Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Many Americans can't answer correctly if asked if the Earth moves around the Sun

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 04SCTLS

U.S. Dominance in Science at Risk, Report Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/sc...hp&oref=slogin

By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: January 16, 2008
The United States remains the world leader in scientific and technological innovation, but its dominance is threatened by economic development elsewhere, particularly in Asia, the National Science Board said on Tuesday in its biennial report on science and engineering.

Science and Engineering Indicators (National Science Board)The country’s position is especially delicate, the agency said, given its reliance on foreign-born workers to fill technical jobs.

The board is the oversight agency for the National Science Foundation, the nation’s leading source of funds for basic research in the physical sciences.

The report, available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators, recommends increased financing for basic research and greater “intellectual interchange” between researchers in academia and industry. The board also called for better efforts to track the globalization of manufacturing and services in the high-tech sector, and their implications for the American economy.

Over all, it said, surveys of science and mathematics education are both “disappointing and encouraging.” Fourth- and eighth-grade students in all ethnic groups showed improvement in math, the report said, but progress in science is far less robust. And knowledge gaps persist between demographic groups, with European- and Asian-Americans scoring higher than students from other groups.

Many Americans remain ignorant about much of science, the board said; for example, many are unable to answer correctly when asked if the Earth moves around the Sun (it does). But they are not noticeably more ignorant than people in other developed countries except on two subjects: evolution and the Big Bang. Although these ideas are organizing principles underlying modern biology and physics, many Americans do not accept them.

“These differences probably indicate that many Americans hold religious beliefs that cause them to be skeptical of established scientific ideas,” the report said, “even when they have some basic familiarity with those ideas.”

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Kinda brings Galileo to mind.

Posted by: shagdrum

You all should realize, the earth revolves around ME!

It should be pointed out that this country is still the best country to make a breakthrough in, because you can make the most money here.

Just another point I thought should be added.

Also, I am not a fan of government funded research (as it stands today). A virtual government monopoly on research funding and grants inherently promotes research of certian ideas over others, because politicians control the purse strings. Prime example, global warming. We need more diverse funding of research instead of the majority coming from the government.

Good article

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I suppose there's lot's of less than bright people everywhere.
We're lucky the smart ones want to come here.
Imported talent is a large part of the success of America.
We wouldn't have put a man on the moon without Wernher von Braun and the other WWII German scientists we gave citizenship to as an extreme example.

Posted by: n8bachelor

The USA is seriously lacking in education related to Engineering and the Sciences (and has been declining for 20 years). Those jobs are in more demand now than ever. But our graduates in those fields are waning and those in China (for example) are seriously on the rise. I'm not talking Theoretical Physics here (that has been dead for 30+ years) I mean those people with the knowledge to change the world around them by making life possible for the human race; expanding/improving technologies, bringing fresh food and water to those 3rd world countries in need, and ensuring a life worth living for the next generation.

Serious work has to be done to promote these careers to the American students. Not everyone is born with that desire to study science/engineering but it can and needs to be further promoted. Too many people study "Business" and come out of school expecting to be CEO of a fortune 500 company. It just doesn't happen that way. There are plenty of managers at Burger King with a degree in "Business". Everyone should know business practices but skills are very important.

I for one will not be having children. There are too many problems with society and the world is going to hell in a hand basket. I'll do my part not to further exasperate the overcrowding of the world and the raping of her resources.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by n8bachelor

.
I'll do my part not to further exasperate the overcrowding of the world and the raping of her resources.

Overcrowding?! Raping of her resources?

LOL!!!!

That is classic!

Posted by: Joeychgo

theflatearthsociety.org

Posted by: Calabrio

There might be problems with math, but American students continue to lead the world in innovation and basically anything that requires thinking outside the box. If you leave this country and discuss it with professionals overseas in the East, and just avoid the press looking to bash the U.S., you'll find overwhelming agreement on this.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

theflatearthsociety.org

Que?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Engineering doesn't pay as well in this country compared to other disciplines,
unless you own your own company.

There is a flat earth society

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

I've read some of their posts and am still not sure if it's a big joke or that some people actually believe this stuff.

The post with the most amusing title is in the religion section and goes
"Is Porno a Valid Religion"

We were taught in grade school about the solar system and the stars so this fact about many people not knowing the earth revolves around the sun takes my breath away.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

There is a flat earth society

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

I've read some of their posts and am still not sure if it's a big joke or that some people actually believe this stuff.

Yeah, that's kinda what I got

Quote:

The post with the most amusing title is in the religion section and goes
"Is Porno a Valid Religion"

Well, that "religion" is "worshiped" daily, especially by teens and young adults. Sometimes multiple times a day, if you know what I mean...

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Engineering doesn't pay as well in this country compared to other disciplines,
unless you own your own company.

There is a flat earth society

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

I've read some of their posts and am still not sure if it's a big joke or that some people actually believe this stuff.

13,000 members and 300,000 posts -- whats that tell you? Alot for a joke...

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I suppose everyone likes to find a home and community, even these people.

Posted by: n8bachelor

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Overcrowding?! Raping of her resources?

LOL!!!!

That is classic!

Yeah I know.... I was a bit medicated last night and just got off on a rant after reading countless articles about renewable energy, coal fire plants, ethanol, electric cars, and yada yada yada.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

13,000 members and 300,000 posts -- whats that tell you? Alot for a joke...

Maybe it is just a real good joke pulled over on a lot of people (like the 1930's "War of the Worlds" radio thing). Or a lot of people have Andy Kaufman-like dedication to the joke.

Posted by: Kevin O'Connell

Anybody seen the movie "Idiocracy"? If you've got a brain in your head, it'll scare the crap out of you. The religious right in this country and the ease of life we enjoy here are causing the entire country's level of intelligence, work ethic, education and belief in hard science fact to end up in the

ter.
We're rapidly becoming a nation of "its not my fault, its not my responsibility, its not my problem, its not my job", spoiled, overfed, uneducated slackers that know nothing about anything with any depth.
We need to pull our heads out or the rest of the world will take over our technological lead and we'll end up losing our economic power and first place rank in the world.
Hell, we'll end up as......England.. former world power and empire, now runner up in the global economy.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin O'Connell

Anybody seen the movie "Idiocracy"? If you've got a brain in your head, it'll scare the crap out of you. The religious right in this country and the ease of life we enjoy here are causing the entire country's level of intelligence, work ethic, education and belief in hard science fact to end up in the

ter.

Yes I have seen that movie. I would like to see you back the statement up you made about the religious right...

Quote:

We're rapidly becoming a nation of "its not my fault, its not my responsibility, its not my problem, its not my job", spoiled, overfed, uneducated slackers that know nothing about anything with any depth.

If anything, liberalism encourages non-responsibility. What you cited here is much more attributable to libralism then it is the religious right.

Quote:

We need to pull our heads out or the rest of the world will take over our technological lead and we'll end up losing our economic power and first place rank in the world.
Hell, we'll end up as......England.. former world power and empire, now runner up in the global economy.

Not so sure on this one. America has always come back, and come back stronger then before. At one time Japan was supposed to take over as the leader in the world economy. I have great faith in America on this one, but ultimately only time will tell.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

On top of the decline in science and technology our economic decline is already underway.
As to religion it has stood in the way and interfered with science in the past when new discoveries have called beliefs into question re the Galileo reference.
Since the US is a more religious country than other G8 powers and emerging nations this is a bigger factor here than elsewhere.
Huckabee thinks the world is only a few thousand years old and dismisses evolution and he's a serious contender for the Presidency.
A simple example of evolution that anyone can understand is 2 guys competing and duking it out over a girl.
The stronger (in appeal) guy will win out and this is in a nutshell natural selection.
I think we've all agreed before that religion is a useful tool to help restrain wickedness in weak minded immature people which really is it's primary purpose in the here and now.
But it's something that holds us back in the quest for pure knowledge when taken to extremes.
One thing Hillary has said is that if elected President she will free science from the meddling of religion so we will be able to better compete with the other more secular countries of the world in this area.
I think this is very appealing to a lot of thoughtful people.

Here's a few from the cartoonists

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

On top of the decline in science and technology our economic decline is already underway.
As to religion it has stood in the way and interfered with science in the past when new discoveries have called beliefs into question re the Galileo reference.
Since the US is a more religious country than other G8 powers and emerging nations this is a bigger factor here than elsewhere.
Huckabee thinks the world is only a few thousand years old and dismisses evolution and he's a serious contender for the Presidency.
A simple example of evolution that anyone can understand is 2 guys competing and duking it out over a girl.
The stronger (in appeal) guy will win out and this is in a nutshell natural selection.
I think we've all agreed before that religion is a useful tool to help restrain wickedness in weak minded immature people which really is it's primary purpose in the here and now.
But it's something that holds us back in the quest for pure knowledge when taken to extremes.
One thing Hillary has said is that if elected President she will free science from the meddling of religion so we will be able to better compete with the other more secular countries of the world in this area.
I think this is very appealing to a lot of thoughtful people.

Haven't we already discussed this in the thread debating evoution vs. creation?

some of those cartoons purposely misrepresent the issue, and that misrepresentation is the basis in reality for the joke. Some of them are funny.

Science already illogically assumes away anything supernatural, it's called methodological naturalism. I agree, when taken too extremes, religion can be a hiderance to a search for knowledge, but so can athiestm, in the extreme. Basically irrational bias leading to willful ignorance.

Not so sure your evolution example is an example of evolution (inthe darwinian sense).

Posted by: 04SCTLS

We have discussed most of this in evolution vs creation but more to the point of this thread is my contention that the US is falling behind in the sciences PARTLY because of too high a placement of religion as part of public policy.
There's a misplacement of priorities when people are appointed to scientific positions in government agencies
based on their religious views.
It is not the purpose of science to try and explain the supernatural which doesn't follow the natural laws of physics and nature.
Such things as police enlisting psychics to solve crimes(primarily murders) with some success as well as things seen on ghosthunters and other similar shows just cannot be explained in an imperical fashion or dismissed by athiesm.
Some things are just a mystery and will always be so.
Extremism is bad in all things but athiests generally do not try to impede scientific developments but religious extremists do.
It's easy and can be lazy to be strongly religious as everything is all layed out for the believer by the pastor/minister/priest/imam, so he/she doesn't have to do much thinking on their own.

Here's Huckabee"s views on the Constitution, our founding document which has made this the great country that it is.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Further quoting from the Washington Post

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...ion_get_r.html

Permit me to belabor the obvious: secularists, be they religious or not, will never forget this. Now let me make a somewhat less banal prediction: this assault on the national charter will make many of the Evangelical Americans who Huckabee is trying to mobilize very uncomfortable.

Say what you will about the old Christian Right, but it always picked its enemies carefully. Whatever their target -- secular humanism, Communism, homosexuality, Murphy Brown or the TeleTubbies -- Falwell and company knew better than to attack symbols near and dear to the hearts of the rank-and-file. It never occurred to them, for example, to propose congressional legislation banning Baseball.

Huck’s error was in taking on the Constitution, in putting it in its place. Its place, apparently, was somewhere under God and under (Huckabee’s interpretation of) the Bible. But why -- why? I ask -- would he brazenly instill this tension in the minds of his target audience?

I have had Evangelical students who can recite the Constitution chapter and verse, so to speak. Like many of their co-religionists they are patriotic in very conventional, mainstream American ways. They have no more interest in setting the Scriptures in competition with the Constitution than Jews have in exploring the possibility that the teachings of the great Rabbinic sages supersede the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Had Huckabee simply ranted about all of those “activist judges” who have misinterpreted what some scholars call "The American Scriptures," he would have been on far safer rhetorical ground. Instead, he inexplicably followed Alan Keyes down an intriguing avenue of theological speculation and intimated the existence of a scriptural chain of command.

I have, incidentally, often sensed that certain types of conservative Christian intellectuals share these misgivings. This is because our national charter refrains from citing the Bible or invoking the name of God. So, yes, there is a theological discussion to be engaged in there and maybe even a conference down at the seminary. But, no, this is not something that any wise politician would want to make into a campaign issue.

Huckabee’s endeavor to subordinate the Constitution will win him absolutely no new followers among non-Evangelicals. This state of affairs will not be lost upon pragmatic conservative Christians in the GOP who may throw their weight behind a less divisive, and more viable, candidate.

______________________________________________

If a man of these beliefs who thinks God is telling him to rip up the Constitution written by the founding fathers and replace it with (his idea of ) a more theocratic document has the support of a large body of american voters it does not bode well for the future of scientific advancement in the US.

Like you shagdrum I want America to right itself and become stronger and maybe Huckabee being a serious contender for the presidency will cause americans to turn away from such zealous singlemindedness and elect someone with a greater more expansive and tolerant world view.

If Huckabee does win the Republican nomination it may be the best thing to happen as his probable defeat in the election will put religion back in it's place in the churches and places of worship and out of mainstream politics.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

this thread is my contention that the US is falling behind in the sciences PARTLY because of too high a placement of religion as part of public policy.

Where is religion influencing public policy?

Quote:

There's a misplacement of priorities when people are appointed to scientific positions in government agencies
based on their religious views.

Never heard of this one either...

Quote:

It is not the purpose of science to try and explain the supernatural which doesn't follow the natural laws of physics and nature.

No, it is the purpose of science to search for the truth. Assuming away God, or anything supernatural, severely limits that search. That is a very athiest view, and the athiests are the ones trying to keep that assumption in place.

Quote:

Extremism is bad in all things but athiests generally do not try to impede scientific developments but religious extremists do.

I think I pretty well demonstrated in the Evolution/ID thread that in fact it is athiests here that standing in the way of a truely scientific search for the truth here. They want their views assumed as fact, without evidence, which isn't logical.

Quote:

It's easy and can be lazy to be strongly religious as everything is all layed out for the believer by the pastor/minister/priest/imam, so he/she doesn't have to do much thinking on their own.

There is some truth to that, though you should remember, religion isn't an intellectual exercise, it is a matter of belief and faith. Brilliance and faith are not mutually exclusive. Most of the wisest people I know are Christian, while most of the more arrogant and self-servingly clever people I know are athiest. Religon (or non-religon) causes a change in perception of reality. If you believe in God, that is quite humbling, because you accept that there is something far greater then yourself, which goes against human nature (which is inherently selfish). Athiests believe that there is no God and as such, effectively view themselves as having no equal; everything is less important. At it's worst, they elevate themselves to God level, in their mind. The effect of these views have a certian outcome in thinking. One is humble, and doesn't assume they know the answers. One is arrogant and assumes they are right. One trys to find the truth and one tries to spin the truth; wise vs. clever. In the extreme, of course, both can be self-serving and manipulated in the mind. Still, the arrogance that athiesm, by its core views and values, breeds arrogance, and that hinders the search for truth much more then a belief in God does.

Quote:

Here's Huckabee"s views on the Constitution, our founding document which has made this the great country that it is.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

I hadn't read that before, but it doesn't really concern me, because I am sure it is rather disinenguine. He is simple saying what he thinks the voters want to hear, something he has a pattern of doing. Besides, I really don't think he is gonna even win the primaries.

The comment can also be interpreted a view different ways, some worse then others.

Quote:

secularists, be they religious or not, will never forget this.

I don't doubt that for a second

Quote:

this assault on the national charter will make many of the Evangelical Americans who Huckabee is trying to mobilize very uncomfortable.

Not sure I would use the word "assault", but generally yes. It's kinda one of those "I agree with the basic prinicples the guy is saying, but the way he says them is embarassing".

Quote:

Say what you will about the old Christian Right, but it always picked its enemies carefully. Whatever their target -- secular humanism, Communism, homosexuality, Murphy Brown or the TeleTubbies -- Falwell and company knew better than to attack symbols near and dear to the hearts of the rank-and-file. It never occurred to them, for example, to propose congressional legislation banning Baseball.

The "religious right" doesn't really have much influence, in a measurable sense. It is a large trojan horse the media makes. Basically, the only real consistant definition of "religious right" you can find in the media is "conservatives we don't agree with". The "religious right" only donates a small fraction to political causes that trial lawyers donate to the DNC.

Most of those "enemies" you listed were the enemies of democracy (Communism), the constitution (secular humanism), or the country, as a whole doesn't agree with their view an votes against it (gay marriage). Very few religious people I know of, hate homosexuals. At worst, they find the practice sinful, but don't hate the person, at best, they don't care just don't want to have it in their face. As to Muphy Brown and the Teletubbies, well those are inherently evil and Satan's instruments. They are probably the horsemen of the apocolypse.

Quote:

why? I ask...would he brazenly instill this tension in the minds of his target audience?

Again, purely politics. appeasing a block of voters, in his mind.

Quote:

I have had Evangelical students who can recite the Constitution chapter and verse, so to speak. Like many of their co-religionists they are patriotic in very conventional, mainstream American ways. They have no more interest in setting the Scriptures in competition with the Constitution than Jews have in exploring the possibility that the teachings of the great Rabbinic sages supersede the rulings of the Supreme Court.

I grew up in the church; my dad was a pastor; I have literally known thousands of christians. I can olny think of one who doesn't hold the views of your Evangelical students.

Quote:

Had Huckabee simply ranted about all of those “activist judges” who have misinterpreted what some scholars call "The American Scriptures," he would have been on far safer rhetorical ground. Instead, he inexplicably followed Alan Keyes down an intriguing avenue of theological speculation and intimated the existence of a scriptural chain of command.

Yeah, and there is a chance in the primary, it may have a positive effect for him, but probably not.

Quote:

Huckabee’s endeavor to subordinate the Constitution will win him absolutely no new followers among non-Evangelicals. This state of affairs will not be lost upon pragmatic conservative Christians in the GOP who may throw their weight behind a less divisive, and more viable, candidate.

It is preaching to the choir, in a sense. I really hope Fred wins the nomination, but I could support the mormam, or Mr. 9/11 (Guliani)
______________________________________________

Quote:

If a man of these beliefs who thinks God is telling him to rip up the Constitution written by the founding fathers and replace it with (his idea of ) a more theocratic document has the support of a large body of american voters it does not bode well for the future of scientific advancement in the US.

Like you shagdrum I want America to right itself and become stronger and maybe Huckabee being a serious contender for the presidency will cause americans to turn away from such zealous singlemindedness and elect someone with a greater more expansive and tolerant world view.

If Huckabee does win the Republican nomination it may be the best thing to happen as his probable defeat in the election will put religion back in it's place in the churches and places of worship and out of mainstream politics.

Not so sure that religion doesn't have a place in politics, or even in inspiring policy in somes ways. The Framers were very specific in what they viewed religions role as. I want someone who is going to uphold, the constitution, not impose their views. If Huckabee wants to change the constitution, then there is a method spell out to do so (one I doubt he can meet).

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Some food for thought about how the Bush administration has abetted and contributed to the decline of science in this country.

http://culturelifesciencenews.blogsp...bout-bush.html

More Scientists Tell About Bush Political Appointees Strangling Science Maliciously

By Elaine Meinel Supkis

More scientists come forward with accusations that the Republicans are strangling science and interfering heavily with running scientific organizations that need government support. Meanwhile, Bush pretends he wants more scientists, I presume, so he can kick them around and abuse them.

From Time Magazine:
The 3 1/2-hr. conference call brought together nearly two dozen of the nation's best minds on the subject of air quality--and many of them were steamed. As the scientists of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, they are rarely overruled on their recommendations about how the government should react to the latest and best research on the dangers of dirty air. Seven months ago, they warned the EPA in a letter that unless it made at least modest reductions in the amount of airborne soot, thousands of Americans would die prematurely each year. But last December, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, citing "the best available science," ignored their counsel. On the phone call last week, an exasperated Dr. James Crapo, professor of medicine at Denver's National Jewish Medical and Research Center, told his fellow scientists, "We need to write another letter and this time take a stronger stand."

Starting when he was a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush has often assured voters that his policymaking would be guided by "sound science." Last week, in his State of the Union address, the President pointed to scientific research as the way to "lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come." Yet growing numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their findings--on pollution, climate change, reproductive health, stem-cell research and other areas in which science often finds itself at odds with religious, ideological or corporate interests--are being discounted, distorted or quashed by Bush Administration appointees.
More and more we see direct parallels with the Soviet Union. Ideology trumping science. I know, first hand, how the government periodically tries to silence scientists. Most Americans don't know that within the scientific community during the 1950s over the rank lies put out by the Pentagon and the President concerning nuclear tests.

I watched this rage right over my head, sitting discreetly nearby, the adults unaware I could put 2+2 together already. They knew perfectly well, the pollution was deadly, the tests were dangerous, the few studies they were allowed to conduct were kept secret and anyone spilling the beans would see their career end, this was the McCarthy era and they all saw what happened to Oppenheimer, for example.

So fear kept mouths shut and as the undeclared nuclear war raged with all countries dropping bombs as "tests" and screwing up the entire planet, guess why we are seeing a cancer plague today, especially in parts of the body that process food! And breasts that produce milk...nearly every female can now expect to have breast cancer if she lives to be 100 years old? This vast war that saw hundreds of nuclear bombs dropped have degraded the ecosystem radically. And the scientists figured out why this was very bad and very dangerous yet were unable to do anything until prodded and poked when they finally went to Kennedy and explained to him what was going wrong.

I know, I was one of the pokers.

Even after the tests were stopped, the data was classified until many years later. It turned out that many tests on civilians were either illegal or cruel or badly done. Many people suffered from cancer or were killed outright in the government program to prove nuclear bombs weren't bad for us (except when it blows up a city!). These studies, when they showed, all of them, that nukes are terrible with hideous side effects, this was kept out of the public debate, not published, hidden from view.

This process of hiding the truth has been revived by Bush. You can't have a vibrant scientific community with idiots censoring data! Period. And censoring and intimidating scientists is now at an all time high, running at the same levels as under good old friendly Eisenhower who muzzled nuclear scientists with terrible brutality. Gads, I hate Eisenhower.
Some who have experienced it from the inside, however, disagree. Dr. Gerald Keusch, former director of the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), says he saw a marked change in its operations as the government moved from the Clinton to the Bush administrations. Under Clinton, Keusch says, he never encountered resistance in appointing experts to the advisory board that conducted peer reviews of grant proposals to the center, which focuses on international health issues, particularly in developing countries. He made seven nominations, and all were approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) within three weeks. Under Bush, his first four nominations were quickly endorsed by NIH but then, says Keusch, "it's 10 months before I hear from HHS, rejecting three of the four, including a Nobel laureate, with no reasons given." In return, HHS sent him the résumés of other people, many of whom had no expertise in infectious diseases or developing countries. Over the next three years, Keusch recalls, he had to nominate 26 people to fill seven vacancies and "came close to having a very dysfunctional advisory committee. I couldn't get a quorum anymore."
Bush and his minions push for incompetent, ill-trained, anti-science lunatics. Like Hitler and Stalin, magical thinking ideologues are put in positions of authority over real scientists.

Meanwhile, the neo-Nazi, neo-Stalinist "pundits" are on the attack, as usual. From the Washington Post:
Five years ago China recruited Gavriel Salvendy, an American scientist from Purdue University, to set up a department of industrial engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Salvendy didn't speak Chinese -- "not a word, apologies" -- but that didn't matter. In the department he created, 75 percent of the lectures and 100 percent of the textbooks are in English.
This is a paean to American intellectualism. The books and lectures in China are in English! Hahaha. My dad, when he studied rocket technology and physics had to learn...GERMAN! Did Einstein write in English? Even if one read a translation, this wasn't good enough, one had to learn German to study philosophy or science. Anyone arguing about Hegel in English was laughed at, you had to know him in German, first, I can attest to this. Greek was required, too, for the same reason.
Science and math advocates have been harrumphing about national competitiveness for at least a quarter-century. In the early 1980s the National Science Foundation predicted "looming shortfalls" of scientists and engineers, and the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared, "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." But the American economy went from strength to strength over the next decades, while supposedly more technical countries such as Japan and Germany foundered.
What a moron. Both Germany and Japan are beating the brains out of us, technologically speaking. And who has a trade surplus with whom? Both ship high tech stuff to America! They all learn English and then go home and use our information but there is no return flow since Americans refuse to learn any foreign language and Bush refuses to learn even English.

We have had a "shortfall" for a long time, here. The only reason why it doesn't show up, yet, is because we can still attract scientists from abroad. Go to any technological school and ask how many people are foreign students. 30%? 50%? 80%? They come here because the pay is still high but this won't last too much longer, thanks to the GOP who are bankrupting America.
This is embarrassingly flimsy. When economists say that technological change drives living standards, they don't mean that scientific ingenuity achieves this by itself. What matters is the way science is diffused through an economy: the availability of venture capital, the flexibility of workers, the quality of corporate leadership, the competence of government policy, the reliability of public infrastructure -- all help to determine how science is absorbed. The United States scores well in nearly all these areas, which is why it's defied alarmist predictions for a quarter of a century and will continue to do so.
Corporate leadership is very destructive now. How many factories are being built to produce any sort of new technology? Hello? Do I hear echos?

This is absurd. This pundit gloats about how cheap scientists are in China and then talks about how superior we are, guess what? Microsoft isn't hiring programmers in America anymore to do any research or design, they moved it all to India and China! And this is true of nearly all corporate America which have hijacked this nation and opened the borders to reduce their inflationary overhead and now they are wrecking the last of our great scientific community which was really tiny until two great, shattering political events drove hundreds of thousands of philosophers and scientists to America: Bolshevism and Naziism.

Posted by: shagdrum

The article is rather one sided by what seems to be a scientific elitist/activist. The whole "I was one of the pokers" comment suggests an activist, and the bitching about having to learn a foreign language to study something vs. reading english is nothing but elitist crap.

The article is basically anti-Bush propaganda that makes many leaps in logic and irrational assumptions. The article assumes that science and scientists funded by the government are pure as the wind driven snow, while also irrationally assuming (without proof) that scientists funded by private businesses are creating false info to promote an agenda. In fact the reverse is true.

"Yet growing numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their findings--on pollution, climate change, reproductive health, stem-cell research and other areas in which science often finds itself at odds with religious, ideological or corporate interests--are being discounted, distorted or quashed by Bush Administration appointees."

All the areas cited have a lot of bad science associated with them. Bush is trying to make sure he promotes policy bases on sound science. Scientists (and organizations, like the EPA) who make their living through that bad science on these issues are going to fight against it. Most all that bad science comes from government funded science. Think about it; if you make your money off government grants to research if the sky is falling, are you gonna say that the research shows the sky isn't falling? No, you are gonna say that the research shows that that the sky seems to be falling and that more research is needed.

The politicians who control the purse strings are, of course going to fund this research, because they would seem irresponsible not too. This is how a horror story that seems absurd is turned into "scientific fact based on consensus".

It isn't suprising that the author of the article hates Eisenhower, as he saw this problem emerging and predicted it in his farewell address.

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded. 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.

-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address,
January 17, 1961"

Here are a few excerpts from a paper I wrote on the subject:

...one needs only look at the EPA or the current debate (or lack thereof) on global warming, and the legislation, taxes, etc. (proposed or otherwise) attached to these issues to see the effects on American’s everyday lives. The question that needs to be asked is, are these intrusions into everyday Americans lives based on sound, objective, logical and impersonal science? The answer, more often then not is “no”.

The scientific community is one of many schools of thought, with bias and political influences (both internal and external) like any other academic field. Professor Patrick J. Michaels points out in his book ‘Meltdown’ how the scientific community tends to parse itself into paradigms.
“For example, although the National Science Foundation works primarily through individual awards, each of those individuals applies under a specific program, such as ‘environmental biology’ or ‘climate dynamics.’ The programs are defined by their respective paradigms, and the individual scientists…are likely to devote their careers to the care and feeding of those paradigms.”
This is the community that the Federal government supports in the form of funding for research. Indeed, the Feds have a virtual monopoly on research funding. This alone should be reason for alarm. When politicians control the purse strings to a group, politics and special interests inevitable come into play. Science is slow to change it’s paradigms; usually it takes a new generation to come along and question the old paradigm by pointing out the flaws in it. At this point a new paradigm must be discovered, which takes time. For the longest time the “scientific community” thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.
Federal funding reinforces certain paradigms due mostly to political reasons. As Michaels points out:
“In this competitive environment (for finite federal funds), paradigms are advantaged when they are backgrounded by lurid threats. Further, such threats provide justification for the outlaying of taxpayer dollars. Politicians can then claim, with the backing of the nations most serious scientists, that their activities are saving us from certain peril. All of this clamity-hyping, perfectly rational on the part of all the participants, sells newspapers and television time, which only serves to recycle the political importance of the paradigm.”
Basically, the political processes involved and the scientific paradigm hyped with threats form a positive feedback loop. Scientists will try to keep the money flowing by supporting the reigning paradigm. Thus the “science” used to justify many policies by the government is due more to hyperbole, fear mongering and self interest.

Michaels book has a large part on the bias in the scientific community, as well as how the current system reinforces that funding of bad science. He offers some ideas to fix the situation. Michaels is a research professor of enviromental science at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in enviromental studies at the Cato Institute, among other qualifications.
I can't recommend his book highly enough.

Back to the article, the problem I showed about government funding reinforcing bad science is not very well known. The author is playing off the ignorance of the reader to mischaracterize the situation into an attack on Bush, while also covering for the current system.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Bad or marginal science is one thing but the Bush administration has blatantly interefered with and censored
the Surgeon General and endangered the public health when it didn't like his conclusions and recommendations.They have also ignored scientific and medical evidence from scientists at the FDA on strictly theological religious grounds.

LA Times
Ex-surgeon general says Bush officials kept information from public
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer
12:28 PM PDT, July 10, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's first surgeon general charged today that administration officials prevented him from providing the public with accurate scientific and medical information on such issues as stem cell research and teen pregnancy.

"The reality is that the 'nation's doctor' has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas," Dr. Richard H. Carmona told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried.

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," said Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation - not the doctor of a political party."

Carmona testified alongside former Surgeons General C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, respectively. They also told the committee that they faced political interference, particularly on morally charged issues such as sexuality and drug use.

But Carmona said some fellow surgeons general told him interference rose to new levels during his tenure.

"The surgeon general has to be independent if the surgeon general is going to have any credibility," said committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). The panel is considering reforms that would insulate the surgeon general from political crosscurrents.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration gave Carmona all the support he needed and expressed disappointment in his tenure.

"Dr. Carmona was given the authority and had the obligation to be the leading voice for the health of all Americans," Fratto said. "It's disappointing to us if he failed to use his position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation. We believe Dr. Carmona received the support necessary to carry out his mission."

Carmona served a four-year term and was not reappointed.

The House hearing comes two days before a Senate panel is to meet to consider the nomination of Kentucky cardiologist James W. Holsinger Jr. to succeed Carmona.

Holsinger has already drawn political fire from leading Democrats and major gay and lesbian organizations. As a prominent lay member of the United Methodist Church, Holsinger has strongly opposed liberalizing church policies toward gays.

Surgeons general are viewed as public health advocates who serve, in essence, as the nation's family doctor. Previous surgeons general have played pivotal roles in debates about smoking, drunk driving, mental health and disparities in medical treatment between whites and minorities.

Carmona said he expected that would be his role when he came to Washington but that that was "politically naive."

When the issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research came up early in Bush's first term, Carmona said, he felt he could play an educational role for administration officials and the public by openly discussing the latest scientific research on the subject.

Stem cells can be grown into any type of cell in the body, and some scientists see in them the promise of a cure for Parkinson's and other diseases. But producing embryonic stem cells has involved the destruction of human embryos - raising moral issues that some, including many religious conservatives, find profoundly disturbing.

In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research and has since blocked attempts by Congress to lift the restriction.

Carmona said he was told to "stand down" from playing any educational role because a decision had already been made. He also said administration appointees who reviewed his prepared speech texts deleted from them references to stem cell research.

Likewise, on the issue of preventing teen pregnancy, Carmona said he was not allowed to deviate from the administration's position that abstinence was the best approach.

In fact, he said, he believes a variety of approaches are needed, including contraception for sexually active teens. But the administration "did not want to hear the science," he said, and instead "wanted to preach."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Earlier Example of Governmental Abuse of Science and Health Policy - Susan Wood, Women's Health and the FDA
http://defendscience.org/Susan_Wood.pdf

In August 2005, Susan Wood, then Assistant Commissioner for Women’s Health and Director, Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration faced similar governmental trampling of science by right wing ideological agendas and resigned in protest. As Wood's press release at the time stated:
"Wood’s resignation comes after the FDA ignored scientific and medical evidence – again refusing to approve Plan B for over-the-counter use last week. Despite saying that it completed its review of this application, as amended, and concluding that the available scientific data are sufficient to support the safe use of Plan B as an over-the-counter product, the FDA said it would begin another regulatory process, thereby delaying the decision indefinitely."
Ultimately the uproar and protest in the wake of her resignation led to the approval for limited over-the-counter access to Plan B, but only a full year later - August, 2006.
______________________________________________

There are plenty of examples of Bush administration intereference in the sciences.
Anything that doesn't fit into their political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried.
This metaphorically reminds me of the old Soviet Union
where every group in the military had a political officer who reported to the KGB and who's job was to keep the party line on track and prevent any original thinking by the soldiers and officers that the government found a threat to it's control and power.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Bad or marginal science is one thing but the Bush administration has blatantly interefered with and censored
the Surgeon General and endangered the public health when it didn't like his conclusions and recommendations.They have also ignored scientific and medical evidence from scientists at the FDA on strictly theological religious grounds.

The FDA is a huge part of the problem with medical costs be sky high in this country. It takes almost a year to get a flu vaccine approved, tested and manufactured. This means that doctors have to guess what strain of flu will be prevelant next year and start manufacturing vaccines then. That's why we had those vaccine shortages a few years back, they guessed wrong.

There is nothing wrong with "interfering" with a bad system. You should interfere with it to fix it, and to find the truth, or get as close to it as possible.

I still can't find any example of religion or ideology playing a part in decision making here or choosing who fills what slot, only claims with no evidence. Situations are spun to fit that story, but no evidence is given and certian facts are overlooked.

Prime example, stem-cell research:

Stem cells can be grown into any type of cell in the body, and some scientists see in them the promise of a cure for Parkinson's and other diseases. But producing embryonic stem cells has involved the destruction of human embryos - raising moral issues that some, including many religious conservatives, find profoundly disturbing.

The facts suggest that embryotic stem-cells can't live up to their hype. In fact, the evidence is that adult stem-cells are the way to go. People make broad claims about what embryotic stem-cells can do, but when the actual breakthroughs are found, it is adult stem-cells that are doing it. Many in the mainstream media try to hide this by just saying "stem cells" while (in many cases) also citing the controversy over ebryotic stem-cells (the quote above from one of the articeles you posted does this rather nicely). The reader is lead to believe that it was embryotic stem-cells that made the breakthrough when it wasn't and the article never says that. Thus, when Bush doesn't support embryotic stem-cell research, it is spun as him putting ideology, or religion over science. In fact, the opposite is true. The people claiming this are either too ill informed on the specifics (the media) or are putting ideology over science.

What you posted here is people spinning and distorting to protect the status quo (which the media buys into because it bashes Bush). They make broad claims of Bush ignoring or repressing "science" which they claim is sound. If the science is based on computer models, it isn't sound, but many (if not most) funded by government grants will tell you it is, and complain that you aren't accepting "sound science" when you question it. That is but one of a number of examples. You need to prove that when these people claim that good science is being "ignored" or "repressed", that is the situation. 9 times out of ten, these issues are really about Bush trying to make sure he is getting sound science.

Quote:

There are plenty of examples of Bush administration intereference in the sciences.
Anything that doesn't fit into their political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried.

I have yet to see one example of Bush interfering with science, just a lot of broad claims and spin. I do see evidence of people wanting to protect and manipulate the current Federal funding reinforced scientific paradigm to promote political, financial, or other ends. The attacks on Bush are a means to that end. Follow the money.

Quote:

This metaphorically reminds me of the old Soviet Union
where every group in the military had a political officer who reported to the KGB and who's job was to keep the party line on track and prevent any original thinking by the soldiers and officers that the government found a threat to it's control and power.

If anything, the current system is like the Soviet Union. Politically run, corrupt government science. Bush is trying to work around that, and the establisment is attacking him while spinning the truth 180 degrees.

You really should get that book I mentioned. You need to educate youself on the current system of scientific paradigms and funding and how that all fits together. It is very interesting and extremely enlightening and at the heart of the matter being discussed here. I really think you would enjoy it.

The book is titled: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. The author is Patrick J. Michaels

Posted by: hrmwrm

"Embryonic stem cells are a primitive type of cell that can be coaxed into developing into most or all of the 220 types of cells found in the human body (e.g. blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, nerve cells, etc).
Adult stem cells bear some similarities to embryonic stem cells. Research using adult cells has a two decade head start on embryonic stem cells. Thus, potential treatments have already advanced to human trial stage. Unfortunately, adult cells are limited in flexibility. "

"Unethical reporting on stem cells:
Focus on the Family Action emphasizes that:

"The truth is that embryonic stem-cell research has yet to yield a single successful treatment for patients. Meanwhile, adult stem cells continue to provide success stories." 4

They note that investors have little interest in investing in embryonic stem cell research at this time because there is little likelihood that fully tested treatments or cures will be made available for general use in the near future.

This is a common assertion found in countless social and religiously conservative news sources. The implication is that embryonic stem cells will never successfully used to treat or cure human diseases or disorders. Their implication is that embryonic stem cell research is a blind alley. We have seen this same story mentioned dozens of times from at last a half dozen conservative news sources. None of them have ever mentioned that embryonic stem cell research is in its infancy and will probably need another two decades to arrive at the same stage as adult stem cell applications are today. "

last quote from here http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm

"The President's Criteria
On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:

The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements. "

"Can the president's plan work?
"Since 1996, federal law has prohibited the use of tax dollars to destroy human embryos. The Clinton administration, however, adopted rules saying federally funded scientists could conduct experiments on stem cell lines as long as they did not themselves participate in embryo destruction. Cells were to be derived from embryos destroyed with private money in private labs, then shipped to federally funded scientists for study. The government was on the verge of issuing its first stem cell grants when Bill Clinton left office."

President George W. Bush initially banned stem cell research funding while his administration's policy was developed. On 2001-AUG-9, President Bush decided to allow limited future stem cell funding. He said the issue was "one of the most profound of our time." He decided to approve funding because stem cell research offered immense promise for the cure of diseases and disorders. But he said it was "important that we pay attention to the moral concerns of the new frontier." "