places students could go to learn how to set up a properly controlled experiment or use state-of-the-art techniques. Private industry has no interest in training students, it would waste too much time and money. Without a supply of trained researchers, innovation would pretty much cease, certainly in the biomedical fields, and those industries would relocate to countries that do see the value in investing in scientific education.
I don't know what field you chose to do your PhD in, but in my field I do not know anybody who gets any money from "defense-related" sources. And I have never had NIH tell me where to publish, or that I could not publish my work, and I don't know anybody who has had that experience.
One last point, you can't learn how to do experimental science just by reading about it, any more than reading a book will make you a proficient skydiver. If experimental research was to be done only in the very few labs that would exist under your "independently wealthy self-funded" model, there would be no places students could go to learn how to set up a properly controlled experiment or use state-of-the-art techniques. Private industry has no interest in training students, it would waste too much time and money. Without a supply of trained researchers, innovation would pretty much cease, certainly in the biomedical fields, and those industries would relocate to countries that do see the value in investing in scientific education.
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
GreyLake 0
OMG, that article is so fun. Truly. Thank you. 
What I'm getting at when I say that humans haven't the luxury of "always" is that while we apparently have "physical, repeatable, measurable" evidence to support various laws and so forth, we don't have the time to prove anything, really. Relative to infinity, no fixed amount of time in which to observe a thing is very long. It's silly, I know, but I've got to leave room for the (apparently) absurd. Absurd happens.
In science, you have to believe that a thing will always happen absolutely, simply because it already has. I can't believe that, not absolutely. The existence of anything is already too "miraculous" for me to disbelieve in "miracles." I doubt I'll see any ever, but if suddenly we began to float away from the surface of this planet, it wouldn't surprise me much, I don't think.
Ack! I'm running late, but much fun here. Maybe more later (esp. re: hegemony & language)? Thanks!
Let's go to candy mountain.
mnealtx 0
Quote>we still have to take many aspects of the physical universe on faith.
No, we really, honestly don't. We don't take gravity "on faith." We don't know how it works, so we don't claim that we do and "you just have to have faith." We have a law that accurately describes it, and we have a lot of theories. But until one of them is proven through experimentation, it will not be valid.
So, the current state of affairs on Global Warming could be considered "faith based", then?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Lucky... 0
Quote"Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.
……..
But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
Taken from a very readable article in the New York Times written by Paul Davies, who is a well known physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist.
New York Times article
A science teacher taught us about the hypothesis to theroy process, then talked of the way the phenomenon you write about. Science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things until all options but 1 are disproven and the last is yet disproven. That's utopian and oversimplified for the scientific model, but you get the gist.
So what do we do with things like conservation, gravity, etc? I mean, if we call it fact, proof, etc then the minute something levitates or fails to turn into another element the whole thing falls on its ass accross the board. Religion and so-called justice in the courts don't worry about that, but scienc is more responsible so they call these thngs, "laws." Laws aren't proof, just a way of classifying repeatable events. She said hardcore scientists don't subscribe to laws, they just call gravity and others, theories.
This is why I like science, it isn;t there to sell you a bill of shit, like the courts and church, it simply shows you what they've learned thru decades and centuries of experiement and observation. This is also why I think the courts are even sleazier, they PROOVE things beyond a reasonable doubt often using science. When people try to sell you BS they will sometimes use string and unfounded language like, PROOF. Sciance says the probability of X being true are 1,000,000:1, but that isn't proof, still just a string theory. And with the church, they show proof of teh existence of Jesus and God all the time thru that revised book we call the bible, a book written by neither.
Who knows who's right in the end, I guess we'll find out then, but what turns me away from religion and onto science is that science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to.
vpozzoli 0
Quote
Rubbish.
A little too easily dismissed given the pedigree of the scientist.
Followed by more rubbish...
Hint: the authority principle is worthless in a scientific context. Not so in faith-based belief systems where it is preeminent.
Cheers,
Vale
jakee 1,605
Quotewhy do people insist on comparing science to religion? they don't attempt to do the same thing, so why compare them to each other?
Nope.
Religion doesn't just do morality, it also states 'truths' about how and what the universe is. In doing so it treads on the toes of science, and does so incredibly badly.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 3,130
>So, the current state of affairs on Global Warming could be considered
>"faith based", then?
If it had not produced testable hypotheses which have since been validated - yes, you could claim that. Unfortunately . . . .
>"faith based", then?
If it had not produced testable hypotheses which have since been validated - yes, you could claim that. Unfortunately . . . .
billvon 3,130
>why do people insist on comparing science to religion?
For one reason, many religious literalists believe that science contradicts the tenets of their religion, and thus it's one or the other. And they know they're going to receive some eternal punishment if they do not accept religion.
For one reason, many religious literalists believe that science contradicts the tenets of their religion, and thus it's one or the other. And they know they're going to receive some eternal punishment if they do not accept religion.
billvon 3,130
>Do you view evolution with constant revision and suspicion, or do
>you believe the theory to be fact?
Evolution is a fact. You can watch it happen.
Darwinism is a theory that explains evolution, and is constantly being refined. One of the more recent debates is constant speedism vs punctuated equilibrium.
>you believe the theory to be fact?
Evolution is a fact. You can watch it happen.
Darwinism is a theory that explains evolution, and is constantly being refined. One of the more recent debates is constant speedism vs punctuated equilibrium.
ryoder 1,590
Quote>So, the current state of affairs on Global Warming could be considered
>"faith based", then?
If it had not produced testable hypotheses which have since been validated - yes, you could claim that. Unfortunately . . . .
A few months ago I watched a PBS show on physics which discussed String Theory and interviewed various physicists. One guy made a comment that was quite interesting. He pointed out that as of yet, no one had any idea of a way to create experiments to prove or disprove String Theory, so at this point it is indistinguishable from a religion.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
JackC 0
QuoteHe pointed out that as of yet, no one had any idea of a way to create experiments to prove or disprove String Theory, so at this point it is indistinguishable from a religion.
While it is true that there is no way to experimentaly verify string theory, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a religion. It's certainly quite distinguishable from any accepted religion I can think of. String theory does however make some predictions which can be verified and I'm not aware of any religion which can do that. But even so, string theory isn't an accepted theory in the strict sense, it's only a hypothesis and doomed to remain so since it cannot be tested, and I know of no university that teaches it.
jakee 1,605
Quote> we do not take science on faith but rather hold it in a place of constant revision and, I might say, suspicion.
Do you view evolution with constant revision and suspicion, or do you believe the theory to be fact?
Theories explain facts, they don't become facts. Evolution, like gravity, is the word used for both the fact and the theory that seeks to explain it.
The fine details of the theory of evolution are being constantly revised - no-one would suggest that we know everything there is to know about how evolution happens, just like no-one would dream of suggesting we know everything about how gravity works.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
GreyLake 0
Another thing occured to me: There's that time between the occurence of some apparently absurd ("miraculous") event, and the discovery of the scientific reason for that same event. In that space, one believes--or has faith--that science can explain it.
Wee!
Wee!
Let's go to candy mountain.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteAnother thing occured to me: There's that time between the occurence of some apparently absurd ("miraculous") event, and the discovery of the scientific reason for that same event. In that space, one believes--or has faith--that science can explain it.
Wee!
That’s a non-sequitor. Absurd or miraculous events implies that it’s outside the physical realm … where science doesn’t apply.
Again, just because Galileo hadn't yet improved upon the telescope such that he could "discover" the rings of Saturn, it doesn't mean that they weren't there. Just because people didn't understand that germs (bacteria & viruses) cause infectious diseases, didn't mean that Vaccinia variola major (smallpox), Yersinia pestis (plague), paramyxoviruses (measles & mumps), or Treponema pallidum (syphilis) didn't exist before Koch experimentally demonstrated what Pasteur and others before had theorized. Germ theory was incredibly controversial when first proposed!
You’re choosing to try to force a framework for faith onto science that isn’t there - creating specious parallels; humans have an amazing ability to find patterns, even when they’re not real. Witness: the Virgin Mary on grilled cheese sandwich and Jesus on water towers or underpasses.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
> be discerned. Otherwise why would we bother to look for them.
In that case you are correct. But that's sort of distorting the meaning of 'faith.' Most of us have faith that we will need a parachute to survive a skydive - but that's really not the sort of faith we're talking about when it comes to religion.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites