More Irrational Science Funding Cuts

I rarely find fault enough to stir me to instant reply in your posts, but for our sake (and that sake of your own argument) you should present your figures on an even basis.

In short, what proportion of the weather satellite program budget does USD1 billion represent (or what is the total size of the budget)?

The NOAA is having it's budget frozen to 2010 levels, which was a 4.9 billion budget. Here's what that buys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration

The budget for 2011 was originally expected to be 5.6 billion which included the billion dollars for the new satellite (see third article link in OP for the satellite cost (1.06billion)). In other words, they were absorbing some of the cost of the billion dollar satellite from their own budget already and having the rest supplemented by the budget increase. With their funding frozen they essentially lose 700 million in funding for the satellite.

So I incorrectly said that this was being done to save 1 billion dollars when in fact it's being done to save 700 million dollars.

Thanks. Not too fussed about the actual figures, but knowing that you're talking maybe tens of percent rather than fractions of one percent is important.

I realize that you were comparing the 10 - 20% with the 0.1%, but without knowing that it was 10 - 20% it lost out in 'hitting power'.

I hear you. So then you agree that the budget cut for this satellite is irrational?

Yes, indeed.

Dang!

I was hoping you where going to enlighten us to where they are finally cutting funding to 'irrational science' and the related research that goes with it.

(The enviro nutter para sciences was my first guess/hope.)

There's almost no comment I could make that wouldn't be seen as political, and upset "the other side".

But it's either the weather sattelites... or we'd have to shelve some of the latest secret ways we can attack and kill our enemies. We need more ways of course.

There's always the billion we could save that is currently keeping the crash-landed extraterrestrial alive in that glass tank at Area 51... but we can't let that go

Truth is stranger than fiction. Here is the beginning of an article at www.sodahead.com

"The new Department of Defence Building is opening this fall and one of the most discussed aspects of the $700 million edifice isn't it's high tech security system.

It's a 10-foot winged faerie, riding on the back of a giant bullfrog that lights up and makes gurgling nature sounds. Really."

Well, there's your reason, Roger

You know, this is the nicest one of these posts has ever gone for me. I'm going to immediately quit while I'm ahead and unsubscribe. (I'm not joking so please don't be offended if I don't respond to future comments).

I completely agree with you Roger. Weather satellite and atmospheric sciences in general is one of the great investment success stories. It is a crime that these programs have been cut to the point that they will break.

[Forgive me Roger if my next opinion ruins your happy feeling about this thread.]

But lets get a little real here. What is the most popular mantra of a politician's campaign today; Science, Science, Science? No. The mantra spouted by politicians today is Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. But certainly not government sector jobs like the people at NOAA or NASA. No they want the government to do things that will promote private sector jobs. Clearly spending a billion public dollars on a weather satellite upgrade program will save the country trillions of dollars in lost productivity and disaster repairs. However, many people already associate productivity gains as a synonym for job layoffs. I would not be surprised if many of these people think that a loss in productivity would mean more jobs and not less. Also the jobs created by the aftermath of a natural disaster are for the most part not "wasteful, useless" government employee jobs, they're private sector jobs in construction and insurance. So why would a politician want to spend a billion dollars of taxpayer money that will apparently prevent trillions of dollars of new jobs to be created.

We both know that my last statement is a construct of poor logic. But I'm certain several politicians believe this.

But the weather bird doesn't earn the big rich politician supporters any money like making bombs and jet fighters do so one has to go, guess which one?

Covariances and Linear Predictability of the North Atlantic Ocean.

Carl Wunsch

Introduction

The ability to predict future climate is high on the agenda of many scientists. Claims that climate should be predictable on some time-scale often rest upon the assumption that the long oceanic time-scales would provide much of the memory of the system-the atmosphere being assumed to lack such memory.

At the present time, more specifically, there is wide community interest-fueled in part by substantial government funding-

Like to comment Roger.

Regards JD.

PS. February 25, 2011

Regards JD

Okay, I've read the articles, including this one: http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=1128246956 that was linked-to in the POPSCI article.

Here's what I get from all this:

1. NOAA in particular, and to a lesser extent NASA and it's facilities like Goddard, are worried about budget cuts (as are most federal agencies). As a way of defending their turf they announce that a key program must be killed [in this case the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS)], rather than trimming some fat elsewhere in their budget. The idea being that everyone will get excited and call their congressman to make sure there is special funding for NOAA's JPSS satellite system.

2. JPSS was initially intended to address scientific issues about climate change, rather than day-to-day weather monitoring and forecasting. But now that its funding is threatened, it is being touted as the next satellite system to replace aging weather satellites.

3. The funding for the Air Force's weather satellites is not on the chopping block.

4. A NOAA/NASA satellite called NPP which is a preliminary satellite to the climate-studying National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) -- now renamed as JPSS -- is still on schedule for launch in October.

5. NOAA and NASA will continue to have access to Air Force satellite data, as well as their own existing weather satellite data and European weather satellite data.

6. I didn't see any discussion in any of these articles that said funding for current or future 'weather' -- as opposed to 'climate change' -- satellites was being cut.

Everything you say is based on emotion. I look forward to feeding you your own head.

After reading these replies I'd say the jury is out on the question of whether reductions in science funding at the Federal level will translate into increased harm to people from extreme weather events. But what seems quite likely to me is that harmful effects of extreme weather will have a disproportionate negative effect on our politically "red" states. Which, by the way are most likely to show the antitax/small government political attitudes which drive cuts in federal government programs. Ironic, isn't it?

Antiscience attitude in the U.S.? I think there is some. Science often finds itself in conflict with religious beliefs or environmentalists who see the environmental negatives some new science driven activities bring along with them. But as I see it the major problem the U.S. has with science is ignorance and the general invisibility of scientific benefits to our society.

100 years ago each advance of science was viewed as a miracle. Now we take these new discoveries and the achievements they enable for granted. Like Moores law and semiconductor technology. They'll just happen automatically. We need not be concerned. Like the food that comes from the supermarket, the water that comes out of the faucet, the electricity out of the plug, and a few other routine necessities of life. The people on Fox News and MSNBC will tell us what to worry about.

Ed Weldon

Roger,

Let me address your claim head on rather than get side tracked with the details of something unrelated (in my opinion).

In the last several post/blogs you started you have claimed (more or less directly) that there is an anti-science sentiment in the US.

However, I contend that you have failed to prove that claim. The examples you have cited have been canceled or curtailed for political reasons and not because there is an active disdain or fear of science.

Frankly, I can find no evidence that there is any conspiracy of any magnitude that targets science. This is not the Medieval ages. If you have something of substance that shows such a conspiracy, lay out that case and stick to your original claim rather than getting sidetracked on the details of a specific project.

There is plenty of evidence to show ignorance of science, but nothing to demonstrate true anti-science such as the days when science and the "church" we at odds with each other. There is also plenty of evidence to support the claim of politics, as politics is in no way limited to science, but infests all nature of the humanities without prejudice. However, I still find no evidence of a broad conspiracy against science.

It is my personal opinion that if you want to pose an opinionated argument for or against a scientific project you would be better served if you argue the merits or demerits of the project rather than trying to attack society at large.

If you want to pose an argument that there is a conspiracy against science, then you need to not only cite examples, but show how these tick and tie together toward a larger ulterior purpose by connecting the dots.

I don't think there is an anti-science conspiracy. I think your point that there is considerable scientific ignorance is well taken. But I think that there is a measure of willful ignorance at work here. People often have a tendency to see whatever it is that they do as the result of wise choices. If your work involves heavy labor then you may tend to take pride in your physical strength, and view people in less physically demanding lines of work as sissies. If you write computer code you may tend to think that your work is more important to society than the guy who picks up the garbage. If you are an artist you may tend to think that all that physical labor and critical thinking is a waste of time, since your goal is to express your innermost feelings. I think it is natural for many people to want to have some self respect, and part of that is to believe that what they do with their time is important.

When this goes beyond maintaining self respect and turns to denigrating others is where the problem lies. If you are 'smart' then learning science is easier for you than it is for others with less brain power. If you are one of those folks with less brains who gave up on science you can either swallow your 'failure', or you can develop a rationalization that science is really not all that important, and maybe even a bad thing. So on that level I'd say it's more of an ignorance of science and the anti-science attitude often accompanies that ignorance than an actual conspiracy.

Some pretty harsh stuff there kramarat. Actually I read it in the tone of Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, when he speaks his Ezekiel quote prior to poppin a cap.

But... don't you consider yourself a scientist? You don't believe engineers to be scientists?

And by the way.... isn't there sort of an unspoken rule to leave words like tea party, republicans, etc, out of CR4? I'd hate to see what that could lead to.

Oh, I think when a political thread pops up, no words are off limits.

I'm a painter......................I have no time for science..............it bores me. _{Man I'm an idiot}.

I'd just like to see Roger settle down a little bit. He's starting to remind me of another brilliant thinker.

It's a thin line between genius and madness.

Point taken... I have my own "favorite" nemesis people on here, for various reasons. To each his own. But pleeeease let's keep on trying to not allow any political threads to pop up... nor react when they do. It makes me cringe. One of the reasons I come here is as a sanctuary from all that crap, that pretty much finds it's way into every nook and cranny of the rest of the internet

I agree, for the most part. But if a political thread does pop up, like this one, I think it should be allowed...............as well as any comments that anyone has.

I try to keep my politics to myself on here, but if a door is opened, what the heck? I'll say my piece. No harm, no foul, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with politics. Politically speaking, my personal friends are all over the map, we still like each other.

What do you mean, "The rest of the internet"?

Are there other sites?

Of course there's a rest of the internet. There's a trout fishing forum!

I'm going to pretend I didn't read that. This is plenty. Anymore, and I could be looking at divorce....................or at least being slapped upside the head repeatedly by the wife.

After my last post, I got to thinking about why my friends and I get along so well, regardless of religious or political affiliation.................................it's beer.....................we all love beer. Religion and politics take up a very small space in the back seat.

One more thing. I've conceded the fact that roger is far more intelligent than me.

As long as he continues to treat us like mindless trolls, I will make it my personal mission to b*tch slap him back into his little dark corner.

We are not your enemies Rog. We are the closest things to friends that you've got.

Hilarious story! Loved it, and will be repeating it!

But as far as "It doesn't have to become a battle." Well I appreciate your idealistic thinking. I'm often accused of that myself. BUT... yes, it doesn't have to become a battle... but it will. That's a simple truth. There's a reason those two topics have had the reputation they do ... FOR GENERATIONS, IF NOT CENTURIES. They do in fact incite a battle. Like it or not. It's a proven fact, despite what we wish was true. And particularly with the personal chemistries we have on CR4?? Holy cow!

I will respectfully disagree with your suggestion and ask that please, no one, ever start discussions of politics or religion on this engineering website. I prefer calm, respectful and intellectual discussions. We can rarely get that when discussing a bolt. There are definitely other forums where anyone and everyone is free to discuss those subjects to their heart's content. Amen to that.

And if I were you, I wouldn't post anonymously on this one. That joke was too good!

I will respectfully disagree with your suggestion and ask that please, no one, ever start discussions of politics or religion on this engineering website.
Feel free to unsubscribe or otherwise ignore any thread that offends your delicate sensibilities
politics & religion are part of life & may be relevant
the anonymous coward bloggers regularly start threads with political components

there are no rules only guidelines...

My delicate sensibilities?? Now why do you have to go and be an insulting condesending @hole garthh?

My statement was respectful to all concerned. Is it really that difficult for you to be the same?

And since you're evidently a beginner here on CR4, I'll also mention that it's against CR4 Rules. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Take this thread for instance

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/17024#newcomments

which is on the wireless technology blog,

a thread designed to turn political, contrary to stated policy

we are here as a side show to fill in the bottom right corner of GS Newsletters

we are content

I accept the nature of this place, do you?

I find it far more condescending, for a member to try to impose their view of some imaginary forum, instead of the one we are on

apparently you've over looked the the basic information posted under everyone's user names...

That didn't make a whole lot of sense. You're starting to babble. Anyway, if you're really and truly ignorant, of the posted RULES OF CR4, I'll go ahead and copy rule #5 and rule #10. But if you feel so powerful, privileged and elite that you feel entitled to continue with actually inciting people to break the most basic of rules, we'll just deal with that in whatever way is necessary. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Perhaps you feel you are untouchable?

5. Please stay on topic. Posts and comments should be of a technical nature and involve some aspect of engineering, science or technology. If you delve into other topical areas (business, entertainment, sports, etc.), please do your best to tie them back to one of CR4's main focal points. Posts focusing on politics or religion will probably be removed. There are plenty of places on the Web to talk about politics or religion. CR4 isn't one of them. Likewise, strong political and religious sentiments should be kept out of profiles, signatures and other content.

10. CR4 is a voluntary-use community. Only the moderators are required to be here, and only the moderators have an unlimited right to be here. From time to time, people leave CR4 of their own volition or because they have been removed for violating the site rules.

Well you have certainly demonstrated your point in the second part;

"I prefer calm, respectful and intellectual discussions. We can rarely get that when discussing a bolt".

It seems to be at odds with the first part.

Support your good old boy posse. Of course. Certainly you have nothing like this to say to him. It's to be expected.

And just exactly why is that, hm? Nothing to say to him about blatantly inciting others to break the CR4 rules that you all are so often quoting? Nothing at all? No mention of the actual issue. None at all. But of course put in a jab at me, who is in the right by the way. But you just gotta stick with your boys no matter what. It's absolutely irrelevant to your little group, who is in the right.

You people are a joke. Like caricatures of a little boys bully gang, all rough and tough because you're on the internet, with no consequences to be paid. And so absurdly predictable. I was wondering who would be the first to pile on. Figures it'd be you. Who else joins in next?

Not at all. I operate on post by post and comment by comment.

It just seemed ironic that a post centered on 'rational argument' would (again) invoke a dummy spit.

I'm well aware of what's posted as policy

I can also observe the reality of our little goat rodeo

CR$ would be an unusual organization if the 2 matched up exactly

I am privileged, privileged to have this most entertaining & educational place

I love that your idea of civilized discourse is to lash out at 34.5, for making an observation about your less than civilized behaviour

I'm back. I guess that was a bomb, but I'm not sure it was a joke.

Roger seems to take cuts to anything science related as a personal attack on him. As well as any post that dares to disagree with his position. Fortunately, he has decided to run away from this thread before anyone got the chance. Leaving behind an abandoned little puppy of a thread, where, I guess, anyone can talk about anything.

I intentionally removed myself from here for a couple of days.........................got myself off on a little bender.

Yeah, politics will never be eliminated from here................it's impossible. Politics touches, (unfortunately), on just about every aspect of our lives now. Anything regarding science, science funding, nuclear power, coal, oil, climate change, wind power, space, light bulbs...........................on and on, that would be considered engineering subjects, now include politics...........Not because we insist on injecting politics into engineering subjects................It's because politicians have insisted on injecting themselves into everything we touch or do, engineers or not.

As far as keeping anything political from CR4, a good place for anyone to start, would be to join the fight to scale back the government's role in every aspect of our lives. If we can get them cut down to the size they should be, both in physical size and influence, politics just won't come up as often................anywhere.

Just got caught up. A couple of thoughts.

Thought #1 - (PAs)

What is going on here? I thought it was understood that I'm to be the subject of the personal attacks in my threads. Look at Kramarat, he gets it, he both compared me to the unabomber and threatened to feed me my own head. He never lost focus. Let's keep our heads in the game. I'm looking at you Garthh.

Thought #2 - (For AH and others)

I wrote like a 10,000 page two part blog that I've referenced several times that states my belief that the Antiscience is Existentialism run amok and that we are all culpable, including myself, because it permeates our culture. I argue that existentialism loathes abstraction and this is being taken to it's inevitable extreme conclusion by a gradual and subtle marginalization of science. I have as a conclusion argued that the only way to fight this growing Antiscience sentiment that permeates all our society (including the scientific community) is to reevaluate our existentialist values.

Now, I don't expect people to accept what is essentially a qualitative argument if they don't want to. But please stop mischaracterizing it. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested any type of anti-science conspiracy. If a person has a fear of water because at 2 years old they had a near drowning experience that they don't remember, is that person hatching a "conspiracy" against water? Of course not, they have an unconscious aversion due to a traumatic event. If you're going to willfully misunderstand what I mean when I use the term "Antiscience", then please just don't comment.

Thought #3- (and now for something completely different)

I agree with Brave Sir Robin that all irrational funding should be cut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O8GFtspk9U&feature=fvwrel

Thought #4-

USBPort has made several errors in his claims he made, which are easily checked by actually reading the links, which apparently very few actually did.

Take his claim #6 - I didn't see any discussion in any of these articles that said funding for current or future 'weather' -- as opposed to 'climate change' -- satellites was being cut.

Which is an amazing claim given literally the fourth sentence of the first link I provided says: These satellites are "the backbone" of any forecast beyond a couple of days.

So seriously, I know people have a political interest here and that's fine, but please don't claim to have read the links when you obviously haven't.

Thought #5-

If I create a thread, and then I unsubscribe, I don't consider any comments made on that thread about me as "behind my back". I just wanted to be clear about that because I have in the past expressed anger at being talked about "behind my back", which I view as cowardly. I just want to be clear that my unsubscribing, in my own opinion, doesn't end my involvement, it just gives me a break if I need one. Fair is fair.

Interesting - not the personal agenda / yawn - but this concept of "irrational (science project) funding".

Perhaps make a list of what you judge 'irrational' and we can discuss that?

I thought I had with my OP.

I'm sorry; I took your OP to be about 'irrational cuts' to 'rational science'.

This would be like the antithesis; 'rational cuts' to 'irrational science'

Which is what I thought Brave SR was suggesting.

You do realize the whole "irrational science" thing was just a joke, right?

However it's an interesting question. What is promoted as science which is actually "irrational"?

I find much of what Stephen Hawking has said for the last 15 years as pseudo-science rubbish. Especially his latest claim: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator). I also find the the whole "Many Worlds" theory absolute rank speculation.

Richard Dawkins sickens me. To me he's the worst kind of dumb, the kind that thinks their prejudices are insights (looking forward to having that thrown back at me). The one thing you guys here never seem to grasp is I despise "smart dumb" much more than ignorance. The fact that so many scientists are seduced by Dawkin's nonsense bothered me so deeply that it led me to my existentialism gone overboard explanation of what's going on in the world (which no one seems to believe but is dead on correct). Much of what Dawkins says is anti-abstraction to an absurd degree. His understanding of altruism in the evolutionary sense is naive to the point of almost mentally challenged. Anytime I think about his popularity among my peers a part of me despairs.

String Theory is another example, although interesting, is best summarized by this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756 and needs to make some measureable predictions. Simply fitting a theory to available data is not science. I'm not saying String Theory is wrong, I just think this hand waving that it "can't be tested" is nonsense and not enough effort is being spent to develop experiments that could test it.

There are others, but that will do for now.

Interesting. Another 'string' to this is when 'celebrity' actually holds back investigation.

For instance, Newtons pronouncements on powered flight that luckily the Wright brothers had never heard.

There are thousands, but that will do for now.

You Wrote:"Another 'string' to this is when 'celebrity' actually holds back investigation."

I agree. I think Stephen Hawkin's celebrity has been awful for him. He did brilliant work in the 1970s and then by the 1990's, after the success of his excellent book, he started to really wade into pseudoscience nonsense.

Richard Dawkins is a learned man, not "dumb", which signifies one as being mute or of lower intellect, which obviously Richard Dawkins posses none of those attributes.

You may disagree with another person's opinions or findings, but ad hominem attacks simply dilute your own standing as an intellectual. Why would you do this?

You wrote, "Simply fitting a theory to available data is not science."

Actually, it is called hypothesis and it is an integral part of science. You are wrong.

The fact that the hypothesis is as yet unprovable does not make it witchcraft or "dumb". Unless you have significant evidence that the purpose of the creation of this hypothesis is deceitful, you can't call it non-science. However, I can't pin down what your claim on string theory is. On one sentence you call it non-science. Then bark about others hand waving that it is not testable saying that is nonsense.

I think you may have a coherent point, but you are struggling to make it clear.

No AH, Richard Dawkins is dumb. Just because somebody is well informed doesn't make them smart. I don't call Dawkins dumb because I disagree with him, I disagree with lots of people. I call Dawkins dumb because I've read him. His arguments are simplistic and naive. The conclusions he draws are often poorly constructed and he too often resorts to irony when his positions are attack. Trust me, he's dumb. There are dumb people in the world, it's a fact, and he's one of them.Don't get me wrong, he's very clever. But clever and smart are two different things.

As for your comment about hypothesis, whatever, now your just trying to argue with me. Obviously you're right it's hypothesis and no that doesn't make it science anymore than a femur is a human being.

I don't know why I continue to get sucked into believing you're trying to engage me on an honest level. Of all the people here, you're the one who actually gets to me because I'm stupid enough to fall for it everytime. I think it's because I really liked your name when I first met you (thought it was clever) and somehow that continues to cloud my judgment.

I don't know why I continue to get sucked into believing you're trying to engage me on an honest level. Of all the people here, you're the one who actually gets to me because I'm stupid enough to fall for it everytime. I think it's because I really liked your name when I first met you (thought it was clever) and somehow that continues to cloud my judgment.

WOW!! Now that's sad.

I am not trying to argue with for argument's sake, Roger.

The issue that I am trying to point out is that for someone that cherishes science and the scientific method you employ an awful lot of emotional argument to your statements. Passion is one thing, but letting the argument turn emotional does not help your cause.

For example, attacking people personally because you have cause to believe they are wrong does nothing (in my mind) to lend credibility to your argument.

It is enough to state that someone's opinions or findings are erroneous or poorly framed (even point out specifics where possible). You do not need to bring up someone's IQ, which is irrelevant to the argument (I have seen a few individuals with below normal IQ make some wise remarks).

Where do you feel I am trying to engage you on a dishonest level? And you are not stupid, Roger.

So are you saying there is no one in the world who you've said to yourself "that guy/gal is a dummy?". Is everybody equally smart in your world?

I ask because you make the false claim that I label people who disagree with me as dumb, but I at least hope you don't think I think you're dumb, because I don't. Stubborn? Maybe, but so am I.

I've read Dawkins, watched Dawkins, agree with Dawkin's regarding some things, disagree on others. I find Dawkins dumb. I don't find him dumb because he holds a contrary view. I find Dawkins dumb because I see obvious gaping holes in his thinking.

In fact, it is because I cherish science that I despise Dawkins. There is nothing science about what he does. He's a writer posing as a scientist, not a scientist.

I resemble stubborn. ;-)

You wrote, "So are you saying there is no one in the world who you've said to yourself "that guy/gal is a dummy?". Is everybody equally smart in your world?"

Of course I have called people such names and more. It is almost always rhetoric.

However, when framing an argument there is no place for ad hominem attacks.

There really is no place to demean anyone anywhere, but who among us is not without fault? So, the best we can do is try to minimize those faults and keep trying to improve ourselves.

At your core you are a passionate and challenging person. I admire that and look forward to the discussions and arguments we pose. I learn new things and find it stimulating. Not because we agree, but because you challenge my positions and thought process. From my perspective you would become much more effective if you funneled your passion into the subject rather than at individuals. You would find your positions would be far less vulnerable and more compelling.

Let's not kid ourselves, the "you're great but you'd be much better it..." is itself an ad hominem attack.

Regardless of what you are trying to tell me, I do not have to pretend someone who I find obnoxious, narrowminded, obvious and predicable and incredibly prejudiced (I'm talking Richard Dawkins) is anything other than a dummy.

Basically you are making up the relation "if someone disagrees with Roger, Roger thinks they're dumb" and then lecturing me on it. It's a joke. There are countless examples of me disagreeing with people in CR4 and not saying it was cause they were dumb.

Actually, I would be interested to know why you think Dawkins isn't dumb. I've read several of his books, tell me the concepts he relates that you find insightful. Or is it just because he has a good University position that he couldn't possibly be dumb? Is it because many people believe he isn't dumb? (Intelligent by popular affirmation?). What is your reasoning that my statement, after reading and watching him, that he is a dummy, is so off base that it must originate from my disagreeing with him (which is funny cause I agree with him more than I disagree with him)?

You wrote, "Let's not kid ourselves, the "you're great but you'd be much better it..." is itself an ad hominem attack."

Bull. I am trying to give you honest advice as a friend, yet you see every criticism as an attack on your personal character. Actually, it is constructive criticism from my heart, not something to make you feel bad.

I see you as a better person that what you come across in your posts, otherwise I would not waste 10 seconds on you.

You wrote, "Actually, I would be interested to know why you think Dawkins isn't dumb."

I don't know him personally and I have not reviewed his work. The fact that he holds advanced degrees from accredited universities among other works tells me that he probably has at least above average IQ (assuming that Alzheimer's or some other condition has not set in). I will give him the benefit of the doubt based on those credentials and the fact the the definition of "dumb" (as per the dictionary) does not fit (regardless of his opinions or view).

If he was really dumb (sub-normal IQ), then charges of fraud would be rampant and the credibility of the institutions that support him would be in the toilet.

Therefore, I am challenging your use and definition of the word "dumb" as I do not believe it is applicable and your use substantiates my claim that you tend to get emotionally vested in the argument and slip to personal attacks - whether you see it as that or not.

Why can't you see it that way and say, yes, the term dumb is really not correct in this instance and move on? Is "stubborn" serving your best interest here?

None of the above is meant to be hostile to you personally. If you have a disagreement with me on this then state it on academic terms.

You unjustly attack my conclusions as "emotional" because you don't agree with them. Plain and simple.

You haven't even read Dawkins and you insist he can't possibly be dumb because he has a degree? As if everyone with a ph.d. was smart?. Perhaps you aren't aware that degree level has more to do with economic background than it does I.Q. Or maybe you just like to disagree with me.

Since it's apparent you intend to just attack me rather than have a debate, or have a debate with attacks on me peppered throughout, lets just cut this off, its a waste of my time if you can't keep it above the belt.

You wrote, "You unjustly attack my conclusions as "emotional" because you don't agree with them. Plain and simple."

No, just read your own posts.

Roger, Roger, Roger..............Do you view your entire existence as a series of confrontations and personal attacks, or is it just here?

I've been in arguments with Garthh, 34.5, AH.........................too many to mention or remember. Sure they pop up, but afterwards, they're just water under the bridge......................nobody cares.

At the end of the day, I think all of us realize that we're here more for the fun and camaraderie than for fights.

You continue to refer to personal attacks on you...................the perpetual victim.

Since none of us know each other personally, but only by the words that spew from our finger tips, are not personal attacks impossible?

Words of disagreement become personal attacks only when you give them that designation. The rest of us know that. The sooner you realize it, the sooner you can stop wasting your time here and start enjoying yourself.

Heck, most of us are just a bunch of kids trapped in grown up bodies, kicking around in the dust of a digital schoolyard, that have learned a thing or two during the course of our lives, and are willing to share them. Sometimes we get along, sometimes we don't.......................most of us remain friends, regardless.

If always agreeing was a rule, none of us would be here.

Maybe you should contact admin directly, and ask them what the point of CR4 is.

I can assure you that the answer won't be, that it is a personal proving ground for Doctor Roger Pink..........................or anyone else, for that matter.

I have seen some Dawkins videos that might strike some viewers as unctuous, condescending, etc. However, for the most part, I am inclined to agree with him, even if he is more an expositor than originator of evolutionary science. Call him "dumb" if you want, but please provide examples.

By calling him "dumb," you seem to be at least as Antiscience as the bugbears against which you rail.

Richard Dawkins is nothing more than a common zealot. Even his story is a cliche. He was raised religious and for a time believed in the concept that the order observed in nature must be the result of a supreme plan (similar but different idea from creationism), which is of course is absurd. When he understood evolution thoroughly he realized that it could account for the order found in nature, therefore, being stupid, he did what all stupid people do (by definition), he made the same mistake but the other way rather than learning from his mistake (of trying to prove or disprove god).

Since the observed order could be explained by evolution, god must not exist. Of course neither is correct. One can not disprove god anymore than one can prove god. Unsatisfied with his own conversion, which I would have no issue with, he began proselytizing. Dawkins labelled any spiritual path other than his own as essentially evil and believes the world would be a better place without religion. In other words, he's an Atheist Fundamentalist.

Still not enough though to call a man stupid

That still wouldn't be enough to convince me that he's stupid though. People are entitled to blind spots. However his crowning achievement, The Selfish Gene, is at it's core pseudoscience nonsense. For instance in his book the selfish gene dawkins supports the Gene-centered point of view. Namely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

The problem is it assigns purpose where there isn't any. Biology is just chemistry and evolution is just a complicated way of an extremely complexed chemical reaction (organisms) to take the path of least resistance. To put it more succinctly, there is no such thing as a "superior combination of genes". That is just the ego of man putting himself at the center of the universe again. If a meteorite were to smash into the earth tomorrow and only bacteria survived, would that make bacteria the pinnacle of evolution? Of course not. Also his explanations in the book are simplistic.

Another Example

Dawkins also feels overpopulation is a problem. This is always a favorite of mine. In the US, we take corn and turn it into fuel for our cars, then tell third world countries to stop having babies because there isn't enough food. We throw away as much food in the US as we consume. We have enough arable land to support 10 times the worlds current population at least, so on what does he base this idea that overpopulation is a problem?

Why is Dawkins Stupid?

Dawkins always has the facts. For that he's commendable. Sometimes he often even makes wise conclusions (advocating extending some basic human rights to apes). However too many times he makes conclusions that scientifically cannot be made, and presents those conclusion as scientific because they came from a scientist.

Not everything said by a scientist is science and too often he forgets this.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on the other hand is smart, here you can see the difference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ

This topic may be difficult to discuss without running afoul of local policies against religious/political questions. Nonetheless, I hope we can try to address some issues without being blown away.

You say, "He [Dawkins] was raised religious and for a time believed in the concept that the order observed in nature must be the result of a supreme plan (similar but different idea from creationism), which is of course is absurd." While I think that the "Argument from Design" is wrong, I do not believe it is absurd. Indeed, if I were living in William Paley's time, I would probably accept the argument, which seems plausible (for a while).

Even if evolution can account for nature's order, that might remove the necessity of positing a God for that reason, but it could still leave open the existence of a God on other grounds. (Which could be debated independently.)

I don't blame him for believing in what is essentially a type of creationism (which is absurd statistically and biochemically) as a child. To make the same mistake the opposite way when he learned the science is a bit much. To make it yet again with is gene interpretation of evolution is now a trend of overreaching.

Dawkins is very well read and well spoken. Dawkins has at his disposal many facts through reading and study. Yet Dawkins makes the same mistakes over and over again, he overreaches. He seems to fundamentally not understand the limitations of science. Actually let me rephrase that. He seems to be unable to distinguish his own conjectures/beliefs from empirical science.

Now look, I don't support the idea of creationism, not for a second. But watch this short interview with Ben Stein (keeping in mind that if I was present during the interview I would have jumped in to defend Dawkins).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

He doesn't come off well, right? That's because, as misguided as Ben Stein is, he's using Dawkins' lack of empirical arguments against him. This is in spite of the fact that he is (Stein) unquestionably on the wrong side of this issue (evolution vs. creationism). The fact that he gets Dawkins to suggest a type of intelligent design (intelligent alien based) demonstrates that Dawkins himself doesn't understand the reason intelligent design is impossible (a statistical improbability). By the way, I hate the end of this video and do not endorse what Stein is saying. I don't believe in a Christian's right to attack an atheists faith anymore than I believe an atheist has the right to attack a Christians's faith.

I agree that Dawkins has occasionally been sandbagged by out-of-the-blue nonsense questions. I suspect that if he mentioned alien-based design, it was a parody or satire rather than anything he would actually deem possible.

My opinion of Ben Stein is unprintable.

I say that's fair. I don't expect everyone to share my opinion of Dawkins, I meant only to defend my position.

When I look at Dawkins I see prejudice. I look at Dawkins and I see someone who doesn't use empiricism to learn, but someone who uses empiricism to reinforce his own beliefs or condemn others beliefs. I love science because it can prove me wrong no matter how right I feel. Dawkins loves science because it can prove you wrong no matter how right you feel. He too often appeals to the base emotions of scientists and intellectuals. The fears and insecurities of scientists.

Give me a Neil deGrasse Tyson over a Dawkins any day. Neil deGrasse Tyson is everything that Dawkins isn't. He's insightful, pragmatic, empirical, rarely overreaches, and appeals to the best emotions of scientists. The curiosity and wonder of scientists.

I understand others may not share my view, but I hope it is understood now that when I call him stupid, it is not because he believes differently than myself on a particular issue, in fact I agree with his position on many things. I just find him unimaginative, intellectually crude, and base.

That said, Dawkins is an emeritus fellow at Oxford University and has been honored by his peers numerous times, so I'm positive he couldn't care less (and shouldn't).

You seem incredibly 'hot' about this whole 'hero/anti-hero' ............ celebrity thing.

It's only the looking - the 'acknowledgment of their existence' - that makes "celebrity" - quit and they disappear.

Hot is not the correct word. It's hard to convey emotion through text. Basically imagine I was trying to convince you that cheeseburgers were delicious and spinach tasted terrible. You wouldn't think I expected you to agree (though you should), I would just be explaining how I felt. Also you wouldn't think I was angry as much as enthusiastic in my reasoning. That's pretty much the tone of these posts.

It's not a hero nor antihero thing. These leading scientists (Dawkins and Tyson and others) shape the thoughts of other academics. When cults of personalities form dangerous things can happen.

How many people quote Nietzsche without reading one of his books under the presumption he represents intellectualism? How many people defend Dawkins without reading him under the presumption he represents science?

So my posts are merely my saying "this is why I feel this way".

I agree 'hot' is the wrong word if you interpret it as in "hot under the collar", so anger. But that's pretty remote from current use. I.e. quite close to "enthusiastic".

I wasn't suggesting that you're going to start blowing people up................I hope not anyway.

Your blogs and threads are purely political. The rage that you feel, and and the subsequent very long rambling writings that you engage in, in an attempt to identify your enemy, after it has been pointed out many times, that there is no, "Antiscience", whether it stems from existentialism run amok, or anything else, compounded by the fact, that in your blogs, you have decided to completely delete any posts that disagree with your position, to me, is reason for concern.

Your blogs and threads have become games to you. It seems you'd prefer to write by yourself, for yourself..................a writer with an audience of one, where everything written is not only profound, but absolutely correct.

My comparison wasn't a personal attack. It was an observation, that was based on a few parallels that seem to be cropping up.

My first comment, that I admitted, made no sense, stemmed from my attempting to get a weeks worth of beer and assorted other drinks into me, after a solid eight days with none. Bad idea. I lost track of my off switch. Typically, about 4-5 beers a day is good. Some would consider that alcoholism..............but those people are usually in therapy, and dosed up on anti-depressants.

Help me understand...

You wrote, "...Antiscience is Existentialism run amok..."

My understanding of existentialism is: "A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible entity determining their own development through the acts of free will.

How does acting independently and freely on one owns behalf initiate a disdain for or a disregard for or a bias against science?

Existentialism tends to focus on the subjective touchy-feely stuff like emotions or a state of being, not factual knowledge, logic, or science.

My second point is that there are two roads toward acting against something or some one. One is a conscious effort to oppose that thing or one. If multiple people are working toward the same goal, then they conspire - thus a conspiracy is born. I.e., cabal.

The second road is one of subconscious effort where one is unaware of a bias they have toward a thing or person. If multiple people are biased against that same thing or person, then it is a form of groupthink that drives the behavior.

Hi AH,

I'm assuming an honest attempt here on your part to understand where I'm coming from, therefore please read The Antiscience Part I and The Antiscience Part II. Ignore the comments on the blogs or read them after reading the two parts as they drag it off topic and misunderstand what I was writing. You have to read them both entries (I and II) to understand my argument completely, but if you do, it should become clear. Whether you agree with that argument or not after reading it is another story. It's a lot of reading I know, but I think it's cogent. If you have any questions after reading, post them here and I will eagerly address them.

I'm referring you to these two blogs because they are precisely written to answer your question "How does acting independently and freely on one owns behalf initiate a disdain for or a disregard for or a bias against science?"

Just please notice one thing. In the beginning of the two part series, I present it as "us against them" but in the end of the two blog series I say that "we are all the problem" meaning extreme existentialism exists in all of us and we need to turn inward first to begin to stop the Antiscience. Take for instance this passage towards the end of the Antiscience Part II:

Indeed, Science itself is infested with Existential idealisms and prejudices, rotting us from within as we attempt to come to terms without. Too many scientists dream of being the next Einstein, a revolutionary who overturned the scientific "establishment" rather than simply being happy doing their part to promote discovery. Scientists often use of technological progress as scientific justification rather than the more truthful "advancement of knowledge". Scientists accepting the blame for failing to articulate science better to a mathematically illiterate public. The irrational overreliance of the heuristic, Occam 's razor, and its ill advised extension to non-scientific topics. No, scientists are not immune to Existentialism, how could we be?

Roger

When I get some free time I will re-read that and get back to you.

it's great to see Mr Pink back

he knows stuff & occasionally he can explain it to us mere mortals in a way that rings true

eventually we may just get to the heart of the matter

moving beyond governance by sound byte or popularity contest

Dr. Pink, and I'm glad to see you've still got some hate left for me Garthh, you're a peach.

No hate whatsoever

preceding or trailing alphabet soup do not impress in & of themselves

nor do theatrics...

I couldn't care less. I'm just asking that if you're going to use a formal reference for me, use the correct one.

You Wrote:"No hate whatsoever"

Are you kidding me? A day doesn't go by that you don't attack someone. And talk about theatrics...my god man, you are like Lawrence Olivier sometimes. But hey, you'll never admit it and that's cool. I just hope you don't kid yourself about these things. If AH gets to me the most, then you're the one that gets to me the least. You are the worst kind of obvious.

...grrrrrrrrrarthh!

I couldn't care less. I'm just asking that if you're going to use a formal reference for me, use the correct one.

I'll have to stick with Roger, Mighty Penguin Hunter then... see you own words here

I may be dramatic from time to time, _{[kettle, hello]}

what has that got to do with hate?

It's been brought to my attention that dumb means "disabled". I honestly thought this was an archaic usage of the word "dumb" and that dumb≡stupid. Since I am not sure now (could it be an American / British distinction?) about the modern definition of dumb...

I want to apologize to anyone I might have offended in it's usage. For Americans, the term retarded indicates disabled, and I would not use it to describe a person no matter how stupid I thought they were. It would be offensive. What I'm hearing is that dumb is similar to retarded in its meaning. Therefore I retract all statements I made using the word dumb. Please replace "dumb" with "stupid" to understand my meaning. In the future I will be more careful in my usage of the word dumb.

Roger

Where should I start?

I guess I'll start with CR4.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a collection of people, many of whom have spent their entire lives concentrating on one particular field, that are willing to share with others.

CR4 is a place, to not only cash in some chips on bragging rights, but validation........................a reason to exist. The wives don't care................as long as we have the money for the new couch................or the room addition, everything's good.

Whether we have spent our lives in small engine repair or steam turbine design, does not matter.

Much like watching TV, or playing a game of chess, CR4 is a diversion. It's fun.

Let's move on to Roger Pink.

When's the last time you even bothered to peruse the threads?

Do you not know the answers, or is it simply below you?

When did you develop hypersensitivity and such a low sense of self esteem?

I am here to tell you, that it is undeserved and unwarranted.....................and I don't care.

As long as you insist on disrupting the flow here, I am here to help you. I can grasp your hand, and be your friend......................or I can grasp your hand and help you with your own self destruction.

The choice is yours old buddy. Tomorrow is a new day.

In case that wasn't clear you little prick. Surround yourself with friends, or enemies.

Your choice.

PS- Don't bother raising your red flag. Both little, and prick, are in the dictionary.................................neither one of them constitutes a personal attack......................when I decide to get into that mode, you'll be the first to know.

I guess what I'm attempting to say Roger, is that when you wake up in the morning, and you look at yourself in the mirror.....................................if you don't like what you see, no one else will either.

Goodnight brother.