The Antiscience is Starting to Hit Hard

....and your suggested solution is....?

..

..

A short time ago you were writing about continuing funding for the JWST, even at the cost of all other programs. You argued the cost of the JWST alone was a small percentage of the total deficit and of the total debt.

..

Now here is another equally worthy expenditure, affecting you more directly and more immediately.

..

Aren't you glad you didn't use up all that money we don't have on JWST?

That was NASA funding.

.-.

This is NSF funding.

---

There is a difference. Those are two different agencies with different goals. I'm not sure, maybe you weren't aware there is a difference.

--.

I have access to a supercomputer at RIKEN, a National Laboratory in Japan, so I can shift my calculations to there. Not many will have that option though.

.

What percent of government spending, in your opinion, should be funding science truth is not a compromise? I'd be interested to hear your take.

.-.

Roger, you wrote,

.

...'That was NASA funding.

.

This is NSF funding.

.

There is a difference......'

.

Really?

.

Both are expenditures are denominated in US dollars.

.

Both expenditures ultimately are paid for by the same group.

.

Both expenditures make up part of a huge bill which we have run up but cannot afford.

.

.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a monumental error to cut access to supercomputers, even greater than the incredible blunder of giving up on the JWST after spending over $3 billion with nothing gained.

.

I appreciate that you are bringing this to attention of many people. I wish the tone you set as you do this were less derisive, and more conducive to finding a solution.

You're original comment was that I had said I would give everything else up for the space telescope.

..

I of course meant among NASA programs.

...

Surely you didn't think I meant that I would end Social Security and let old people starve, or prevent students from going to college on grants (which are two other programs denominated in dollars.

.-

So you're criticism seems a bit hyperbolic.

.--

Also, you characterize the spending on the projects as "huge bills" when combined their cost (2 billion) is roughly 0.05% of federal spending in a year (3,500 billion in 2010). So your use of the word "huge" seems like hyperbole too.

.

My tone in the OP wasn't derisive, it was gallows humor.

...

I'm not responsible for the tone people choose to assign to me, I can only write in the tone I write in and hope (fruitlessly) that it won't be misconstrued.

---

I find this tactic of reluctant acceptance of some of my arguments.

--

Or at least the affirmation of the tragedy of the cuts, if not agreement of the cause.

.

Followed immediately by discrediting me by assigning me a tone I've never assumed. Tiresome. My disposition, though sometimes confrontational, usually always finds it's way to humor as it is my natural inclination to default to happy. It's just the way I'm wired.

;)

Afterall, why else would I use Morse code in my responses to you if I didn't have a mischievous side that finds life more funny than anything else?

I mistook your original comments on the JWST cuts as being literal absolutes.

. °

The misconceived idea was supported by the argument you based not a comparison to the NASA budget, but to the entire national deficit/debt.

. °

Even after funding the JWST and paying interest on the debt, there would be a small amount to feed and medicate grandma, pay some congressmen, or support admissions at universities....so i didn't think you were saying do JWST and nothing else, just that JWST should be the utmost priority and should be funded first because it is such a small portion of the entire amount we cannot affort.

. °

I maintain that expenses in the billions of dollars are not trivial no matter what small percentage the amount might be of the total conceivable amount the government might be able to spend or has already overspent.

. °

You're original comment was that I had said I would give everything else up for the space telescope.

..

I of course meant among NASA programs.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/753678/Re-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-An-Antiscience-Tragedy-Unfolding

I don't see how that link contradicts what I said. The first sentence:

If I'm being 100% honest, I don't care if they run the economy into the ground and institute a flat tax,

Was talking about how I felt that it was wealth inequality that was destroying this country (Earlier Posts here and here), not spending, and that I felt the ultimate ruin of us would be the institution of a flat tax. I said (in earlier posts) that wealth inequality existed today because the tax system was too flat already. So I was saying "I don't care if they ruin the economy by refusing to raise taxes, that's not a battle I'm looking to fight.."

The rest of that post is just other NASA programs I would cancel to keep the space telescope.

So ask yourself

But you knew all this. So why link to my post out of context?

The sky is falling, Henny Penny!

We must go and tell the king.

Ever since the first thread on this, "The Anti-Science: Part I," I have wondered about the "The". As if there is only one Anti-Science?

There are several discernible strands: Anti-evolution from some religious quarters, global warming skepticism from some industrial sectors, New Age and "postmodern" conceits, "parascience," over-unity faddists, and so on. Some of these are indeed more or less antiscience per se.

Right now, there is much anti-budget-deficit interest. This too impinges on science, but more in the form of collateral damage rather than a truly antiscientific outlook. I don't think this has been well sorted out thus far. Lumping it all under an umbrella of The Anti-Science seems not to help much.

I'll try to explain. I wrote a two part blog a while back defining what I believed was the Antiscience. It conjectured that the Antscience is much more than Creationists and other obvious antiscience groups as in Kramarat's wiki definition. I argue that it is in fact all of us.

My argument was (and is) that every philosophical age, from the Enlightenment, to the Romantic period, to Realism, has started reasonably but eventually ended up taking the tenets of the period's beliefs too far. I argue the period since the end of World War II is the Age of Existentialism (I explain why I believe this in my posts listed below) and it's major tenet is an aversion for abstraction. I argue that all of us born in the west share this instinctual aversion for abstraction unconsciously (the way a person who almost drowned at 2 years old may dislike water but not remember why or even notice they dislike it).

This creates a phenomenon where we absolutely are certain we are not against science, even as we take action after action to marginalize it and devalue it. Even scientists do this.

I call it "The" Antiscience" in this post because I'm basically shortening the phrase "the antiscience sentiment".

In the original blog series, where I define "The Antiscience", the use of "the" is to indicate I wasn't making an argument against science (which is what a title of Antiscience would infer) but rather discussing a phenomenom. Thus the use of the definite article.

What I am doing with this series of "the Antiscience" posts is attempting to show, to borrow from the above analogy of the 2 year old almost drowning mentioned above, "hey look, we're avoiding water again, maybe there is something going on here at a unconcious level with us and water, what do you think?". The responses usually range from, "it's too bad but it isn't due to the Antiscience", to "stop crying, we all have to make sacrifices".

Links to Original Blog Entries on The Antiscience

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/12160/The-Antiscience-Part-I
http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/14562/The-Antiscience-Part-II

But roger, these funding cuts upset you, right?

Suppose that you, and every other scientist that is upset about these cuts had an opportunity to go in front of congress and make your case.

The day finally comes, and rather than talking about science and the things that make these projects worthwhile, you and your colleagues talk about antiscience, and present reams of paper to prove that it is the reason behind the cuts.

By doing that, instead of presenting your case in the style of Neil Degrasse, (a guy that can make science cool and interesting to anybody), you undermine your own cause. You leave congress confused and bewildered, and all you have managed to do is to sew the seeds of the antiscience sentiment that you decry.

Telling people that they are antiscience will never, ever, get them on board.

Does this make sense?

To use my earlier analogy. You can go to that person who almost drowned at two years old and doesn't remember, and talk about how safe water is till you're blue in the face, at the end of the day, the unconscious aversion that person has for water will defeat any rational argument.

There is a reason they say that the first step on the path to recovery is admitting we have a problem. We, as a society, have an aversion for science (actually all abstractions) in the west. We use phrases like "dumb it down" or "common sense" to elevate simplicity as an ideal. Science is by it's nature complicated, so what you are asking for is for science to give itself a lobotomy. Essentially forcing the abstract and complicated Science (square peg) to be dumbed down and simplified to be justified as to fit societies ideal (round hole).

The mistake scientists have been making for a half century is that they have been doing precisely what you are suggesting, and it has just gotten worse for science year after year, decade after decade. I am merely suggesting we stop treating the symptoms and start treating the disease, but considering my fellow scientists don't even believe what I'm saying, i'm not particularly hopeful. It seems like this ingrained aversion for abstraction has to run it's course to it's inevitable extreme before it becomes obvious to everyone.

It's too bad your fellow scientists have an aversion for the abstract, or don't believe you.

All people have an aversion to things they don't understand.............not just science.

If I were to pick up roger pink and plunk him down into the middle of a gang meeting, where they were discussing the most effective way to run drugs and prostitutes, I think you would have an extreme aversion to that topic.................and even to just being there.

I would agree that the dumbing down of, everything, that we are engaged in is counterproductive. Knowledge is power.

We all, including myself, have an unconscious aversion for the abstract as we all were born into this age of existentialism. I'm not suggesting my fellow scientists don't believe what I'm saying because of their aversion for abstraction, I'm saying they just don't agree with my assessment of the situation. I don't blame them, it's a completely new and unique idea. I do however, after carefully thinking about it, believe that my idea is correct or at least in the ball park.

You Wrote:"All people have an aversion to things they don't understand.............not just science."

I disagree. People have no aversion to computers or microwaves, though they don't have the slightest idea how they work. Actually most people have no idea how most technology works. However technology is something people can touch and hold and use, in other words, it isn't abstract. Even my mom uses email now. That alone is evidence that people don't always have an aversion to things they don't understand.

On the other hand, progress over the entire history of humankind has been clearly led by steady increases in scientific knowledge, often producing revolutionary changes in society in ways completely unexpected and unpredictable. Yet it is suggested that science "be sold" to the American people. You yourself suggested this while typing on a computer, using the internet without the slightest sense of irony. This seems reasonable to you because science is an abstract concept, which you unconsciously have an aversion to and doubt the value of. That is what I'm saying the antiscience is.

To put it in Freudian terms. The antiscience (aversion to water) is our western society's collective Ego attempt at consoling our western society's collective Id's fear of the abstract (fear of water), which it learned to fear from the atrocities of the world wars and the ideological communist and facist states that arose and committed unspeakable atrocities (almost drowning) during and immediately after those wars.

It is a series of seemingly irrational attitudes towards science that seem reasonable to us because of our unconscious aversion to abstraction.

I think you're wrong.

There are plenty of instances where the antiscience argument could have been used............................the flat earthers, for example.

In this case you are creating a convoluted antiscience argument where there doesn't need to be one.

I'll tell you my story of what you call the antiscience. And it's a lot more modern than what you suggest.

It started back in the 60s, when Americans started to decide that we were guilty. We embraced guilt.......and somehow we had to make it right.

Through the realization that some members of the US were not doing as well as others, (mainly minorities), our collective guilt feeling, and some social engineering experiments, (that continue to this day), we started derailing the train that made us great...........................hard work.

In my mind, the most profound example of the introduction of the, "Great Dumbing Down", was the introduction of the bell curve in the public school system. Rather than providing the tools to everyone to be the best they could be.....................we lowered the bar to make people, "feel", smarter than they actually were. From there we went on to create jobs for these same people. What we did, was, what I believe, a great disservice to everyone.

There are garbage collectors, there are scientists, and there is everything else in between.......................all have a role to play in society..............none are necessarily more or less important than the others.

When it comes to science, the antiscience may exist, but it is self imposed, and I think it's a lot more recent than you think.

We have painted ourselves into a proverbial corner with science. As we have continually lowered the bar over the past 40-50 years, we have created the aversion to science that you speak of. The problem is, that in the hard sciences, certain things must be known. There is no way to do a feel good, fake your way through it. Hence the loss of interest.

It still doesn't matter if you're right, I'm right, or both of us are right. It's a trend that I don't see reversing anytime soon. Arguing about it is pointless.

Government meddling, and social experimentatation have created an entire class of people, (of all colors), that have an aversion, not only to science, but to any intellectual pursuit..................................I would go as far to say, an aversion to work itself.

I don't think my argument is convoluted at all. We have an aversion to abstraction because in the past (before 1950) it was used to justify all kinds of atrocities. Abstraction was used as a moral sidestep to commit inhumane actions such as pogroms, holocausts, purges, etc. With this collective hindsight we have a strong aversion for abstraction since we don't want to be "fooled again".

At first this was a good thing. It made us scorn superstition and demand more rigorous science. This anti-abstraction sentiment destroyed segregation (an abstract concept used to justify obvious injustice), as well as try to address gender inequities, race inequities, etc. It led to Laissez-Faire economics which emphasizes simplicity of regulation (Free Market).

Now, as we become more extreme in our anti-abstraction views, simplicity of regulation has become no regulation, scientific rigor is no longer demanded, now scientific absolutism (every single scientist must agree) is required (climate change, evolution), immoral government isn't just a problem (segregation), any government is a problem. Less is always considered better nowadays.

Before race issues we had an entire 19th century of religious issues, specifically Protestantism vs. Catholicism. Back then the evil Catholic immigrants (south Germans, Italians, and Irish) were destroying our country(the sentiment of the time, not my own). Laws were passed to block their progress in our country. Over time those laws were repealed. What you're describing as a new phenomena is really the same old game with new teams.

What is different this time is our answer to all problems is "Simpler, no matter what". That is antiabstraction. That is, in my opinion, the source of the antiscience.

I'm confused again.

Every example that you've provided of antiscience, looks to me like a shortage of money.

I'm sure it's the antiscience in me that's causing me to oversimplify it.

I need to stop here. I've apparently got the antiscience so bad that I can't even recognize it. I don't think a lot of us can.

As far as I know, as a whole, human beings have never behaved rationally.

Raising every tax bracket by 10% would close the deficit and easily pay for all our obligations. Yet this isn't even considered a solution. Why not? I presume you'll say "higher taxes stifle growth". How do higher taxes stifle growth? Some of the highest tax rates existed in the 1950s, yet that was a time of tremendous growth.

So ask yourself, why is your only solution for a "shortage of money" is cutting spending?

I don't think it is the only solution.

Again, that would be treating the symptom and not the disease. I can also assure you,that raising taxes by 10% is not going to get you your science funding..........they will find something else that's more important.

Excuse me if I'm oversimplifying, but the disease, is that our elected representatives, of both parties, are drunken on power, and irresponsible with our money.

We send them to Washington, they forget their promises, and it's party time. It's like sending a college student money for clothes, and they end up going to school in rags, because they spent all the money on pizza and beer.

Social security was supposed to be a, "trust", fund................................they stole it. Now we've got the President on TV implying that SS checks may not go out unless we borrow more money. It's craziness......................and again, the answer is simple, but it's not going to be easy.

I don't know if we have to send these people back to school, or what, but right now, it seems that not one of them has even a very basic understanding of economics. Because of that, having them in charge of anything makes me nervous.

I just have to chime in here. Your statement about raising tax brackets 10% would allow us to EASILY pay ALL our obligations is about as ignorant a thing as I have ever heard an educated person make. EVEN IF they confiscated ALL money everyone in America makes this year be they rich or poor, it would not even pay the interest on the $14TRILLION we owe!

That is why when the President threatens to not have enough money to pay Social Security checks, first He is right; but then, we out here in the real world think to ourselves, then why is he not suggesting that we FIRST stop shelling out the BILLIONS in foreign aid, which we also don't have!

I will tell you why! Its for the very same reason that they won't throw money at science, because it doesn't buy them votes! THAT is the source of all Anti-Science, and Anti-Education, and Anti-anything else on which anybody may want the government to spend that stolen money! It is only a matter of time before the government discards all shackles of the constitution, and starts confiscating long held assets of the American people, to satisfy the Government's debts. After all "we all are THE Government" to quote Bill Clinton.

I'm sorry you feel that way, never the less, it is the truth that a 10% raise in taxes across the board would more than cover our deficit.

Thanks for reminding me, that as bad as things are, they can always get worse.

I'm so glad you're not the President.

You always end up insulting me, it isn't necessary (I'm not mad, I'm just pointing it out, you get emotional, at least it's an honest reaction).

Look, I wasn't suggesting we tax everyone 10% more. I've been clear in the past I think we need a combination of cuts and tax increases. I just was pointing out that your statement that all these problems are because we don't have enough money isn't true.

All these problems exist (fiscal problems) because somewhere along the line two rules became indisputable:

1. More government is bad
2. Less Taxes is good

These ideas, which I argue are simply ideas that are saying "simple is better", which of course I would say are anti-abstraction ideas, are ideas I dispute.

Look at the rage (not just from you) I incur by simply saying more government and more taxes may not be so bad. Does that seem like a healthy, rational response to you? Of course you'll say yes, but from my perspective it seems like a visceral, instinctual outrage, like I just stepped on a bible or something. The truth is that is what I'm sort of what I'm doing when I say these things (stepping on the tenets of society).

By arguing that some of our more anti-abstraction tenets above may be false, people get very, very angry because their Id is saying I'm a danger (which of course I'm not). You don't just believe that I'm someone with a different opinion. You believe my opinions endanger people (which isn't rational from a neutral point of view).

This is the anti-abstraction in society driving you. This is why no matter how rational an argument scientists make for science, it will get progressively worse for science in the US.

1. More government is bad
2. Less Taxes is good

I agree it is much more complex than simple statementseven the 2 statements above are more moderate than the talking points these days

1. Government is bad
2. no Taxes are good

the tactic is draw a line in the sand, when there is even the slightest sign of compromise move the line back a couple steps

Your goal is to be insulted. With every one of your blogs and threads, you end up painting yourself as the victim.

Excuse me for cutting to the chase....................................why waste words?

Keep going you'll end up with me on the does not respond to list

on one of these threads I was accused of being dramatic

being dramatic is sometimes a way to make a point

most of these AS threads are very dramatic, full of overwrought proclamations of Doom & Gloom

The reality is not as absolute as it is being portrayed

Clearly Roger has found a way to practice his craft that is somewhat insulated from public funding

As things change there are going to be new opportunities. These opportunities are going to require abstract thinking to be recognized

Since thinking in the abstract seems to be the order of the day, I wonder if an analysis of roger pink isn't in order.

The perpetual victim.

Don't worry rog, I don't brag about it, but I'm much more than a painter.

Painting has provided me with an observational perch from which I am not noticed.

I can help you....................................it only hurts in the beginning.

In the end, we will both be better people.

Garthh, roger makes it difficult, but I'm only allowed to climb into people's heads to make things better.........................not to hurt them. It's the law!!!!

Kramarat,

You come to every post I make, argue with me (which I don't mind) and then finally fall into histrionics about how I'm this or that. I'm not disagreeing with you out of some personal vendetta. I believe the things I write, just as you disagree with them.

Do you think it's possible for us to disagree without you going all hysterical on me? Or is Garthh right and we should just not interact?

Roger

I never read your blogs or threads. I just think you're insane. That makes us friends.

Sure, just tone it down a little sometimes.

I understand you not agreeing with what I'm saying. A lot of people who agree with me on a lot of other things don't agree with my whole Antiscience take, so you're in good company.

I just think it's funny that my scientist peers are so irrational about this issue. Our funding keeps getting cut, we as a country keep falling in our rankings in Math and Science, an increasingly significant portion of the population is outright denying scientific results (Vaccines, GW, Evolution).

Yet the solution offered by scientists always seem to be the same:

"we need to engage them more, we need to sell science better". Basically the same approach that has gotten us to this terrible position. It's making the same mistake over and over again.

An Analogy

We all have that friend who is the doormat for his girlfriend. He does whatever she asks, dresses as he's told, is always apologizing. Then she leaves him. Why? Cause no woman wants a doormat for a husband. In the same way the Scientific community has been acting like a doormat for the last 40 years to the American public and getting repeatedly dumped. It's pathetic.

I'm sick of my scientific peers being spineless doormats, and I'm willing to bet there are a lot of young scientists and engineers that agree with me. It doesn't mean I hate non-scientists. It just means I feel scientists should have some professional self-respect.

Just reading a little history.

That's the best post I have ever seen, sorry I missed it....LOL

You can track back to the Roger stuff way back in time, (before I was a member), for almost endless entertainment.

I'm always kramarat. It's figuring out if my brain or fingers are working faster, that's the hard part.

_{You think I'm bad here, you should hear my mouth.}

_{I've got neighbors that hate my guts. They come down to the house every night to tell me about it.}

_{It's fun being me!!!!!!}

What exactly are you ultimately looking for?

All of us to agree with you?

The little agreement that our politicians just came up with, is going to include cuts. Some of them may be to NASA or other science projects.

I guess we all just get to look forward to another antiscience missive every time a cut is mentioned or made to something roger cares about.

You have been clear about what you mean by antiscience. Why repeat it with a new thread every week? Are you expecting a different result each time?

To answer your questions. Yes.

I am trying to convince people there is something going on here that is just more than 'we need to make cuts". It's not a conspiracy, it's an unconscious act, but it's there. Science is being targeted in a way that is both irrational and potentially destructive for our country.

Do I expect people to change their minds? No, but that won't stop me from trying to convince them, or at least pointing out enough absurdities that they at least begin to question their beliefs.

I could say that I agree with you, but I think the premise of your argument is flawed.

I could put together a fairly compelling argument saying that the birth of antiscience, at least the antiscience that is leading to cuts and a general lack of interest, has gone hand in hand with runaway liberalism on our college campuses, as well as in k-12 public education.

To summarize that argument, I would say that the reason science is taking a back seat, is that the hard sciences don't have as much significance in the emotion driven society that we have become.

We have become more concerned with feelings and fairness, than science and math.

I could start a thread every week trying to prove that I'm right, but I'm not going to bother.

What we have right now is out of control wealth inequality due to out of control conservatism.

Now, that's funny!!!

I did say earlier that a garbage collector and a scientist have important roles in society.......................I wasn't implying that they should receive the same pay.

It's the rich people's fault...................redistribution is the key? I'm not going to bother arguing with that.

I'm sure someone else will though.

Here's another chart to look at until they get here.

He has a point it's all been down hill since St Reagan, the good ole boys took over completely

Corporate welfare ≠ Conservatism

the Tea Bagger mob in charge of the current madness, won't stop until they have deregulated us back into the stone age,

the big fat subsidies [tax breaks] for the military, oil, big Pharma & the genomic thieves of corporate ag will somehow survive

there are no conservatives progressives or moderates in sight

how many aren't bought & paid for by corporate interests 10% ?

we are idiocracy

it's got electrolytes, it's what plants need

I don't like corporate welfare either. I also don't like the cycling between corporate America and politics by the politicians from either party. They make the rules while in Washington, and go exploit them when they get out.

This is much different from saying that everybody that makes over $250,000 a year is rich and needs to pay more.

Crony capitalism is alive and well with the current crowd in Washington.

Corporate welfare doesn't= conservatism. Conservatives just haven't been in Washington for a long time. Republicans don't =conservatives either.

The politicians claiming to be conservatives, have not represented those ideals, since the time of Goldwater & Eisenhower

the last time there was a republican majority, it went down in flames

the idiot extremists, need to put a sock in it

the alleged conservatives, have managed to add more bureaucracy to the budget process. Congress needs to do the work & stop trying to blame everyone else...

now is the time for the moderate majority to run things

"the last time there was a republican majority, it went down in flames". Nice try. Are you referring to the last election when the liberals lost about 700 seats in State and Federal offices? That wasn't because people thought the liberally thinking politicians were doing such a splendid job. It's because the American people are finally waking up and realizing that a bigger government is not what we need.

The fiscal mess we are currently in didn't start at the last election, it has been developing by liberal thinking people from both sides of the aisle. This solution will call for some pain by people who are currently sucking off the government tit. Albert Einstein said, "the significant problems we face cannot be solved with the same level of energy it took to create them." It is easy to get in debt but very difficult to get out of it.

It is simply people with poor character and thinking, on both sides of the political aisle. I don't have a problem with people having some socially liberal mindset, it is good to have a balance of ideas. An opposing idea makes us analyze our ideas to see if what we think is credible or whether it needs to be tweaked some. If everybody in both parties thinks the same, we're in deep doo doo.

I was talking about 1994

people aren't waking up, they continue to believe the big lie the fake conservatives [fox news] spew

you're right the current financial situation didn't start after the last election.

try 1886

Yes, the extremists on both sides need to put a sock in it. One of the things that Obama said that that gave me a little hope, was that he was going to go through all of our spending and eliminate all of the waste.................never happened.

I'm still not hearing anything out of Washington that sounds good. When they talk about cutting spending, it's the same old stuff..............defense and entitlements. Not a word about cutting the actual size of the federal government. To me, that would mean mean going through and drastically cutting or completely eliminating entire federal agencies and programs that have outlived their usefulness, or never should have been there in the first place.

Until that happens, I can only assume that it's the same old lies.

right

setting up a bipartisan commission to study the problem

is the equivalent of patting a small child [the public] on the head in a patronizing way

In their minds, their job is convincing us that important changes are being made.

I haven't seen anything significant from either party in my lifetime. I don't think that's going to change.

Maybe I'm just narrow minded, but I can't imagine that going another 2 trillion in debt is going to help things.

Unemployment is hanging at around 10% here in NC, with more layoffs coming out of RTP being announced.

The Zero-Sum-Gain view of economics is not the right view to have. The economic pie is not a fixed size! Just because someone makes more does not mean that someone else makes less.

That may be the view of socialists or maybe just people who are not informed about how jobs are produced in a free enterprise, capitalist system.

If someone is part of the bottom 95%, which isn't an accurate statement in itself, there is nothing that says they have to stay there. If that is where someone is or where they see themselves, maybe they need to do something else that makes it possible to make more than they do. Oh, except this doufous in the White House and his cronies are making harder and harder for the jobs to be developed.

If there is income inequality, it because those with less money tend to view money differently and buy whatever they want, when they want it, with money (credit) they don't have, and therefore become a slave to the lender. I'm not saying that is the case of all people who are struggling to make ends meet. I know some great people who are very fiscally conservative and yet struggle to make ends meet. It's just that there are a great many people who have an entitlement mentality, which is very much a liberal ideology. "I can do whatever I want and someone else will bail me out of the mess that I have made. I'm not responsible, it's someone else's fault."

Actually, when somebody makes more it usually means someone makes less. There is a limited amount of wealth in the world. That is not to say quality of life isn't increasing for everyone, but this idea that someone can simply become rich is nonsense. There all kinds of economic headwinds that lead to social stratification. Plenty of statistics demonstrate this.

I admire your idealism, but your ideas regarding economics aren't based on facts, but rather irrational faith. A faith that for 30 years now has been proven to be unfounded.

Also, if you're going to call the President of the United States a "doufous", at least spell it correctly (it's dufus).

No, doofus.

--Ed. C.

The quality of life in much of the world isn't getting better. It is deteriorating at a scary rate. And it isn't because some people have less money and a few have more. It is because our societies are becoming more amoral and immoral and see everyone as a potential victim who they can steal from, personally and through some government beauacracy.

Anyone who chooses to better their lot in life can do so. They do that by making different choices in life in regard to their occupation, their habits, their lifestyle, their thinking on social, financial, moral issues, how they use their time (turn off the stinking TV/videos/radio with all it's garbage) and whether they are willing to sacrifice something now for something better in the future. That doesn't mean they will become wealthy, it simply means they can be better off if they choose to and then act on the decision.

A good example of that is some pictures I saw recently from Africa. One of our docs was in Rawanda recently and told me about this. One picture shows a corn crop with a very poor crop, because of how it's always been done. The next picture showed corn that was 10' tall and very standard in it's growth. The second picture was the result of the people learning how to farm differently; work the soil, plant the seeds properly and put some fertilizer with each seed. The result was remarkable with this farmer just selling his crop and making more with this new way of farming than he has made in his whole life. He now plans on helping his neighbors to do the same thing. He will also buy some more ground so he can potentially increase his income even more.

This isn't the result of some government doing something for him. It is simply his willingness to be teachable and having access some new information. In this case the new information came from a mission organization working in the area.

You Wrote:"This isn't the result of some government doing something for him"

I guess except for the part where the government prevents tribal genocide.

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

I would imagine it would be hard to get a good harvest if you had an arm cut off and your family was repeatedly raped. But besides keeping law and order I'm sure there are less than a 1000 things that government does to make peaceful farming in Rwanda possible.

That's being absurd Roger. There are things that a government should do for it's people and it has to do with protecting it's citizens. The role of government, anywhere around the world, is not to give it's citizens things, but to help provide an environment in which they can operate commerce, religion, education, etc. in a safe manner.

There will always be abuses, we have them here in America too. Let's keep a high ideal and shoot for that.

That's a nice black and white view in a gray world. For instance, if money, as a law of economics, attracts money, then if you don't create a progressive tax system, in other words if you have a flat tax system, the wealth flows with increasing speed to a very small portion of the population, to the detriment of the rest of society.

That's how Royal families were created in the middle ages. Some noble families accumulated enough lands (and thus income) over time that they could become kings by virtue of the dependence of other noble families on their wealth. Take for instance the Hapsburgs (read here), who over several centuries accumulated enough wealth to become one of the most powerful noble families in Europe. Why did the Hapsburg's believe they were so rich? Why good breeding of course. After all, hadn't generation after generation managed to increase their land holdings. What other explanation could there be? It didn't occur to them (or other nobility at the time) that the more wealth you have, the easier it becomes to obtain more. You are a one stop shop for borrowers, and borrowers will give you favorable terms to avoid the hassle of dealing with many lenders. By the 1800s the wealth inequity had become so dramatic that the people revolted and Monarchies, which as a form of government existed for over 1000 years, disappeared within a century and a half.

The point is, you've basically embraced the "good breeding" myth in a wholly new and modern way, suggesting the rich are rich because of their faculties. The "cream rising to the top" argument. It's as absurd now as it was when nobility used breeding to justify their advantages. The truth is, if you are wealthy, it is much easier to get wealthier than if you are middle class or poor because money attracts money. That is why there has been a progressive tax system in this country since 1913. Without it, the wealth inequality gets out of control and you end up with a struggling, angry populace.

This debate we are having is a very old one (see link)

Federal taxes were expanded greatly during World War I. In 1921, wealthy industrialist and then Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon engineered a series of significant income tax cuts under three presidents. Mellon argued that tax cuts would spur growth. The last such cut in 1928 was followed by the Great Depression in 1929. Taxes were raised again in the latter part of the Depression, and during World War II. Income tax rates were reduced significantly during the Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan Presidencies. Significant tax cuts for corporations and upper income individuals were enacted during the second Bush Presidency.

you can't help someone with the problem they don't feel they have

How would you feel if someone decided that you have a drinking problem & that they were going to solve that problem for you?

I resemble that comment.

I don't have a drinking problem.....................if I do it's societies fault.

_{or maybe my parents....................................I'm thirsty.}

Let me ask you a question.

What do welfare moms, space telescopes, unemployment recipients, super computors..................have in common?

The answer you give will be in indelible ink, so take a moment to think about it.

The solution to the government deficit problem is not more money stolen from it's citizens at the point of a gun (prosecution) by the government, but rather fiscal responsibility and economic principles instituted. "You can never spend more than you make/take and expect to survive financially! It doesn't matter if it is a business, government or a household. That principles applies to all organizations.

The government has to learn how to spend less than it takes from it's citizens and prioritize what it spends that money on. Research is something that needs to be done, but who says the government should fund it? If the money isn't there, maybe science needs to wait till the money is there. Our economic situation won't always be as bad as it currently is. Maybe in 2012 we'll get some more people in government who understand economics better. We can only hope, and vote.

"How do higher taxes stifle growth?" High taxes stifle growth because it takes away the incentive to work hard, invest the money made and take risks. Why should someone work their butt off and take risks, etc. when they know the government is going to reach into their back pocket and take whatever they want?

There about 50% of people who don't pay any Income tax at all and the top 2% pay about 80% of the taxes. What is fair about that? That is part of the reason why corporations are moving operations overseas. We, here in the States have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and hence a strong disincentive to operate here. Maybe that is part of the reason for such a high rate of unemployment in here. On average it is about 9% and some places in the country it is closer to 20%.

"I heard that in Idaho things are so bad they are even laying off Stop Signs because there isn't anything for them to do."

We, here in the States have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and hence a strong disincentive to operate here.

or not

& while your reading the article from Bloomberg [not exactly a progressive source]
don't skip this

The report may help shape the debate over rewriting the U.S. tax code. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to lower the 35 percent corporate tax rate and remove tax credits and deductions to make up for the forgone revenue.

or

Except for the U.S., all other major industrialized countries levy value-added taxes that help cover the cost of government and are used to hold down corporate tax rates.

Don't let facts stand in the way of your misguided ideology

Pres. Barack Hussein Obama says a lot of things to pander to whomever he is speaking to at the time. The thing to look at is his actions. They very seldom match up with his words except when he talks about "fundamentally changing the country". That is one thing that does ring true, and it isn't for the better. He is seeking to ruin this country of ours.

ahh

a classic tactic

diversion

things change

there is no going back to the "good ol days" [which weren't all that]

here's where you post your usual back to the constitution rant

no actual substance, just talking points

"I am merely suggesting we stop treating the symptoms and start treating the disease"

In among all that, the nearest to 'information' is the above. Congress, and no doubt your peers, would be well asleep before that.

I think you have demonstrated both "symptoms" and "disease" quite eloquently.

You can't sell a point, if you can't get to it.

There is no way to simplify my point. It takes time, consideration, and thought. What I write each time is less than 200 words. If that is too long to explain why I believe society is behaving in a certain irrational way, then we're doomed, because this is not something that can be tweeted, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

I also, I can't help but point out the irony of you suggesting my idea is long winded and needs to be simplified. Essentially you're saying "all this abstract stuff you're saying is bs, simplify it and get to the point".

I have argued before, what people say is irrelevant, it's the actions they take that define them. People profess to support science, yet there is an undeniable downtrend of scientific knowledge, investment, and production in this country. Science accounts for a very small part of the overall budget, yet for the past few decades has disproportionately targeted for cuts.

This "series" of Antiscience posts is actually an attempt to not allow the community of CR4 to ignore what is being done. The canceling of space shuttle program, the cutting of funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, the elimination of Physics and other hard science Departments in Universities, the cutting of funding for Supercomputers, the decline in Math and Science ranking for the U.S., etc. All of the evidence is right in front of us, but too often we refuse to look.

Of course, we don't want to admit our society has an anti-science streak, and that's the problem. How could the greatest country on Earth (supposedly) turn it's back on Science? Except, isn't that precisely what I was describing in the previous paragraph? All of CR4 can profess their support of Science and claim I'm imagining this sentiment, but the actions we are taking as a country speak much louder.

The racist who protests by saying "I haven't burned any crosses" isn't proving their innocence, they are proving their ignorance. Racism is more insidious and subtle than just burning crosses on front lawns. In the same way, so is the Anti-science.

I have argued before, what people say is irrelevant, it's the actions they take that define them. People profess to support science, yet there is an undeniable downtrend of scientific knowledge, investment, and production in this country. Science accounts for a very small part of the overall budget, yet for the past few decades has disproportionately targeted for cuts.

Do you believe there is a downward trend in scientific knowledge? I think you have shown many examples of reduced funding as a percentage of the total budget.

Funding ≠ Knowledge

Knowledge is cumulative
This "series" of Antiscience posts is actually an attempt to not allow the community of CR4 to ignore what is being done. The canceling of space shuttle program, the cutting of funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, the elimination of Physics and other hard science Departments in Universities, the cutting of funding for Supercomputers, the decline in Math and Science ranking for the U.S., etc. All of the evidence is right in front of us, but too often we refuse to look.

What course of action do you propose that we as a group take?

Of course, we don't want to admit our society has an anti-science streak, and that's the problem. How could the greatest country on Earth (supposedly) turn it's back on Science? Except, isn't that precisely what I was describing in the previous paragraph? All of CR4 can profess their support of Science and claim I'm imagining this sentiment, but the actions we are taking as a country speak much louder.


The racist who protests by saying "I haven't burned any crosses" isn't proving their innocence, they are proving their ignorance. Racism is more insidious and subtle than just burning crosses on front lawns. In the same way, so is the Anti-science.

I think what you are describing as Anti-Science [AS] is real. Have you proven that the reduction in funding for the programs you feel are important is caused directly by AS?

Can you compare & contrast the advocacy groups for programs that have increased funding, with the advocacy groups for programs that have seen decreased funding?

After all
it's not who you know
it's who you blow

For people that don't know, here is what is considered to define antiscience.

If you find yourself confused over it's use in these blogs/threads, you are not alone. Based on what I can find on antiscience, it's people that reject all science and scientific method. Typically they are creationists.

From these blogs and threads, one would think that creationists and proponents of intelligent design had somehow taken control of US funding decisions. This is ridiculous.

Despite this, roger has attempted time and again to prove, (unsuccessfully) that antiscience is behind these budgetary/funding decisions.

These are cuts or proposed cuts to programs that are dear to roger's heart, that are coming from a bunch of confused politicians that have run our country to the brink of insolvency........................nothing more.

I now return you to the thread currently in progress.

Haven't you heard......................I'm mean and cold hearted.

Seriously, just trying to find out what antiscience means, through google searches, is almost impossible. It's used by all kinds of crackpots, for all kinds of reasons.

The very closest thing to antiscience that I might be able to concur with, is something that is believed by a very small minority of people, that, because of their religious convictions, believe that God will take care of everything, and believe this to the point of not taking their very sick kids to see a doctor, which in some cases has led to death. All science is considered bad.

This broken record is getting sooo old. Antiscience is NOT behind budget cuts.

"From these blogs and threads, one would think that creationists and proponents of intelligent design had somehow taken control of US funding decisions. This is ridiculous."

As a foreigner and oft suspected communist, I try to educate myself in these things American.

I.e this is a question of the veracity, or factual aspects, of a site.

In view of the 'apparent aims' - I wonder if it is 'ridiculous'?

I don't think that's accurate.

That article is describing the far radical religious right, which has aligned themselves with the Republican party. On the other side of the coin, is the far radical left, which has aligned themselves with the Democrats.

The problem is, that both the radical right, and the radical left, would like to exercise complete control over the rest of us. The rest of us comprise probably about 80% of the US population, probably more. We fall just slightly to the left or right of the center, and for the most part, we tend to get along, and would like to be left alone to live our lives.

The polarity that divides our nation is a fallacy. It's a fallacy that is created in Washington as each side tries to wrench control from the other. It is not a polarity that exists between regular American citizens. We are all too busy trying to work and survive to have time to fight each other.

When we're not working, we all hang out and have fun together.

It's a shame that our representatives, through the media, are giving the rest of the world the impression that we are a divided country.............it's not true.

So in the middle of all this struggle for political power "Science" is seen as 'unimportant'?

If So, we are back at 'not promoting itself effectively' - are we not?

Doing this for a million examples is going to get a mite tedious.

It sure is.

Deja Vu, over and over and over again.

Wasn't it AH that made the comment that science needed to be, "sold", several threads ago?

Might have been me in the first ever A-S blog - but who's listening - aside from AH?

It's only a matter of time before, "The Gang", is awakened from their slumber.

*YAWN* <rubs eyes>

<fumbles for coffee>

ok... ok.... I'm awake!

Oh no!!!!!

You're in the gang too!!!! Darn, it just keeps getting bigger.

No... no... you got it all wrong.... I AM the gang.

You can't get me. Every time I get ganged up on, I just pretend I'm at a chicken banquet, and everything is good.

The other Gang...

That's a GA...........................I think.

Are we talking super computers or antiscience?

I appreciate the suggestion, but unfortunately it wouldn't work for a multitude of reasons. The primary one being that most of these runs on these supercomputers require a lot of memory and a lot of coordination. Those distributed computing jobs are better for tons of calculations that can be done separately and then combined at the end (for instance searching large archives of images for dimming stars for exoplanets).

Oh dear - contra-antiscience facts

(GA)

NSF Funding and US GDP

U.S. GDP was 9.9 Trillion in 2000. U.S. GDP was 14.7 Trillion (source).

NSF Funding in 2000 was 4.4 billion. The NSF budget for 2010 is 6.87 billion (source)

That means that since 2000, GDP has risen by 48.5% and the NSF budget has risen by 54.7%. Basically flat as a percentage of GDP.

NSF Funding for 2011 is 6.61 billion (source) is an actual decrease, while GDP will be somewhere between 15.5 and 16 trillion. Which means it will almost certainly go negative as a percentage of GDP since 2000.

Now compare that to defense that has gone from 311 billion in 2000 to 664 billion in 2010 (and increase of 113.5%) (source). The budget will be sharply reduced to 525 billion in 2011, which still represents a 68.8% increase as compared to NSF's roughly 54% in 2011).

In other words

Spending has gone up much faster in other branches of government while staying flat at NSF.

Why we measure with respect to GDP

You measure as a percent of GDP to incorporate population increase and inflation. Otherwise the numbers quoted are absurd. That's why the current argument of the government being too large is so absurd. As a percent of GDP, it's pretty small.

I would imagine with the expenditure on defense rising (due to attacks on, and threats to the US) that most other sectors have taken cuts. Comparing with those might be a better measure of "antiscience" sentiment.

As said, it is a major blunder to make this comparison with defense.

GA

The primary one being that most of these runs on these supercomputers require a lot of memory and a lot of coordination.

Obviously you're more familiar with what needs to be computed than I am and I won't argue that distributed computing is the perfect solution to your problem. I will however say that if I were in charge and my computer funding was cut I would look to every possible solution. Your problem may be completely and utterly ill-suited for distributed computing and require vast amounts of reprogramming to handle intermediate steps that otherwise didn't exist and get things done at 1/4 the pace, but if the alternative is to not do it at all, I would opt for getting it done.