03-04-2005 08:55									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Besides dictating what science gets done...

Except that that doesn't have anything to do with science. Funding for a supercollider in Europe won't affect the actual existence of the Higgs boson.

	03-04-2005 09:25									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Besides dictating what science gets done.

You still didn't answer my questions.

	03-04-2005 09:45									#123
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DanS That's exactly what I was thinking. What a crock of ****.

says the person who believes in trickle-down and the swiss cheese economy...

	03-04-2005 10:12									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten What a ridiculous article...

No details or an explination of why you feel that why? Perhaphes you are afraid if you give a reason then thinking people will be able to refut your logic thus you simply name call.

	03-04-2005 10:32									#125
	Support Apolyton

DanS - instead of name calling, I'll give you a challenge. Post reputable challenges to what Oerdin posted above. I'll counter. I'll bet you that over half of what was posted is exactly what conservatives have stated they want - in their own words. No Washington Times quotes, though I will accept the WSJ - I read that one.

Now if you want to argue that most of that list is good, and what will put America on the right track - fine, we will have a debate. However, name-calling when the quote includes much of what Family News in Focus, the Heritage Foundation, various Neocon groups, etc. specifically claim to champion is diningeuous at best. At it's worst, I'll start sounding like you.

	03-04-2005 10:53									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Poor USA

	03-04-2005 11:58									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: No details or an explination of why you feel that why? Perhaphes you are afraid if you give a reason then thinking people will be able to refut your logic thus you simply name call.

Nah, I just don't feel like taking the time out of my weekend to fisk a lengthy article chock full of assinine statements. Easier to just treat it with the disdain it deserves rather than waste time and energy pretending that it is worth debating.

	03-04-2005 12:03									#128
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You can't refut it so the name calling continues. Typical. It is said such reactions are the last redoubt of the losing party.

	03-04-2005 12:04									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

OK, Oerdin...

	03-04-2005 12:40									#130
	Put an end to popups!

How very Republican of you, Drake.

	03-04-2005 18:08									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo SciAm also covers the history of science and technology, should that be axed as well?

I hope not, because the religious zealots who want to have a science that suits their faith and doesn't conflict with awkward little things like observation, measurement, results, data and so on, might just possibly miss out on this quote:

" I do not detract from God. Everything that is, is from him and because of him. But [nature] is not confused and without system and as far as human knowledge has progressed it should be given a hearing. Only when it fails utterly should there be recourse to God."

He also said:

" Those who are now called authorities reached that position first by the exercise of their reason... Wherefore, if you want to hear anything more from me, give and take reason."

Sound advice for some people in this thread.


Who is this contemporary upsetter of idols ?


Why Adelard of Bath of course:

Born: 1075 a.d. in Bath, England
Died: 1160 a.d.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ns/Adelard.html

His 'Quaestiones Naturales' :

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalog...isbn=0521394716

	03-04-2005 18:31									#132
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Besides dictating what science gets done.

Dictating what science gets done has nothing to do with the science itself. Again, a debate over which country to put a test fusion reactor in has nothing to do with fusion reactions!

	03-04-2005 18:33									#133
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: SciAm devotes a single page to excerpts from articles 50, 100, and 150 years ago. Red herring. Actually, the history of the specific science/tech is included in many articles.

As such, it often actually illuminates the topic at hand, and it's often actual science (just like they explain the history of ideas in physics in physics class - but they skip anything unscientific like Aristotle).

quote: And exactly how many pages per issue are dedicated to policy matters alone?

There's an entire column, and always an article or two.

	03-04-2005 18:39									#134
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Except for the fact that the science matters diddly squat all until it gets done. It may be very all well and good that the Higgs Boson is out there or that fusion reactions occur under X conditions but until we actually do the long, hard process of getting the actual science done (the lab work, the data gathering, the long hours spent repeating the experiment, publishing, peer review, etc) then they might as well be magical pixies.

The fusion reactions don't mean a damn until we dictate what science gets done, build the reactor, and actually discover what's going on inside it.

	03-04-2005 18:42									#135
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Starchild ... magical pixie.

It's how I envisage you, with a leavening of hard science of course.

	03-04-2005 18:43									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Look at my location field for the most accurate description ever.

	03-04-2005 18:45									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Starchild Except for the fact that the science matters diddly squat all until it gets done.

If it hasn't been done yet, why the hell should I read about it? Unless your presenting the science behind the experiment...

quote: It may be very all well and good that the Higgs Boson is out there or that fusion reactions occur under X conditions but until we actually do the long, hard process of getting the actual science done (the lab work, the data gathering, the long hours spent repeating the experiment, publishing, peer review, etc) then they might as well be magical pixies.

The point being that it doesn't say anything about science at all to devote articles to the politics of it.

	03-04-2005 18:45									#138
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If I want to read about that then I'll open the Washington Post. Not SciAm. Not Discover.

	03-04-2005 19:05									#139
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It's the politics that determines what sciences gets done and it's no longer the case that scientists can just sit back and accept our funding. Your own government is eager to use bad or misleading science to support its own political aims so we're forced to fight back. That we do through our publications.

	03-04-2005 19:23									#140
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

But the POLITICS ISN'T SCIENCE. I doubt a scientific journal would have an article about ABM tests; while SciAm is for the layman, it shouldn't either.

	03-04-2005 19:37									#141
	Got spare money?

Why not? The science underlying such experiments is interesting.

	03-04-2005 19:50									#142
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I meant about ZOMFG teh ABM tests had teh FAILURES.

If I want to read a news report containing no actual science, I'll read the newspaper. Not Scientific American.

	03-04-2005 20:09									#143
	Suffering from ads?

Just a couple of small points: When I was growing up, people who pointed out that South America and Africa appeared to have once been joined where on the outs from the weight of informed science; and people who thought that the extinction of dinosaurs and other changes in species could only be explained by catastophisms were similar poo-pooed. Now we know that both disdained theories were correct.

Science is not immune from bias based upon "weight" of opinion so that it resists as implausible theories that are eventually proved to be true.

Also, that science should ignore economics to inform a politically correct solution is a disasterous approach to policy. That said, I have no problem with science ignoring a priori religion. The Catholic Church learned its lesson in this regard long ago. It's doctrine now is that the bible must be taken as allegory and, as such, the Church's doctrine is compatible with evolution.

	03-04-2005 23:32									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Post reputable challenges to what Oerdin posted above. I'll counter.

No thanks. It's not worth the time. That article provides no basis from which to begin discussions.

	04-04-2005 00:58									#145
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: If I want to read about that then I'll open the Washington Post. Not SciAm. Not Discover.

WaPo Editors aren't educated in technical matters. Why the **** should I trust them wrt the viability of ABM? SciAm is a far better place for that.

quote: As such, it often actually illuminates the topic at hand, and it's often actual science (just like they explain the history of ideas in physics in physics class - but they skip anything unscientific like Aristotle).

But it has nothing to do with the current scientific theory, besides being its precursor. If I read something that has nothing to do with current scientific theory, it's like my balls getting cut up into little pieces or something. Why not keep the history in the history book!?!?

quote: There's an entire column, and always an article or two.

IOW, you're saying that it takes up a little more than history. Still didn't answer the first question. Should the 50, 100, 150 years ago page be axed?

quote: But the POLITICS ISN'T SCIENCE. I doubt a scientific journal would have an article about ABM tests; while SciAm is for the layman, it shouldn't either.

Why? You keep repeating this without any justification.

Incidentally, the American Physical Society did produce a paper on the viability of boost-phase ABM systems, concluding that they're ****.

	04-04-2005 01:05									#146
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: If I want to read about that then I'll open the Washington Post. Not SciAm. Not Discover. WaPo Editors aren't educated in technical matters. Why the **** should I trust them wrt the viability of ABM? SciAm is a far better place for that.

How much education in technical matters do you need to report "4 out of 5 missed" or whatever?

quote: But it has nothing to do with the current scientific theory, besides being its precursor. If I read something that has nothing to do with current scientific theory, it's like my balls getting cut up into little pieces or something. Why not keep the history in the history book!?!?

Reread what I said.

quote: There's an entire column, and always an article or two.

quote: IOW, you're saying that it takes up a little more than history. Still didn't answer the first question. Should the 50, 100, 150 years ago page be axed?

Why would it be?

It takes up one page, it IS science (though obsolete science) and it's not like it detracts from anything. Bringing politics does detract, because they substitute it for science.

quote: Why? You keep repeating this without any justification.

It's a SCIENCE MAGAZINE. People read it to LEARN ABOUT SCIENCE. Not to learn about the political issues of the day.

	04-04-2005 01:14									#147
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: How much education in technical matters do you need to report "4 out of 5 missed" or whatever?

To write about the problems inherent in the system. To be able to write about technical studies wrt ABM systems with competence.

quote: It takes up one page, it IS science (though obsolete science) and it's not like it detracts from anything. Bringing politics does detract, because they substitute it for science.

"But it has nothing to do with the current scientific theory, besides being its precursor. If I read something that has nothing to do with current scientific theory, it's like my balls getting cut up into little pieces or something. Why not keep the history in the history book!?!?"

And your distraction argument doesn't make any sense.

quote: It's a SCIENCE MAGAZINE. People read it to LEARN ABOUT SCIENCE. Not to learn about the political issues of the day.

That may be what YOU do. But you're not everyone. Most people don't have an irrational need to seperate reading pop science and reading policy wrt science.

	04-04-2005 01:19									#148
	Tired of ads?

quote: But the POLITICS ISN'T SCIENCE. I doubt a scientific journal would have an article about ABM tests; while SciAm is for the layman, it shouldn't either.

Try getting Newton published in a scientific journal nowadays.

	04-04-2005 01:33									#149
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned Just a couple of small points: When I was growing up, people who pointed out that South America and Africa appeared to have once been joined where on the outs from the weight of informed science; and people who thought that the extinction of dinosaurs and other changes in species could only be explained by catastophisms were similar poo-pooed. Now we know that both disdained theories were correct.

Logical fallacy; just because these theories are now accepted by the scientific community (note: Nothing can be "proven correct" technically, though they can be refined; "proven corredt" is more of a shorthand for "accepted by the scientific community") doesn't mean that all of the hypotheses currently not accepted by the scientific community, will be accepted. The vast majority of hypothesis's are not simply accepted by absolutely ALL of science. While it is true that there were some theories that the scientific community previously thought were false, are not considered true, this doesn't mean that all hypotheses will become accepted scientific theories.

quote: Science is not immune from bias based upon "weight" of opinion so that it resists as implausible theories that are eventually proved to be true.

You are correct about bias; this is probably the major reason why religion and morality should be seperated from science. Actually, theories usually arn't proven true. Instead, it's that the old guard die out and the new scientists of the era believe the theory. A simple example of this is Black Holes: Technically no black hole has actually been "proven", but its existance is now taken for granted by all of science.


Regaring the politics in science issue: While I personally wish that politics didn't interfere with science to an upmost extent (Up to the point in believing in Technocracy, a government basically ruled by scientists ), I realize that it is a truth and thus scientists must defend and support their works.

	04-04-2005 02:30									#150
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Just a couple of small points: When I was growing up, people who pointed out that South America and Africa appeared to have once been joined where on the outs from the weight of informed science; and people who thought that the extinction of dinosaurs and other changes in species could only be explained by catastophisms were similar poo-pooed. Now we know that both disdained theories were correct.

As a Geologist I feel I have to respond to this. Continental drift/techtonics has not been poo-pooed by the scientific community by any means. Certainly not during any time which you have been alive. The puzzle like fit of certain continents was noticed and written about by geographers back in the 18th century while the theory that continents could move over long periods of time was first proposed by the German Geologist Alfred Wegener in 1915. It was highly admired and well thought of in the geological sciences community but no one could explain the mechanics of what process could move whole sections of the Earth's crust.

In WW2 the allies greatly improved their sonar technology and began making undersea maps of the world's oceans which revealed the priences of mountain ranges known as mid-ocean ridges and improved seismic montoring allowed scientists to pinpoint these ridges as a source of large amounts of volcanic activity and earthquakes. It wasn't until the 1950's that the American scientists Vine & Mathews begun trying to form a unified theory of plate tectonics. They continued working through the early 1960's until they got the help of Heiss & Deitz and the final pieces of the theory of plate tectonics were put into place.

The maps they created based upon volcanic activity along with earthquakes were almost entirely correct and they were completely correct that the process was driven by the differences in relative density between various materials. They even theorized (since confirmed) about the existance of subduction zones, deepening earthquakes as the slabs subduct, the existance of deep sea trenches, and even deep sea smokers. for geologists tectonics is about the equivalant to Newton's theory of gravity or Quantum mechanics. It's that revolutionary.

The theory has been continuosly alive and well in the scientific community since 1915 and amoung geologists everyone was trying to figure out the reason for these movements. It took 40 years but they eventually figured it out.