Scientific literacy is a virtue.

[DrWeird]

I found the lack of it disturbing during the evolution/creation debates. I found the lack of it disturbing during the "did a place fly into the pentagon?" threads. Mostly I found it utterly disturbing with these tsunami threads. Don't you see what kind of a mess scientific illiteracy gets you into?

I'm getting contact embarassment.

I understand if people want to believe in pseudoscientific things like astrology or crystals or things like that for entertainment purposes. I haven't got a problem with that. But there's a real world out there and there's a damn good reason why schools require a couple of years of science education before you're allowed to graduate from high school. So please, use that education my tax dollars paid for. If you've forgotten everything then please go down to your public library and read a book or two. If you can't handle that, there's plenty of crazy pseudoscience sites out there better suited for that kind of crap.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Thank you

n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I think if you are just making a joke, it's one thing....

But sometimes, even I, who finds myself rarely amazed by the tinfoil conspiracies hears one or two things that just make me shake my head in disbelief.

Earthquake machines, nuclear explosions, and other crackpot theories are about as viable as space aliens from the planet El-vis caused it.

[Az]

3. I agree but

The trouble is how do you propogate such an idea. People don't just suddenly become aware of such things. They come to them in specific ways. Religions, psychics, astrologers, and every other psuedoscience actively pursues individuals to buy into their positions. Science does nothing to pursure or woo new adherants. It merely goes about its business of finding truth.

People are not attracted to truth. Truth is not always comfortable or even appealing. Control and secret knowledge are exciting. Aarguing about whether it is a 10 dimensional universe or an 11 dimensional universe doesn't put butts in the seats.

Very simply put. Science and reason need advocates. They need people to stand up and declare their value. There is a battle in society. It is always going on. One set of beliefs vs another. Multitudes competing. If someone does not promote science then systems that oppose it and are actively promoting themself will simply sweep it away or muzzle it and control it.

[Xipe Totec]

23. Here is one advocate

Carl D. Offner decries Dumbing Down Mathematics and Science and rebutts Sizer's Essential Schools Proposal

Abstract: Popular culture contains widespread misconceptions of science and the scientific process. Sadly, these misconceptions are also present in Theodore Sizer's books on high school educational reform. The unfortunate result is that Sizer proposes educational reforms that amount, in the case of science and mathematics, to an elimination of the content and richness of these areas of knowledge.

This article contains some suggestions about teaching science and mathematics at the secondary school level. These suggestions are based on an extended discussion--extended because the issues are rather complex--of what science is and is not, and what scientists see themselves as doing.

These suggestions are not based on the idea that most students will become scientists. They are, however, based on the presumption that having an appreciation for the basic organizing principles of science is both possible and important for non-scientists. The suggestions are contrasted with those presented in Sizer's books.


http://www.cs.umb.edu/~offner/files/dumb/dumb.html

[aeolian]

4. All makes sense to me

Green laser pointers cause earthquakes.

What's so unscientific about that?

/sarcasm

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. Thank you! nt

[mike_c]

6. I second that emotion....

The evolution/creation discussions were quite depressing because of the ferocity with which a number of people defended viewpoints that were biologically baseless. I don't mean in the sense of their not having read the latest journal issues, either, but rather that they knew so little about the simple, fundamental concepts that we teach in freshman introductory science courses-- the kind of stuff that comprises basic scientific literacy. That's the whole point of "liberal education."

[Az]

7. Which discussion are we talking about here

I was gone for a bit. Did I miss a doosie?

[mike_c]

54. oh yeah....

One of my posts on the subject hit 500 replies IIRC. Archive search is turned off at the moment so I can't find you the link.

[Az]

72. Doh

Oh well. They are cyclical. There will be others.

[WoodrowFan]

8. hear hear!

:yourock:

[BlueJazz]

9. You know when I first realized that even intelligent educated...

people were "Science lacking", especially in the USA?

I used to watch Jeopardy every night. I noticed that even though these
smart folks could answer a question like "Who was the 3rd cousin of some obscure lord who ruled in the 8th century", on science questions, they often looked like Deers caught in a headlight.
The crowning incident was a Final Jeopardy question that asked "This spectral type G star is approx. 93 million miles from earth".
2 of the contestants got it wrong...Geez!

[Az]

11. Good grief

How many stars do they think there are that close to us? :eyes:

[ChairOne]

13. Yah - don't ask! lol /eom

[BlueJazz]

14. Exactly....The "spectral type G" was just thrown in for a Lark but

apparently these folks have never read about the Sun...go figure...

[ChairOne]

12. LOL - America is a country full of idiots....

... and they revel in it... like pigs in shit...

[hfojvt]

19. that was a trick question

because we are accustomed to think about stars and to forget that the sun is one of them, since it is so much closer and brighter. As an astronomy buff, the 93 million miles is a dead giveaway to me.
Still, I do not see any virtue in knowing something like that. Nor do I see any dire consequences in being ignorant of things like this.

[txaslftist]

34. Sorry, can't agree.

If that 93 million miles clue doesn't give you the answer, you are, at least in the realm of basic science, an ignoramus. 150,000,000 kilometers might qualify as a trick question.

[ChairOne]

36. Welcome to America!

Questions of the form "What star is 93 million mile away from us?" are considered TRICK questions!

Oh. My. God.

And from a self-avowed astronomy buff, no less. LOL

As such, you presumably realize that the sun is somewhat LESS bright than average, not more, as you say. Consult a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram - as an astronomy buff who finds questions invovlving the sun to be "tricks", I'm sure you must be familiar with them.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChairOne]

55. Not as much as you seem to enjoy being accidentally wrong....

The Jeopardy question was stupidly easy. Only in a dumbed-down America can it be considered "tricky".

I'd be careful of "Everbody knows that" sentences if I were you... Right after you look up "luminosity"... The two phrases are not equivalent: "looks brighter to the naked eye" and "is brighter". They're just not the same.

Memorizing an approximation to the number of second in a year? Sheesh. Anyone who has to "memorize" 12*30*24*60*60.... well, you can probably guess what I think about that...

Of course 93 million isn't "obivous". THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SCHOOLS. duh.

"It is a trick question because people think in terms of sun, earth, moon, planets, and stars."

Is this to say that (according to you) people don't think of the sun as a star? If so, then the only reason it's a "trick" question is because people are stupid. Every question is tricky to someone suitably stupid.

I would think poorly of a 7th grader who couldn't correctly answer questions like "what's the closest star and how far away is it?". That Jeopardy contestants couldn't get it speaks poorly of America.

I bet Japanese and European kids don't have much trouble with it.

But rock on with your "but it's a trick question" whine - while the rest of the world laughs at the stupid, stupid Americans (who don't even know where their own goddam sun is).

[hfojvt]

74. Well, at least NASA agreed with me

about the trickiness of the question.
But rock on with your supercilious sneer, while American rednecks have this foolish belief about liberal elitism.
I am somewhat impressed if you can do 365*1440*60 in your head, but it does not give you permission to try to make me feel inferior.
The Jeopardy people were not kids, they did not just complete a study of astronomy. Do you really think a cab driver or a mechanic or a carpenter needs to be able to recall how far the earth is from the sun?
I also do not believe I was accidentally wrong. You should have known what I was talking about rather than splitting hairs and trying to make it seem like I said something I had not. The phrase "in the sky" clearly implies "from the perspective of someone standing on earth."
But that is okay, I understand that it is more fun to look for reasons to insult the person you are discussing with than to try to understand an alternative point of view.

[SemperEadem]

85. ok, what other spacial mass is 93mil miles from the earth?

what other identifiable body in our solar system is 93mil miles from earth? Alpha Centauri and Vega are non sequitur because they are not 93mil miles from earth, even though they're identifed as stars.

The 93mil miles quantifies the question. I don't know about how you were taught, but I know that when I hear that number, I think "SUN". I have since the day I learned it.

[pmbryant]

58. Have to agree that is could be considered a trick question

93 million miles, 93 billion miles, 93 trillion miles. The distinction is probably not relevant, and certainly not at the tip of their tongues, for most people. Throw in the bit about "type G star" and it becomes somewhat tricky.

As such, you presumably realize that the sun is somewhat LESS bright than average, not more, as you say. Consult a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram - as an astronomy buff who finds questions invovlving the sun to be "tricks", I'm sure you must be familiar with them.

Well, the previous poster was referring to the Sun's apparent brightness, which of course is far above average.

And even if you go by intrinsic brightness, the Sun is brighter than the typical star, since the vast majority of stars are red dwarfs (on the lower right corner of the HR diagram).

--Peter

[ChairOne]

64. It's possible I suppose......

.... but it looks pretty close to me..... Of course, the below is just a sample - presumably they've come up with ways to guesstimate the relative densities of star-type...

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/HR.html

(Certainly closer than I mis-remembered it.)

In any case, I was just havin some fun with an astronomy buff.... :)

There's still no "trick" to a question involving the sun and 93 million miles.

Anyone who claims to be educated and doesn't know such things is lying. Or, more likely, I suppose, misinformed - LOL.

What concerns me more, however, is how sanguinely you folks seem to take stupidity. Don't know basic facts about your own solar system? That's ok - it's a trick question. Sheesh. Americans are plenty stupid on their own - I don't see why folks are so hot to help it along. That's the only upshot of calling something a "trick question" after all: to justify not knowing the answer - ie, justify lack of effective education.

[Bridget Burke]

40. 93,000,000 miles is a dead giveaway to this Liberal Arts dropout.

And the sun is a star! Even this product of the Pasadena Independent School District (& University of Houston) knows that.

That's Pasadena, Texas...

[hfojvt]

52. we all scream for ice cream

Probably all three of them knew that the sun was a star too. My point is that when a person is asked "what is the star closest to the earth?" or "what is the brightest star in the sky?" Their mind will first restrict their possible answers by adding the unspoken caveat "other than the sun". Once you start going down that wrong path, it is easy to see how someone would think they have been stumped. Switching to panic mode. I am on TV and thousands of dollars are at stake.

[ChairOne]

56. Why would anyone add that caveat?

So you're saying that people think the following:

(a) the sun is a star

(b) the sun is not to be considered in questions about stars.

And because people think this way - (says you) - the question is a "trick" question.

Sheesh.

It ain't the question's fault that people are dumb. There's absolutely nothing tricky about such questions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. So, let's try an experiment:

put "brightest star in the sky is" (including the quotes) into Google. There's an awful lot of sites that say Sirius. NASA gives this:

Q: What's the brightest star in the sky? Yes, this is a trick question, and there are three answers we can think of.

A: The brightest star in the sky is, obviously, our sun. But its brightness is only due to its proximity to Earth. Discounting the sun (which many people don't often think of as a star), the next brightest star is Sirius, in the constellation Canis Major. But its brightness is also only due to its proximity to Earth (about nine light years). Possibly the brightest stars, or at least the brightest we know of, are the stars of 30 Doradus in the Large Magellanic cloud, a huge cluster of the brightest, hottest, most short-lived stars known.

No one answered correctly!

http://www-psao.grc.nasa.gov/asao.quiz/august.97.html

[ChairOne]

73. LOL - excellent try!

Despite what they say, it's not a *trick* question, it's simply *ambiguous*. As has been noted here, there are *several* things one might mean by "bright".

We also don't call "Did you go to the bank yesterday?" a trick question. It's an *ambiguous* question (on "bank", of course).

And in any case, the Jeopardy question didn't concern the brightness (in any sense) of the sun in the first place (to my understanding at any rate).

And the whole "which many people don't often think of as a star" bit is just NASA calling people idiots. lol

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. But this does show that NASA regards the apparent brightness

as a reasonable measure. And I would say that an 'ambiguous' question is a type of trick question.

[SemperEadem]

84. Because---it could be the question that comes between you winning $$$

people usually get stumped on the simple questions you kinda, sorta remember not quite paying attention to while it was being taught back in 4th grade.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. I'm Glad I Didn't See That!

I would have had a stoke! Two of three got that wrong?!?!? Oh Your God!
The Professor

[SemperEadem]

81. Christ! Even I know that...

[The Magistrate]

10. Hear, Hear, Doctor!

What amazes, and somewhat alarms me, is not only that the inability to comprehend basic science is so widespread among persons who count themselves intellectuals, but that it is so despite it requiring so little to acquire such comprehension....

[NashVegas]

15. What's Wrong with a Discussion of Inquiry?

The person who started the thread that's led to the current publicity said it straight up front: it was a dumb question. If you read through the LBN thread about the NYT article, you'll see her fully explain why she thought it was something worth considering.

Science is great and science is needed, but science would never have existed without people prone to imagination and dumb questions. Without them, there'd be no call to have scientists in the first place. When you get to where you know everything, the game's over.

Without centuries of such imaginative people, no nuclear scientist in the world would ever come home to eat chicken kiev - they'd still be stuck on gruel and roasted squirrels, if lucky. :D

on edit:

here's the original post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x1616

For someone not up to speed on the latest in geo-science, it's legitimate to wonder if setting off nuclear bombs in the earth is really such a good idea.

[BlueJazz]

16. Yeah..But it depends on what type of question.

I mean, if a person asks "Why is the sky blue?" than I will be kind and fully explain to them why.
On the other hand if a person asks "Why don't we fall off the earth?" my answer will be something like.."Haven't you ever been to school?"

[ChairOne]

17. An interesting, and misleading view of science history....

"science would never have existed without people prone to imagination and dumb questions."

I suppose taken literally enough, that might be true. But heuristically, it's completely false.

The wonderful imagination you speak of, of our historically great scientists, was an *informed* imagination. With at most few exceptions, they were thoroughly versed in the scientific structures they would go on to improve/rebuild.

This is a direct contrast with the scientific-crank-ism commonly seen on DU. Criticism, discussion, heated argument - all good things - AGAINST A BACKDROP OF INFORMEDNESS. Away from that background, it's nothing but crankery.

OTOH, I certainly don't advocate "doing something" about the crank problem. Educated people can simply avoid those threads, rather like what takes place in the academically oriented newsgroups (sci.math, for example).

Intelligent Design still gets my panties in a bunch tho..... lol

[Donkeyboy75]

18. The problem with ignoring these threads,

and I'm paraphrasing a former DUer here, is that those who are not well versed in science may be drawn in by these silly threads. It's fine with me if the woo-woos want to live in a fantasy world where death rays cause hurricanes and tornados, but I personally draw the line when others may get drawn into this line of thinking. We have to put up a fight.

[ChairOne]

22. Troo... If I were as virtuous as you.... but IMO it's just too hard....

There's simply too many people who either *are* idiots, or who *actively seek* to join the club. Calm voices of sanity against a raging hurricane of Intelligent Design folks...

I suppose I'll fire a few salvos against them, but typically the idiots win the rhetorical war of attrition - lol. Kind of the way the republicans have... LOL

Good luck to you tho, Db75!!

[Donkeyboy75]

24. Many others

fight the good fight more than I do. I too get very discouraged sometimes.

[ChairOne]

27. LOL - I was more gung-ho about it when teaching in universities...

... and I was pretty successful - for a time - but eventually the recurring hordes of willfully idiotic freshmen won out....

<sigh>

LOL

It's the American *people* that are the problem. Fix them, and you ipso facto fix the politicians. It's just that there's soooooo many of them.....

[hfojvt]

20. have you ever read Thomas Edison's diary?

I read an excerpt and he sounded like a total crank. Then again, he was not a scientist, "just" an inventor.
Sometimes it is easier to take the cranks than the cranky.

[ChairOne]

25. Except for your "pejorative" use of the word "just"....

... I would agree with everything you said.

Of course, without the word "just" there, what you say bears little, if any relevance to what I said...

And yes - I've read the entire thing - albeit a loooong time ago. Or maybe it was "The Wizard of Menlo Park". Or maybe it was both. Hell, I can't remember anymore.... lol

[hunter]

63. Thomas Edison tested his cranky ideas against reality.

In that sense he was a scientist.

The light bulb, the phonograph, etc., had to work.

[Xipe Totec]

30. I Believe in Intelligent Design

I apply it religiously :eyes: to every computer program I write. What would be the point of writing a computer program that was not designed intelligently?

:evilgrin:

[ChairOne]

32. I take it you don't work for Microsoft.... :) /eom

[Xipe Totec]

33. Ding Ding! You are right!

Without naming companies or places I've worked on man-rated systems. These are systems that have been tested to the point where you are willing to bet a man's life on their reliability.

[ChairOne]

37. Sweet - I love NASA!

did I get it? did I?

lol

[Xipe Totec]

39. Not quite

NASA is more of a general contractor. Most of the work is done by subcontractors. NASA has monitors that supervise the work. We called them NASAh Massahs. :P

And there are other areas besides aerospace where systems must be tested to a very high level of reliability.

on edit:

That little gizmo that pops the airbag on your car during an accident for example is under software control. The system that turns compressors on and off to keep natural gas flowing in the US and isolates pipeline sections during a blowout is also under software control.

[ChairOne]

43. LOL - I assumed you didn't work on car-related stuff becuz....

... you said something about betting a man's life on it....

LOL

Car companies employ actuaries for a reason, after all....

;)

NASA massas! That's awesome.

You don't happen to have a need for a mathematician (only MS level) who specialized in variational optimization, do you? Just checkin..... :)

[Xipe Totec]

45. That's why I said Bet...

Sometimes you lose :shrug:

I've actually worked in all three areas I mentioned.

Two things I hate to say:

1).- My company is only hiring off-shore right now. There's a US-only hiring freeze. Can't say any more than that.

2).- The best bet for your talents would be in the financial sector in Boston or New York, or energy trading either oil, gas, or electric in Houston.

NASA JSC just got a huge sweaty wad of money courtesy of the Chimperor and Tom Delay, so you might want to check into that, but keep in mind that you take a hit on earnings if you go that route. Basically you pay a premium for the bragging rights. Having said that, it is intellectually the most rewarding option. Don't just look at NASA directly, look at companies like Lockheed-Martin, OAO, MacDonald-Douglass, Rockwell, CSC, Intermetrics, Singer-Link, Draper Labs, etc., all of which are NASA subcontractors.

Best of luck to you.

[ChairOne]

47. lol - thx! /eom

and thanks for the list of sub-contractors - I wasn't familiar with some of them!

[bloom]

41. I agree

plus it seems there was some link about scientists of all people who were involved in some kind tectonic plate something or other as a weapon.

Heaven forbid that people might be interested in knowing what kinds of crazy ideas various gov'ts are promoting. Anyone remember "Star Wars?"

What's crazy one year might not be crazy the next.



The people for whom these things are obvious want to shut down discussions where people might be learning something? What is the point in that? OR is it just a matter of touting ones superior education?

[The Magistrate]

44. But What Are They Learning, Mr. Bloom?

Are they learning that things which clearly are un-scientific nonesense "might" in fact be true? This is the sort of rote "objectivity" that is practiced by the media, in which a serious social scientist, say, is balanced by some flake from "Focus on Families" in discussing suicide rates among gay youth. It serves only to elevate the latter to equal status in the eyes of many, and by no means serves a genuine educational function. Nonesense often seems plausible after all, to people who lack standards by which to discriminate.

Your suggestion those who present opposition to pseudo-science simply seek occassion for "touting their superior education" is reprehensible. It smacks of the glorification of ignorance that is not only prevalent today, but is the most destructive thing possible in a democracy, which in the final analysis depends on a citizenry that is well-informed and capable of critical analysis. You would seem here to be arguing for a shabby anti-elitism that upholds the virtues of knowing nothing, and wishing to learn nothing, and of denigrating persons who do bother to inform themselves. That is the stock in trade of reaction, Sir.

"The marvel of our age is not that people are ignorant, but that they glory in it."

[bloom]

50. "arguing for a shabby anti-elitism"

I would rather see professionals try to set the record straight in a non-condescending manner. We aren't all geologists after all. I'm happy to learn from them myself. People learn more when they aren't insulted. IMO.

It seemed that the purpose of this thread was to insult people and shut them up (so the OP wouldn't be embarrassed to be on a discussion board with them).

[The Magistrate]

53. It Did Not Seem So To Me, Sir

It certainly does not seem to me the purpose is insult. Of course, there are occassions when accurate description will likely be taken for insult by those whose it limns precisely.

The real problem, it sems to me, is that persons who hold to irrational views requiring ignorance of a subject to maintain are impervious to reasonable argument, and refuse the very idea that educating themselves in the matter is desireable. This is because they do not hold their views as the result of knowledgeable inquiry, but hold them because they agree with some preconception dominating their minds already. Thus, they react as if any attempt to demonstrate the falsity of their view in some matter, about which they really know nothing, is an assault against their very personality, which in a sense, from their own view, it really is, as they are so emotionally invested in a world view that something like humans secretly causing earthquakes is an important prop for. Like any person committed to a faith, they must resist critical analysis of their beliefs, and must seek energetically to augment the numbers of people who agree with them, and diminish the number who will not, as this is the only strategy that, in the long run, can remove the possiblity of the questioning they fear, because they know their faith, not being based on rational knowledge, cannot be successfully sustained in the face of rational examination.

"If a man will continue to insist that two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop up his mouth."

[bloom]

62. I saw the purpose the threads in question

as explorations into possibilities. Not as rigid thinking based on pre-conceived notions nor as people who were determined to remain ignorant. (Not that everyone on the threads were equally open-minded, but that some certainly were).

So perhaps we just have a difference of perceptions.

[The Magistrate]

65. What Is A Possibilty, Sir?

Is it a possibility for me to waft upwards from my chair like a soap bubble while typing this reply?

Is it possible for me to suddenly have my organic material replaced in an instant by crystal glass?

Do you think serious attention should be paid to exploring these possibilities?

The things proposed as possibilties concerning human agency contriving the Sumatran quake were on no less ludicrous an order than these proposals.

The persons who steadfastly maintained the idea that human agency did do that are no more open minded persons than are reactionaries friends of the working man. Their minds are closed absolutely to any questioning directed at their chosen idee fixe.

[txaslftist]

66. sheeet...

how did you find out about my Tesla coil crystal glass ray gun? That was supposed to be secret.

[The Magistrate]

67. The Eyes Are Everywhere, Sir....

"Look to the skies!"

[Forkboy]

71. "watch the skies!"

:)

[Susang]

83. And "Trust No One"

[The Magistrate]

88. One Of My Very Favorites, Ma'am, Is This

"Don't keep such an open mind that your brains fall out."

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

91. ha HA!!! Wonderful!

:)

[Susang]

93. LOL

<Applause>

[bloom]

69. Well I personally thought it was interesting that there is a bill...

that mentions tectonic weapons - even if it were impossible that it could be related to this. That there is a bill that mentions tectonic weapons - makes it seem open to discussion. Why, for instance, would it be impossible for this but not for some other level of earthquake. And it could be interesting to know what level of earthquake tectonic weapons might be anticipating in light of the circumstances. Regardless of Skinners post - I still think there are aspects of this that could be cleared up - if someone were to have the information. And actually - probably nobody knows how big of an earthquake would be the limit. Assuming that it is possible.


Bill 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons

Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as—

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x1616

--------

Regardless of that, I am sympathetic to the idea that there are some things that are so beyond the realm of serious possibility that to discuss them seems ludicrous. (And maybe you think that tectonic weapons should not be discussed - regardless of there being a bill). I know someone who believes the conspiracy theory that the moon missions were faked. It makes those of us who know him happy to not hear about it. :) (Not that we do anything to shut him up - we would just rather not hear about it).

[The Magistrate]

80. They Do Some Damned Fool Things, Sir, In Congress

It is, after all, a body containg some five hundred and thirty-five individuals, and the odds that more than several among such a number are foolish and delusional is investment grade. You may note that "psychotronic" weapons are also to be banned: whether this refers to weaponry based on the noted film society, or on psychic energies, is not immediately clear, but in either case it would be exceedingly rash to conclude such a thing exists in practical form based on its mention here. There probably has been research into most of the things listed here, and in many of those instances, that research has continued to come up dry, as the thing is beyond human capability at present, and likely for the foreseeable future. No more than does the mention of thing here, the existance of a research program does not by a long sight count as proof that the thing exists as a working mechanism....

"Reader, I invite you to imagine that you are an idiot, and that you are a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."

[bloom]

92. "Damned Fool Things"

I agree that there may be some damned fool things - but for crying out loud - if they can have them - so should we be able to have them, also. If for nothing else than to be able to talk about what damn fool things there are that our gov't does.

I think that a lot of what the CIA does is quite insane. But that does not prevent us from speculating about them. If we limited our imaginations and our discussions to only the very logical and sensible things that men and society do - we may as well just close down the board.

[The Magistrate]

95. You Have Missed The Point, Mr. Bloom

To speculate that things are being done in fact that are manifestly impossible is to set yourself up as a figure for ridicule, and will only earn you the deepest appreciation your enemies can provide: what people have once been moved to laugh at, they can seldom be persuaded ever again to take seriously. To credit delusional ravings is to identify yourself as similarly impaired, and will call into disrepute any judgement you make, by establishing you are incapable of sorting the true from the false, and thus cannot be considered to have any sound basis for your judgements in any matter. That is precisely why this recent outbreak of nonesense on our forum received the publicity it did.

"People who have no faults are terrible; there is no way of taking advantage of them."

[NashVegas]

75. The Current Uproar

was not instigated by someone "steadfastly maintaining" a human agency was responsible. It was instigated by someone making an honest inquiry into a possibility. To castigate people who make such inquiries in an attempt to shut them down is to cut off one's own possibilities.

[The Magistrate]

79. Not So, Sir

Having spent myself at least twenty hours over the last several days participating in the discussions of the matter here, you may forgive me for placing a higher value on my own perceptions of my opponent's intent than on your assessment of it. In the great majority of instances, the persons you say were urging only "honest inquiry into a possibility" were citing sources claiming machinery and mechanisms to do the thing existed, and insisting these be treated as fact. The only sense in which they could be considered to be urging consideration of a "possibility" was in maintaining the possibility that these machineries which they maintained existed in fact had actually been used in this instance. The entire thrust of the argument was that the capability existed, and that therefore it must have been used, as the outcome could be seen to benefit the possessors of the equipment in existance necessary to do the thing. The occassional protestation of "I'm only saying consider the possibility" was nothing more than a first line of defense against the systematic dismantling of the claim it was possible human agency could contrive this thing, by showing the great discrepancies between the energies available and those required, and the exceedingly dubious nature of the claims that machineries capable of doing the thing already were in existance.

To "castigate" people urging that speculation be treated as fact, and treated so despite its manifest impossibility to anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy is no wrong, and is something you ought not attempt to discourage. But in fact, it was not the people urging this nonesense that were castigated, but the nonesense they were urging. Exposing a fallacy presented, repeatedly, by a person, is not to attack that person, and you ought to be well aware of that. What do you expect to be done, when the same piece is repeated over and over again, by a person, in several discussions, despite its exposure as false, or irrelevant to the claim it purports to support, or marred by some other fundamental flaw? Such a person might well feel discomfited by steadfast refusal on the part of some others to treat their pet hobby-horse like a thoroughbred with a decent shot at the Derby stakes, when in fact it is nothing more than a length of broomstick and some dried peas stitched into a hank of rag, but that is their own look-out, and no one else's.

Your concern for whether my own possibilities may be cut off is noted, but you may safely leave that concern to me, and number whether my possibilities are sufficiently expansive among the many worries in this vale of tears that you are blessed not to have to shoulder....

"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

[NashVegas]

86. We Are Speaking of Different Threads

This is the post that spawned the discussion written up in the NYT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x1616

Since we know that the atmosphere has become contaminated by all the atomic testing, space stuff, electronic stuff, earth pollutants, etc., is it logical to wonder if:

Perhaps the "bones" of our earth where this earthquake spawned have also been affected?

You know, we've exploded many millions of tons of ordinance upon this poor planet. All that "shock and awe" stuff we've just dumped onto the Asian part of this earth -- could we have fractured something? Perhaps the earth was just reacting to something that man has done to injure it. The earth is organic, you know. It can be hurt.

As you can plainly see, this is a far cry from what you are describing above.

And I'm not a Sir.

[The Magistrate]

87. That Is How That One Started, Ma'am

It is not what it came to comprise, and it was only one of many that flooded the forum over previous days. the gentleman from the Times was kind, and could have selected much worse.

Again, as an active participant in the wranglings, you may forgive me for preffering my own experience in assessing the matter, and my preference for treating the whole of matter in discussing it. Cherry-picking will not do, Ma'am, the thing must be judged in the round, and my characterization of it is accurate. It was a destructive and pernicious phenomenon, that Administrator Skinner has done well to lance.

"My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music."

[baby_mouse]

78. Oh! I like you!

clapclapclap

:7

[The Magistrate]

82. Thank You, Sir!

My heartiest welcome to the forum!

"Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about."

[porkrind]

21. Yes, but

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree 100% that the more scientific background one has, the better, however, we shouldn't discourage inquiry of the unknown. A knowledge of science will help one predict which lines of inquiry will be fruitful, and which are pointless. I think you are talking about the latter.

To paraphrase Arthur Clarke, "When an elderly and distinguished scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he says something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong." I agree with you, though, that inquiry into creationism and astrology will be fruitless. What we don't want to do is waste effort on perpetual motion machines and efforts to defeat thermodynamics.

After having said that, I am thoroughly disgusted with the astounding ignorance of most laypersons regarding mathematics and science.

[txaslftist]

26. Yew Folks jist doan' git it.

Sinetifik inkwiry is jist a big crock o hooey. I git's all I need ta know from the Holy Werd o' God. How long did it take to make the Earth? Six days o' werk an' one day o' rest. What makes earthkwakes? Wrath o' god, what else. What makes a soonawmee? That's the pawer o' skripture, shakin' things up.

Y'all needs to git ediccated.

[ChairOne]

28. LOL - perfect.

coulda said "edumacated" tho....

Bravo!

(is that your next-door neigbor?)

EDIT: Oh! "High-falootin" also gets a lot of play, I hear...

[txaslftist]

29. Dude, that's my WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD

I live in Lubbock, Texas.

[ChairOne]

31. Oh that's tough.....

My family (1/2 of it at any rate) is from Vicksburg MS.... different shit, but still shit....

Keep fightin the fights that need fightin! lol

[Lorien]

35. Both scientific and historical knowledge seem to be

sadly lacking these days. 9/11, to many in America, was the worst atrocity ever committed, which only proves that their knowledge of history that is still "in living memory" is sadly lacking. The tsunami has made some of us shockingly aware that many of our fellow Americans don't have a basic grasp of how their planet's continents, mountain ranges and canyons were formed. Any more, if an event happens that hasn't happened in the past 30 years, it becomes "unprecedented".

It kind of reminds me of when I was showing my vacation pictures of a cathedral in France to my assistant; a 45 year old man. When I said "this portion was added much later, around the early 16th century" he gasped "No, that can't be right! You're saying that church is 400 years old?"
"no, I'm saying that this portion is around 500 years old. The cathedral was built around 1030 AD, so it's nearly a thousand years old".

My assistant argued that NOTHING standing was over 100 years old. Where he got this notion, I'll never know. I asked him about the pyramids in Egypt, and it seems that he thought that they had been rebuilt as a tourist attraction. To this poor fellow, the rest of the world was just one giant Epcot!

[Bridget Burke]

42. Can I be your assistant next time you go to Europe?

We may not have many old buildings in Texas, but even the Alamo is over a century old.

[ChairOne]

46. LOL - awesome!

But seriously - I think Michael Crichton's thoughts on global warming should be taken quite seriously.

guffaw!

America could be so awesome if it's citizens were willing to do the hard work of *learning*. So much potential, going absolutely nowhere...

sigh.

[LisaLL]

48. Scientific Literacy

I agree 100%!

If the public were scientifically literate, it would prevent the Bush administration form getting away with undermining the best of scientific evidence.

Check out the ARHP website for the petition about core scientific values and UCS. They keep a running list of where this administration distorts the science that doesn't support their agenda (reproductive health, environmental science, etc). They have every right to state their agenda. Lying about the science to pretend that it supports their agenda is unacceptable.

Scientific Integrity should be a common goal. Unfortunately, it is now a partisan issue.

[ChairOne]

51. And if the public were literate tout court.....

... there wouldn't be a bush administration in the first place...

Ex idiots, idiocy fit...

[buddhamama]

57. agreed

Scientific Integrity has become a partisan issue.

I am proud member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. And you don't have to be a 'scientist' to get it, necessarily; UCS does a fantastic of thoroughly educating people on the issues.

[One_Life_To_Give]

59. Sci literacy and 50 cents

will get you a cup of coffee. (Not at Starbucks, but...)

I don't think most people give a rodents backside about Scientific Literacy. Who designs the fastest airplane, or densist IC. As long as their sports teams do well and a occasional rock star comes by they are content.

Scientific and Engineering Leadership, we are giving it away!

[barackmyworld]

60. There is a great book

called "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulous (sp?)

It's a similar argument, about how most people (including those in the government) do not understand basic statistics. A hilarious, informative read, especially if you are not too strong in the stat field yourself!

[txaslftist]

68. statistics debunk fear, a basic plank supporting this regime

Statistics will tell you that far from being 'crime infested', this century in the US has seen the lowest prevalence of violent crime since about the 16th century, when we first began compiling data.

Statistics will tell you that you're about 500x more likely to get killed or injured by a drunk driver than a terrorist, and about 10x more likely to get killed choking on a chicken bone. We should fight a war on chickens.

An accurate understanding and review of statistics is the death of politics.

[hunter]

89. Leave the chickens alone for now.

First we need to bulldoze the neighborhoods where the drunk drivers are hiding out (after we've bombed all their hideouts, of course.)

Then these gratful communities, freed from drunk driving terrorists, will thank us and celebrate us with parades and flowers and sweet non-alcoholic beverages.

[AZCat]

90. I've read one of his other books

I read "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" and have loaned it out to many friends for the same reason.

[LisaLL]

61. Science/Intelligence PR

We need to work on or science and intelligence PR.

Message: Science helps you solve problems that are important to you. Science can save lives. Science helps you not get tricked. Scientists and intellectuals are contributing to the common good.

Instead of distrusting the intellectuals, we should distrust people who deliberately mislead us.

Why are Conservatives so threatened by the intellectuals that they need to discredit them? Because intellectuals are the ones who can point out that the evidence shows that Conservative policies do the opposite of what Conservatives are marketing them to do.

[kodi]

76. doc, regardless of political bent, most people are fucking idiots

get used to it.

and breed prolifically if you want to help the human race

[ThoughtCriminal]

94. No kidding

But the GOP DEPENDS on it. Below average people wanting a President who is not as smart as they are.