[Scape]

Great rant!

[Zipperfish]

Unfortuantely the pendulum is swinging the other way right now. I can't recall ever having seen less interest in science, excepting science that prolongs life (medical sceince) or accelerates death (weapons development).

But the idea of scinece creating a better world is considered somewhat naive by today's standards. The political right doesn't like science because they see it as competing with their traditional religious beliefs, and the left doesn't like it because they see it as exploiting and destroying the environment.

[sandorski]

Not really a rant, she's just being Scottish.

[2Cdo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Unfortuantely the pendulum is swinging the other way right now. I can't recall ever having seen less interest in science, excepting science that prolongs life (medical sceince) or accelerates death (weapons development).

But the idea of scinece creating a better world is considered somewhat naive by today's standards. The political right doesn't like science because they see it as competing with their traditional religious beliefs, and the left doesn't like it because they see it as exploiting and destroying the environment.

As someone who is politically right wingish, not really a practising Christian and enjoys science where do I fit into your generalization?

[Zipperfish]

2Cdo wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Unfortuantely the pendulum is swinging the other way right now. I can't recall ever having seen less interest in science, excepting science that prolongs life (medical sceince) or accelerates death (weapons development).

But the idea of scinece creating a better world is considered somewhat naive by today's standards. The political right doesn't like science because they see it as competing with their traditional religious beliefs, and the left doesn't like it because they see it as exploiting and destroying the environment.

As someone who is politically right wingish, not really a practising Christian and enjoys science where do I fit into your generalization?

You nailed it--it's a generalization. I'm a lefty and you'd have a hard time finding a bigger proponent of the oil sands. Go figger.

Just that in the 50s and 60s, being a scientist was it. Sci-fi was huge, and people really believed in the whole "science will make the world better" thing. Of course, I'm biased since I am one, kind of, but I really miss the now naive notion that if we set our minds to it, we can accomplish magnificent things.

Scientists brought this on themsleves when they started trying to scare the crap out of everybody with the DDT and the dioxins and the ozone adn teh global warming. All serious issues, don't get me wrong, but overplayed by certain individuals to the detriment of the reputation of science as a whole.

[Gunnair]

sandorski wrote:

Not really a rant, she's just being Scottish.

Chin up just a bit, Sandi.... hold there now! That's a good lad!

[andyt]

Neocons don't like science unless it has an obvious, immediate monetary benefit. Otherwise it's just airy fairy stuff, along with all that artsy fartsy crap.

[Proculation]

andyt wrote:

Neocons don't like science unless it has an obvious, immediate monetary benefit. Otherwise it's just airy fairy stuff, along with all that artsy fartsy crap.

You should say 'religious conservative' instead. Neo-conservatism is a political theory based on the fact that the world is in anarchy and that countries are always trying to get more, usually by force. Contrarily of neo liberalism that still say the world is in anarchy but that instead of using force, we should build bounds (ie. economic trades) to prevent the use of force.

[Canadian_Mind]

Jesus, I'm a fucking Neo-Con.

So why do I support national healthcare, free schooling, etc?

[Khar]

I'll be honest, I always flinch a bit when I see the word neo-con used. I actually loved reading that one Filibusters comic about one guy asking the other guy what a neo-con was, and him not knowing even after he called Harper one. It seems people prefer to use it more as a conversation stopper and a way to raise ire in others rather than actually labeling the real political or ideological motivations of a person. I know I've asked a few folks what a neo-con was when they brought it up and the general response was varied in definitions, so it makes me intensely uncomfortable seeing it used these days.

The definition I personally prefer to use, is that a neoconservative is a person who believes democracy, liberalism and human rights can and, perhaps, should be brought to other countries through economic influence or martial power. Neoliberalism, rather than being the polar opposite, is actually a way to define modern capitalist systems, which have switched from Keynesian economics to the current form of economics in the seventies. Got to love the nebulous nature of those "neo" words. Neosocialism died in France decades ago, depending on your definition, for example.

Anyways, I think some people forget that the world of science is not static, and it at times does create a few misconceptions. A few of them are unfortunate ones, like Zipperfish mentioned. A lot of things once more connected with scientific intrigue, like nationalism and warring ideologies in the space race, have also gone by the wayside or been disconnected from the continuity of scientific discovery. Back in the fifties and sixties, there were few people doing real science with a lot of money coming from grants which were easier to get. These days, everyone and their dog who wanted to do research is now in the field. More people than ever are getting advanced degrees, and those who don't end up doing research have to do some research to get those degrees. The end result is a little giggle-worthy, if it didn't irritate the crap out of a ton of scientists (and I'm betting a few of our local doctors here on CKA have their own diatribes on that). Now we've got a lot of people fighting for tinier chunks of money in grants which are harder to get. That's going to change the dynamic of science. Plus, it's a lot less of a glamorous thing to do than people think, as well.

We've got more people than ever doing research, and we haven't had the increase in funding which used to be had decades ago. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that funding simply hasn't kept up with interest and involvement of the general population in science, and it's been that way for decades now. Instead, we have had people wondering why we aren't spending NASA's budget on poor in Africa, or why that money we put into the study of organic engineering isn't being put into subsidizing organic food producers. That's right folks, I blamed some of the problems on the left too!

The problems with modern science comes down from both sides, left and right, in my opinion. To insinuate that one side or the other has had more of an impact in real differences in what is occurring in various scientific fields is drawing from some form of omniscience none of us have, and smells lightly of partisanship rather than reality. I mean no offense by saying this, since we are all biased in our own, special ways, but I've seen just as many roadblocks coming from the left as I have from the right. For every argument against the use of stem cells in research, there seeems to be a group demanding an end to animal testing. The worlds of evangelist science, advocacy science, and roadblocks come flinging from just about every direction of society. At the same time, support for various fields comes from various portions of society as well. This problem has extended well beyond any single government, back through governments of very liberal and very conservative ideologies in several countries. Trying to attribute a multi-government problem to a particular political leaning, hence, doesn't work for me. Even in the case of Canada, this problem has existed long enough to have gone through a dozen conservative and liberal governments. I think this is something which people too often place on the shoulders of the current government, without recognizing it as a long term problem. If anything, we could say that this is on the shoulders of the Liberal Party of Canada, since they did have the mandate from the voter's for a long time to fix such an issue, but we can't because it's crossed various conservative governments as well.

My point is that no one government has really taken steps to cement the foundation of scientific support in our nation. This is an ongoing issue which crosses ideologies and governments, political factors and social leanings. It has support, and roadblocks, from just about every category of the above as well.

The benefits are clear too. Today, we produce a lot more information. Knowledge is expanding at a tremendous rate. Work is peer reviewed and critiqued to death. At the same time, though, we don't have the funding to really allow the hordes of scientists in our society to create what they want. Science might interest folks, but never enough on the same type of science for people to be interested in more tax dollars going into it. It's much harder to turn out massive, broad papers like were more regular in the olden days because the funding to produce those simply isn't there, or is incredibly difficult to obtain. Is this bad? No! There are benefits to having a greater degree of study focused on the aspects which are small, on lower impact papers as well, since that is what allows a field to grow, not to mentioned the aforementioned and other positives as well.

[2Cdo]

Proculation wrote:

andyt wrote:

Neocons don't like science unless it has an obvious, immediate monetary benefit. Otherwise it's just airy fairy stuff, along with all that artsy fartsy crap.

You should say 'religious conservative' instead. Neo-conservatism is a political theory based on the fact that the world is in anarchy and that countries are always trying to get more, usually by force. Contrarily of neo liberalism that still say the world is in anarchy but that instead of using force, we should build bounds (ie. economic trades) to prevent the use of force.

Most people who use the term neo-con apply it to anyone who is even slightly to the right of their own position.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Jesus, I'm a fucking Neo-Con.

So why do I support national healthcare, free schooling, etc?

Because you're not a real neocon. Those things are anathema for neocons.

Fine, you want different term - market liberals:

From zombie economics:

Quote:

Some of them, like the Efficient Markets Hypothesis and Micro-based macroeconomics belong to the realm of technical economic theory. Others, such as privatisation and central bank independence are specific policy prescriptions, ultimately derived from these abstract ideas. Still others like the Great Moderation and Trickle-down economics, are catchphrases that incorporate a set of claims about how the economy works, or worked in the thirty years or so before the current crisis.

Together these ideas form a package.. The most neutral term I can find for the set of ideas described... is ‘market liberalism’

National healthcare and even free schooling don't have a place under that ideology. I've always called it neocon.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

The political right doesn't like science because they see it as competing with their traditional religious beliefs

No, we don't care for scientists who cloak their biases in non-scientific BS like 'consensus' and then try to pass off opinions as science.

We've no objections to actual science and we're all in favor of astronomy. Point of fact, it's the Republicans who are working hard to prolong the Space Shuttle program and to ensure that its mission is carried on by the Orion program that Obama and the Democrats want to kill.

Obama wants to end the US dominance in space exploration and research and its the GOP and all those right wingers who are working to keep us in space.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

The political right doesn't like science because they see it as competing with their traditional religious beliefs

No, we don't care for scientists who cloak their biases in non-scientific BS like 'consensus' and then try to pass off opinions as science.

We've no objections to actual science and we're all in favor of astronomy. Point of fact, it's the Republicans who are working hard to prolong the Space Shuttle program and to ensure that its mission is carried on by the Orion program that Obama and the Democrats want to kill.

Obama wants to end the US dominance in space exploration and research and its the GOP and all those right wingers who are working to keep us in space.

No, y'all only care about the Politically Expedient. That which best outrages those in the echo chamber.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

No, y'all only care about the Politically Expedient. That which best outrages those in the echo chamber.

The key issue in this is that the US is soon going to have to pay Russia $100 million per passenger to send astronauts to the International Space Station that we mostly paid for. And if the Russians get tweaked at us they can tell us to stay home.

That's just not acceptable.