/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1141605

Er, anti-anti science.

This is late, but whatevah.

>>1141500

The Demon Haunted World is the best anti-science argument I've seen in my entire life. And I read a lot.

*hanging out on 4chan because I like chaos*

>>1141402

I don't find this unappealing.

It would be preferable if we didn't have to have China do a Sputnik, but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes.

Serious question

In this world today, in the United States, anti-science politicians make hay while the sun shines. Voters like them because "hurr, we don't need more fruit fly studies." and anti-science is embraced from sea to shining sea. These politicians tell their constituents that they're combating government waste because all basic science is boondoggle - that the fact we don't get immediate technological results is because "them scientists" are only interested in their own "agenda" whatever that means.

In the 1950's and 60's there was a resurgence in science and science funding. Science magazines were popular. You were "cool" if you were studying hard. This was largely because of the USSR launching an artificial satellite when the vast majority of Americans thought that the Soviets couldn't even make a refrigerator. We were "Sputniked," kicked in the ass and motivated to go all the way to the Moon as well as "do the other things, because they are hard."

How do we combat the anti-science crowd? How do we get people to like science again without having China "Sputnik" us?

tl;dr How do we combat the stupid people?

>>1141200

I'll agree with you. But in your message you still don't escape from the academic/research world.

I found it infuriating that Sarah Palin was ridiculing basic scientific research as if it's merely pork barrel spending. I was even more infuriated that she was getting cheers for what she was saying by people that politicians pay attention to - voters.

As it stands now, the loudest voices out there are those who would end basic science once and for all as waste and make engineers and applied scientists of everyone. Personally, I find engineering and making things fun, but I recognize that without the physicists, chemists, and mathematicians that civilization would stagnate.

Not everyone does. The vast majority of people who pay taxes don't. They *do* listen to politicians and demagogues and total nutcases make illogical arguments full of fallacies with regards to science, because appealing to the baser instincts and tribalism sells. Anti-science sells.

I know that scientists don't like talking to the unwashed masses, but if we are ever to get around to combating anti-science and stupidity, someone needs to open the office door and *talk to them.*

Really.

>>1141157
>Have you ever had anything to do with the funding process?

I'm talking about a higher level than just the peer review process. I'm talking about where the funding actually comes from.

It comes from taxes
It comes from corporate investment.

And the people ultimately in charge of actually deciding how much to spend are *not* scientists.

Or was that whole thing with stem cells in the Bush administration a figment of everyone's imagination?

>>1141081

This too.

Maxwell's stuff didn't have any immediate commercial applications. Accountants are the last kinds of people you want in charge of research of any kind.

>>1141055

What is this I don't even.

What, exactly is your problem with my post? You simply repeated what I said.

Who is control of the purse strings at those organizations? They're certainly not scientists, or if they did science, they no longer do it, but instead run departments. They tend to be management and political types with a cursory knowledge of what to fund.

Fail to express the relevance of science to the general public, who *do* fund your projects to your own peril.

There is a big problem with the general public agreeing with the likes of Sarah Palin saying that "fruit fly studies are bogus." How else do you combat that without telling people what the fruit flies are *for*?

Or are you perfectly happy with politicians determining that embryonic stem cell research is morally repugnant and unfundable?

>>1141033

Irrelevant complaint is irrelevant. You have nothing to offer in response to OP's question which is not really a troll, even though it was treated like one by various people above.

>namefagging

If you don't like it, go complain in #4chan.

Maybe if you had something to offer the discussion, you wouldn't be as useless as you are. But you really don't, so you're just a useless douchebag with the complete inability to interact with those around you. Go hang with the illiterate and incoherent teabaggers. They'll like you.

Good job of proving my point of communicating the importance of science being one of the largest problems of science today.

>>1141019

That's because you have nothing to offer /sci/

Go away, you don't belong here.

>>1140930

>implying scientists are not funded by non-scientists

Do you think a venture capitalist knows anything about quantum cryptography?

Do you think a politician that controls the purse strings of the NSF knows anything about genetics?

Do you think that a corporate drone at Merck knows anything about the protein folding algorithm you've been working on?

Wake the fuck up, idiot.

Refusing to speak to people not in the profession gets you exactly nothing. Zero. Bupkis.

And especially refusing to deal with the teabagging douchebags who vilify you is a dangerous road to go down. You have ceded the argument to the loonies who would drag us all back to the 13'th century. You have become part of the problem.

>>1140887

>Most scientists did not become scientists so they could explain their ideas to idiots

Then enjoy your lack of funding and people full of the dumb.

>>1140745

This.

This and the absolute inability or avoidance by scientists to talking to non-professionals to explain what, exactly, they're doing. "Fuck you, just let me do my work" doesn't cut it. Complaining that you can't get funding? Fuckin' explain it to dumbshits like Sarah Palin why you need to do genetics research using fruit flies.

Because if you simply quietly call people like her "stupid cunts" and close the door to your office, you have done nothing to defend yourself from those who would rape your budget.

Carl Sagan was a great man, not only for being a scientist, but for his ability to communicate his ideas.

Make science more attractive than know-nothing teabaggery and you solve one of the largest problems with science - perceived irrelevance.

>I want to be an engineer! Which field is the easiest one to pass through schoolwise? (ie civil, industrial, etc)

Sanitation engineer.

Q: Why do the continents move?

A: There is oil below ground. A lot of it. This lubricates the plates the continents ride on. The eventual removal of all the oil in the ground will then freeze the continents in their place. There has been evidence that the continents are indeed slowing and this is the cause.

>>1131741

I see what you did there.

Fuck both.

Go Anthropology. Minor in comp sci.

>>1126290
> spiritual science

Another term meaning "superstition"

I shall not simply put it down. I shall ridicule, laugh, and point at it and the proponents of what my grandfather called "bunk."

>>1125930

>We probably learned those skills in first year or second year of our undergrad, so we understand the limitations of the various tools used in the field.

No, you didn't.

You have only learned a basic outline of the tools used.

>LET'S TELL THESE MOTHERFUCKERS WHO'S ACTUALLY GETTING SHIT DONE HERE!

Tool makers
Machinists
Construction supervisors
Mold makers
Anyone that makes anything anywhere ever

ALL HATE YOU.

A piece of paper that says you are an engineer means nothing unless you prove yourself.

Welcome to the real world.

>Is our Universe a black hole?

Don't know.

Is the question even remotely testable?

No.

Does the question matter?

No.

>>1118527

It's more like mathematics has nothing at all to do with christianity and the question assumes that smart people are necessarily hostile to religion.

Honestly, I have no problem with many religious people. It's when they get in my face that I have problems. One of most important people in US history was a baptist preacher and is basically responsible for the whole "separation of church and state."

To go off on this tangent, I find it shocking that there are Christians in this country that are willing to mix religion and politics and have the state give preferential treatment for Christianity, claiming that this country is Christian. I assume it would shock Roger Williams too. If he were alive he'd probably tell these people who wish to mix politics and religion that if they want religion in their government, they deserve government in their religion.

>>1118514

If someone tells me I am going to hell, I'm not going to reason with them. I am going to tell them what I think, because they have already abandoned rational discourse from the get-go. I am perfectly willing to debate rationally, but if you strike me in the jaw (metaphorically), don't expect me to be nice.

It's funny. Atheists and fence sitters like me are the ones that get burned at the stake, but it's for us to be polite. Something is wrong there.

>>1118506

That is a big assumption, and it is wrong.

People make decisions that are not in their own best interests (and against the best interests of those around) all the time. Even when they know it's not really what they want. And then they lie to themselves.

Your assumption is the mistake economists make when they create models. They assume that all actors are rational when they are clearly not. It is the entire basis for the Austrian and Chicago schools and it is *bogus*.