CharonY

This comment befuddles me. North Korea was split after WWII and zoned (like Germany) between Soviet and US powers. The Korean war was one of North Korean invasion and while it is possible that Chinese may have helped the sustain NK I am not sure how China (which was funded a year after North Korea) was responsible for its existence.

You do not need to take the test to see that it is worthless. It has only 20 multiple-choice questions (and no time limit).

Regarding extremism, go back further than 20 years and you will see extremism at a much more massive scale than we see today. Thus, it appears to be unconnected the technological developments in the last 20 years. Misconceptions regarding intelligence have also been mentioned. One of the things I have notice is that the constant and ubiquitous availability of information seems to result in two major effects. The first is shorter attention span and patience regarding assimilating larger chunks of information over a longer stretch of time. This results in an expectation of instant-answers. Connected to that, there seems to be a data-search paralysis. It used to be the case that you scour the library until you find a source that is a) well researched and b) presented in a form that you actually understand. Now you have so many sources that paradoxically people (students) seem to be less inclined to look more than one source and stop at the first random source that kinda sounds like what they think may be connected to a topic. This does not appear to be any way related to intelligence, but rather that we are not doing a good job in teaching kids how to use the modern information pathway. For the most part, I suspect, because he have no idea, either.

I do not know the legality surrounding that but I wonder whether that would actually be the case. E.g. does it require that he abused his power to get the information for it to be illegal? E.g. if he was just guessing or following rumors (but just happens to be right) would that be an offence?

Indeed, but it the current situation was not a passive product. The GOP has actively undermined trust in experts. Part of it started in collusion with certain lobbyists (though depending on sector, there were plenty of democrats involved) but there was also a very strong ideological proportion, mostly with an evangelist basis, that ultimately marginalized the pro-intellectual proportion of the GOP.

My point is that things that you point out to be obvious can have contra-intruitive answers. For example during the 70s a lot of research had to be done to figure out whether pollution may cause warming or cooling. The tinge, you mentioned, for example is usually caused by particulates which are generally associated with cooling (with some exceptions). Thus if you state something like "just look at the sky" you can get contradicting answers (or in this case illustrating probably the opposite of what you intended, which is a risk of dumbing down info). In other words, it took a lot of data and research things out and at some level you have to trust the scientists that a) the data they have is measure accurately and b) that the resulting conclusions are valid. I am pretty sure that neither you or me could have come to the conclusion without people explaining where the links are and why the assumption of CO2 as the main driver is valid. If you think that it is trivially obvious, I am almost certain (unless you are very familiar with the subject, which I don't know) that you are making simplifications on the matter so that it just appears obvious to you. Unless, of course your point is that climate research is actually a trivial subject and that conclusion are obvious even to laypersons. In that case it would mean that a lot of scientists were wasting their time pointing out the obvious. This goes back to the other argument that people not familiar with a subject may overestimate their familiarity with a subject. Things that are even slightly complicated, such as health or climate effects are can not be understood intuitively and require significant amount of education. Lacking that investment, it is easy to sow doubt. How many peer reviewed publications does the average person read? And how much do they understand? I know I am at a loss for a number of the more technical papers, and I do not consider myself to be particularly stupid. I see a distinct difference between feeling you understand something (e.g. if Bill Nye explains it in a simplified way) to truly understanding (where you can actually make meaningful predictions or extrapolations. I can get a student to memorize and repeat things for an exam within hours. But getting them to understand what i means takes years.

Technically you cannot cure cancer per se, as the underlying mechanisms are part of our normal cell physiology. Even if one defines it as absence of cancerous cells, at best one can call it remission, as there are currently no means to exhaustively screen for the every single cell. In fact, there is a good chance that at any given time there are a handful of mutated cells doing aberrant things, but as long as they do not proliferate they do no (obvious) harm. In addition, the 50% number sounds more like another hallmark of treatment, which is the 5 year (or 10-year) survival rate. And obviously there are huge differences in these rates ranging from way above 90% for testicular cancer to about 1% for pancreatic cancer. Another measure is the 5-year remission rate, meaning that no signs of cancer have been detected in this period, though most stats refer to the survival rate, instead (as it is easier to aggregate data on that measure).

You are arguing as if climate effects are self-explaining. However, you mentioned pumping pollutants as drivers of climate. However, without further research how would you know a) how much of any given compound is required to significantly alter climate b) what the actual effects of given pollutant (if any) it has on climate patterns. For example, components in the air (i.e. sky being brown): what do you think it is and if there is a lot of it, what effect should it have e.g. on temperature..? It is no coincidence that among experts it took a while to identify CO2 using various approaches and intuition is usually not really useful. Regarding experts: that is pretty much what I said, there have been concerted efforts to discredit science and to erode trust in experts. This is done by a mix of sowing disinformation, doubt and propping up experts that they can pay off. I am pretty sure that if there is sufficing impetus to create controversies regarding tooth paste, you will see factions forming there, too. And with cell phones, we see that already with regard to brand loyalty and people accusing websites of being shills if they evaluate a certain brand better or worse than the other.

Now they do, because that certainty has permeated society on all levels. However, looking back a few decades, a massive campaign managed to suppress the science showing that smoking is harmful (even based on their own research; see Elisa K. Tong, Stanton A. Glantz Circulation. 2007;116:1845-1854 for a special report on second hand smoke, for example). And the industry managed to maintain that illusion for quite some time. I do believe that a huge chunk of society does not really understand the science behind global warming and it boils down to whether they trust those that explain it to them. I know for sure that it applies to me, too. Sure I can read and follow the original articles to some degree, but since I have no expertise in climate research I would not be able to properly critique it. And at that point I may follow the research but I do not truly understand it. And it would be arrogant of me to presume such.

I don't know about a specific book, but I would think that looking for general analytical books may be easier to read for a beginner. Or loot at chromatography books (or sections) as the principles are pretty much the same. In fact, I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with the principles of chromatography, as it makes it easier to understand the principles of a special case (such as TLC).

Nothing. I am too used to superior German engineering! Well and the Einstein/Einstien thingy.

It is difficult to ascertain specific motives, but if I had to guess it is part of "if I believe it hard enough it is the truth." Her party has a lot of contradictory stances, all fueled by the overarching desire for the good old days (which, in Germany is even more problematic than in the US). Such as claiming that women should return to their traditional roles (but having a woman as head of the party). Some analyst think that it is part of a playbook that has been used in the US and can be traced back to the campaigns such as those conducted by Phillip Morris and other companies. Essentially, it is the technique by adding doubt to scientific consensus so that other science findings, especially those with less evidence can be used or abused to gain political and ideological credit. But doing it for a sufficiently long time, not only the targets, but also the perpetrators seem to believe in the doubt itself. And make no mistake, no one is safe from ignorance-fueled delusions. After all, as individuals we can only know so much. At one level or another one has to trust people more knowledgeable than oneself. The issue here (and that is why these tactics are so successful) is that without competence in an area it is hard to judge someone else's competence.

The leader of the German populist-right movement (currently 8-11% of the polls) said something similar and she is a freaking chemist (PhD and all). When I saw interview with her I screamed at the screen until I got hoarse. One could qualify that she is probably more of a biochemist, but strangely, it did not make me feel any better.

Well, that is true, too. At least Trudeau acknowledges global warming and seems to be interested in enacting policies to counter it (including measures such as cap and trace). Canada has a bit of a problem that much of its economy relies on the exploitation of natural resources which, obviously, has environmental issues and is not very sustainable (not to mention volatile). Trudeau has given signals that he is going to be more moderate than Harper, but in many areas have been slow to reverse. It is possible that one should not put blame too fast on him, as change may take time and priorities may be elsewhere (and not in research funding). Under Harper governmental scientists were not allowed to speak to the press regarding their research but pretty much up to end of last year this order either seemed not to be reversed or at least there was no official memo regarding this coming out (I have not talked to any researchers personally since then, but I read in the news that they have since then changed course). Likewise, there are significant cuts in personnel for Environment Canada and not too long ago the head of the Statistics office resigned citing loss of independence. At minimum we do not see a complete reversal in the limitations of science, despite the much better optics of the government itself.

Actually among scientists (that is, non-students) Trudeau is perceived with skepticism as it has become apparent that he is not rolling back limitations on science nor the focus on only applied research. But you may be right that that is not quite that apparent in the media as he plays that angle far better than Harper.

Well, in Germany there is also a 13th salary but it is more a flexible tool to offer (or decline) benefits to the workers. If anything, it is more an expression of paternal benevolence (so to speak). In most cases the 13th salary is part of a bonus pay agreement. As such, depending on the type of contract it is possible to cut it. Examples include e.g. missing work days, leave due to illness, and often also maternity or paternity leave. In Germany (but not in Italy) it may include a provision that it is only provided if the company reaches certain profit targets. In addition, one may not get it, if one loses one job before December. As such, it is a bonus that is used to benefit workers but gives the companies a lot of power how to administer it. In addition, part-time workers are generally exempt from these payments. A higher salary would not give them that leeway. What one could argue is that in the USA there are stronger anti-collective bargaining unit sentiments. But benefits and other deferred compensation plans do exist.

I would be careful about evolutionary interpretations, as they are very difficult to validate. However, I think it plays together with the observation that people have a stronger aversion to loss than positive feelings to an equivalent gain (see the work from Kahneman). Someone getting ahead feels like a loss and may thus amplify negative emotions toward that. That is all speculation, of course.

Honestly, I think that is a very common human condition and it is not quite accurate to state that only conservatives suffer from that. Most part of Europe are what one could consider left from the US center, yet you will find the same argument against social welfare almost across the board.Though, to be fair, conservative parties tend to play stronger to the outrage of improper use of social welfare. But honestly, you will always find people across the board being outraged of welfare recipients not using the money handed to them in a right way (e.g. getting "luxury" or junk food). Or that you find more outrage for people abusing social systems, even if damages are far less compared to those that abuse the financial system. Accordingly, most people are alright with stricter control of the former, but there is less pressure to do same for the latter. I have mentioned somewhere that I feel that people are more accepting of their lot, if they know that no one is getting ahead of them unfairly. And I feel that it seems to be very much a default position of most people. Going against that notion requires to have a broader view on the population and society which, I suspect, takes more work.

The EPA (proposed by Nixon no less) has become a symbol of governmental overreach. So there is a mix of conservative ideology, a bit ignorance and/or detachment from the impact of environmental issues, which is further supported and fostered by special interest groups. I doubt that there is anyone being able to see a benefit from changes (as their assessment is complex and to some degree unpredictable). Edit: Crossposted. But something similar was also in Canada. Under the Harper government environmental research was limited in many areas, so it is certainly not unique to USA. In Germany one could argue an opposite position, in which there is a strong population (but not science-based) consensus that nuclear energy and GMOs are bad ans should thereby be limited or phased off. It is not quite the same, but certain parties have formed around that concept. The notion basically became so popular that the conservative parties started to adopt that stance, too. I think one important aspect is that form many people, and certainly politicians, environmental effects are not something that they experience on a daily basis. Health effects are creeping and typically only identified in retrospective population studies. Thus it appears as some form of abstract external force. Consequently, discussions surrounding this issue sounds (and, to be honest, often is) like an ideological proposal rather than something physical. Ironically, part of the issue is because we often do not know how certain things are linked to adverse health effects. And this lack of knowledge is then used to prevent funding in fundamental research to figure that one out. Ultimately, one issue is that the environmental issues are so complex that one cannot understand it in any depth without seriously investing time in learning about it. Hence, the discussion is dominated by opinion, which is more easily manipulated by interest groups than facts and hard research.

Well, they purged quite a bit of info in that regard already. People working at or with the EPA are massively concerned, as they have been crippled somewhat already in terms of biomonitoring and similar research they used to be able to fund. Now there are proposals to cut the budget down by over 25%. Global warming is probably one of the most pressing, but far from the sole concern.

Nonononoonononononoononononono! That is a very common misconception and I assumed the same thing when I was way younger. As student or postdoc you may get by with that, even get a bit of a reputation as someone who knows things, but if you are unable to build up a network, you have little chance in getting a tenure track position or similar. Not that academia is not full of social awkward people, but you have to get over that to a large degree to get your name out there. This can be applied to virtually all highly competitive jobs. One of the most important bits is networking. With regard to projects, the prof is usually the principal investigator who decides on the research (and administers funding). For industry there are many different lines of reporting. In most cases the group leaders or equivalent have certain goals or milestones set or negotiated by someone that is at least partially in the managerial stream. But a lot of different models exist.

Obviously we are all SwansonT or trying to be ;P. That aside, it depends on how narrow you want to frame your question. Most people with science degrees end up in jobs that do not include research responsibilities. This includes many industrial jobs, for example. If you specifically wonder about those that do end up in research it again depends a lot on the specific job (obviously). In universities most actual research (i.e. field and lab work) is conducted by non-permanent staff (including postdocs and students) and to some degree by technicians. There are a handful of PhD level staff scientists but usually very few of those. The basic responsibilities of those tend to be doing the actual research and to various degrees assist in paper and grant writing. Permanent positions tend to be university profs, who theoretically can have up to 80% of their time protected to do research, but realistically they have to pour much more time for teaching (including creating lectures and exams), administrative jobs, writing grants (which kind of counts towards research), managing and directing the lab or group (including training people), writing papers and maybe eke out some time to actually look at data (also depends on how large and effective the group is). In research labs the teaching component is lower, but it depends a lot on the structure and funding. Some may come with an endowment which allows some level of research without the need of additional grants (but these can be considered extremely rare dream jobs). There is still usually various degrees of administrative overhead, people management, training and, obviously, writing and so on. But these are probably the most "pure" in terms of focus on research (but again, usually also really rare). In industrial jobs R&D are also very varied, there are systems were various groups pitch their projects for internal grants, others have more direct top-down mandates to fulfill. There is a lot of documentation involved, which is usually the role of the PhD level group leader whereas the analysts and equivalents provide the data for the write-up. As a rule of thumb the higher you get in the hierarchy and the more successful you are, the less direct your research involvement gets.

Actually, sushi refers to the vinegar rice. A better question is what happens if someone sells fish without rice. The bigger issue though is the basis of legal definition, which does not include the requirement for procreation. For example there is no upper limit on age for marriage. Following the same logic one would need to find different name and legal basis for this case, too.

To emphasize that, if there are two legal constructs that are identical, why would one give them two different names? Or why would one do that to highlight a factor that is legally inconsequential?

I do not have any current data, but about 10 years back only about 20% of all PhDs managed to secure jobs in research. Basically something like 50% went into careers outside science immediately, and close to 30% drop out and join later. Among those stay in science about 17% go to non-uni research (which does include managing facilities). In the end something like 1% secure tenured positions. The proportions vary by country but as a whole it is not expected to be great either way. It is common to have something like 100-200 applications for a tenure-track position, for example. So chances to stay in academia are, as being said, rather dismal and financially certainly not very rewarding, as postdoctoral salaries are really bad (often close to the poverty line), often have limited benefits, and more often than note require you to pay moving expenses and other things out of your pocket. I.e. your earning chances are are awful compared to company tracks (unless you get really, really, really, lucky). That being said, there are disciplines, which includes marine biology that have extensive fieldwork. However, due to teaching and other commitments there is a good chance that you will mostly send out postdocs and students. A (successful) professor's primary work interface consists of email clients, text documents and the preferred tool for making slides.