Arete Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 My hope is that more Democrats, liberals and progressives move to California, Illinois, and New York so that Republicans and conservatives win more presidential elections. The true bonus in such a situation will be watching the never ending temper tantrums of the left. A spectacle that never stops bringing joy to the right. Are gag orders for the USDA, NPS and EPA, along with immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants without review, freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring are things you wanted from your federal government? What do you think it bodes for the state of science in the US?
waitforufo Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I was in Guadalajara last year and got the lowdown on this one. Mexico used to have a horrible problem with election abuse, unlike the US where it's just a made up scare tactic (like the rampant uptick in crime we supposedly had). They had to do something to bring back faith in democracy, and the ID cards did the trick. Also unlike what they've tried to do in the US, the Mexican voter ID is sort of the gold standard of IDs, right under a passport and definitely better than a driver's license. Now here I thought that any mention of election abuse was simply a tactic to suppress votes. I mean come on, the burden of acquiring an identification to enable voting is extremely high, particularly to the poor. I guess Mexico doesn't have any poor people. I know you think it's funny to watch people run into the goalposts when you move them like that. It's one thing to lose an election, but a terrible candidate doesn't win the popular. But hey, it's just critical reasoning, after all. Me thinks you wouldn't see it as terrible if Hillary was issuing executive orders today. Are gag orders for the USDA, NPS and EPA, along with immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants without review, freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring are things you wanted from your federal government? What do you think it bodes for the state of science in the US? That is exactly what I wanted from my federal government. Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased. Edited January 24, 2017 by waitforufo -6
Arete Posted January 24, 2017 Author Posted January 24, 2017 That is exactly what I wanted from my federal government. Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased. So, just to get this straight, you'd like to see NIH and NSF research budgets eliminated too?
DrmDoc Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Now here I thought that any mention of election abuse was simply a tactic to suppress votes. I mean come on, the burden of acquiring an identification to enable voting is extremely high, particularly to the poor. I guess Mexico doesn't have any poor people. Me thinks you wouldn't see it as terrible if Hillary was issuing executive orders today. That is exactly what I wanted from my federal government. Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased. Wow...just wow. Why are you in a science forum? Doesn't the right believe in science? And hasn't science benefited from government support? Edited January 24, 2017 by DrmDoc
Delta1212 Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Wow...just wow. Why are you in a science forum? Doesn't the right believe in science? An hasn't science benefited from government support? The answer to that middle question is "no."
waitforufo Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Wow...just wow. Why are you in a science forum? Doesn't the right believe in science? An hasn't science benefited from government support? From Ike's farewell address. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
RiceAWay Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 From Ike's farewell address. I believe that the problem with those posting on these groups is that being educated gives the better part of them superiority complexes that lead them to believe that they are MUCH better than the citizens of this country.
Arete Posted January 24, 2017 Author Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) From Ike's farewell address. He doesn't seem to be suggesting getting rid of it altogether... and in fact proposing the exact opposite of politicians gagging and hamstringing specific agencies that are saying things that disagree with one's political agenda. Again - are you suggesting that the NSF/NIH/NASA/DOE/DARPA etc research budgets all be defunded? Edited January 24, 2017 by Arete
CharonY Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Are gag orders for the USDA, NPS and EPA, along with immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants without review, freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring are things you wanted from your federal government? What do you think it bodes for the state of science in the US? Together with waging a war on media this is really frightening. Cutting off access to information is a powerful way to get people do whatever the heck is you want without having to deal with the fallout.
waitforufo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) So, just to get this straight, you'd like to see NIH and NSF research budgets eliminated too? Where did I say I wanted there budgets eliminated? Where did the post I commented on say there budgets should be eliminated? I was commenting on the gag order. Here is the post I was commenting on. Are gag orders for the USDA, NPS and EPA, along with immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants without review, freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring are things you wanted from your federal government? What do you think it bodes for the state of science in the US? Lets take a closer look at these links. USDA NPS immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants The above links are from BuzzFeed. After the attempted coup la douche d'or, does anyone really pay attention to them? Does anyone believe them? They are fake news. freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring This one is Fox News. I don't read Fox News. Do you? You believe them? I got as far as the headline and stopped. The headline says it is a federal government freeze on hiring. That's not shutting anything down, or even reducing budgets. EPA I couldn't be happier about this one. If there was ever a case to be made about public policy becoming captive to the scientific-technological elite, the EPA is perfect. Putting a gag order on the post Obama EPA has my full approval. Edited January 25, 2017 by waitforufo
Arete Posted January 25, 2017 Author Posted January 25, 2017 Where did I say I wanted there budgets eliminated? Where did the post I commented saying there budgets should be eliminated? I was commenting on gag order. Here his the post I was commenting on. I never said you said it, it is a question - asked because you stated this: Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Any research funded by a federal grant is government supported. Lets take a closer look at these links. They are far, far from the only places these gag orders are being reported, and ad hom attacking the source is a weak argument.
swansont Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Where did I say I wanted there budgets eliminated? Where did the post I commented on say there budgets should be eliminated? I was commenting on the gag order. Here is the post I was commenting on. And the responses are centered on your claim that "Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased." Which has nothing to do with the gag order.
Arete Posted January 25, 2017 Author Posted January 25, 2017 And the responses are centered on your claim that "Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased." Which has nothing to do with the gag order. And the question still hasn't been answered....
swansont Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased. How is atomic clock research biased by virtue of being government science?
waitforufo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) And the responses are centered on your claim that "Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased." Which has nothing to do with the gag order. Again, I never suggested that science budgets should be eliminated. With regard to government supported science being biased toward promoting more government, your provide an excellent example. How is atomic clock research biased by virtue of being government science? Well, for what primary purpose does the government use atomic clocks? GPS. For what purpose does the government use GPS? Precision weapon targeting. Tracking individuals via their mobile phones. No bias? I think not. I'm surprised that my comments on bias have drawn such ire. Do corporations not fund science? Is their science funding not biased toward their corporate objectives? What makes the government different? I find this ire particularly interesting in the United States. A nation founded on the principal of distrust of government. Is it simply that many of your salaries are dependent on government sponsored research? Edited January 25, 2017 by waitforufo
Arete Posted January 25, 2017 Author Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) I'm surprised that my comments on bias have drawn such ire. Do corporations not fund science? Is their science funding not biased toward their corporate objectives? What makes the government different? I find this ire particularly interesting in the United States. A nation founded on the principal of distrust of government. Is it simply that many of your salaries are dependent on government sponsored research? If you're talking about NSF/NIH grants - the government does not select which grants do and do not get funded. Panels of independent (i.e., not generally government employees) experts review, rank and ultimately determine which grants get funded. The scale at which government is involved is in determining how much funding is directed to each agency (e.g,. NSF vs NIH vs USDA vs DOE etc.) and sometimes within divisions within each agency (e.g., for NIH - NI Allergies and infectious diseases vs NI Arthritis, musculoskeletal and skin diseases vs NI Aging vs NI Drug abuse, and so on) So the government could decide to spend less on research overall, or move money away from DOE alternative energy and towards Aging research in NIH, etc. but not precisely what each project is, or the outcomes of those projects. Edit: punctuation Edited January 25, 2017 by Arete
StringJunky Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) The answer to that middle question is "no." The science I trust the most is government science because there's no commercial motive and nothing to hide for commercial reasons. Edited January 25, 2017 by StringJunky 1
swansont Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 Again, I never suggested that science budgets should be eliminated. With regard to government supported science being biased toward promoting more government, your provide an excellent example. You were asked a question. Well, for what primary purpose does the government use atomic clocks? GPS. For what purpose does the government use GPS? Precision weapon targeting. Tracking individuals via their mobile phones. No bias? I think not. How is that bias? GPS is used for more than weapons targeting, and precise time is used for more than GPS. But it's interesting that you want to limit the technology we used for national defense and put US military lives at risk. (Civilian lives, too) I'm surprised that my comments on bias have drawn such ire. Do corporations not fund science? Is their science funding not biased toward their corporate objectives? What makes the government different? I find this ire particularly interesting in the United States. A nation founded on the principal of distrust of government. Is it simply that many of your salaries are dependent on government sponsored research? Corporate research needs to return money to the company in a fairly short amount of time. So corporations tend not to fund long-term projects or basic research on their own dime. There's a lot of research that wouldn't get funded if the government didn't do it. And then there's nothing for corporations to piggyback on. There is also research that's specialized so the potential market is too small for production to be profitable. Goverment needs to do that in-house, or pay someone to do it. 2
StringJunky Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 You were asked a question. How is that bias? GPS is used for more than weapons targeting, and precise time is used for more than GPS. But it's interesting that you want to limit the technology we used for national defense and put US military lives at risk. (Civilian lives, too) Corporate research needs to return money to the company in a fairly short amount of time. So corporations tend not to fund long-term projects or basic research on their own dime. There's a lot of research that wouldn't get funded if the government didn't do it. And then there's nothing for corporations to piggyback on. There is also research that's specialized so the potential market is too small for production to be profitable. Goverment needs to do that in-house, or pay someone to do it. Initial, purely academic, research funded by public money can end up being used by drug companies to produce ground breaking drugs. A US scientist, using public funds, eventually sold his discovery of a treatment for hepatitis c for $11B. A billion or two more had to spent by the drug company getting it through refinements, trials and approval but the years of initial research was done on government coin.
paragaster Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 Everyone would agree that having scientific temper is agreeable. But, common we were not created by robots with an AI.
DrP Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 What do you mean that "Everyone agrees having scientific temper is agreeable"? I do not understand this sentence.
Ophiolite Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 I believe that the problem with those posting on these groups is that being educated gives the better part of them superiority complexes that lead them to believe that they are MUCH better than the citizens of this country. As opposed to yourself, who simply see yourself as superior to the other members?
swansont Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 Initial, purely academic, research funded by public money can end up being used by drug companies to produce ground breaking drugs. A US scientist, using public funds, eventually sold his discovery of a treatment for hepatitis c for $11B. A billion or two more had to spent by the drug company getting it through refinements, trials and approval but the years of initial research was done on government coin. And there are literally thousands of similar stories. If you aren't doing the research yourself, then you are reliant on others, who may not want to share their best results/products with you.
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 I can't speak much for government funded organisations in the US, but in Australia, we have CSIRO. CSIRO is a government funded organisation, responsible for inventing things like WiFi, the world's first effective influenza vaccine, the first ever Hendra vaccine, etc. These sorts of institutions are vital to progress, and I cannot fathom a convincing argument in support of gagging them and / or defunding them entirely.
Recommended Posts