patrick.net

I think it's absurd to say that science was more professional in the late 19th century. A whole lot of quackery got passed off as science, and the peer-review process was nothing like it is today.

"If the sun refuse to shine
I don't mind
I don't mind
If the mountains fell in the sea
Let it be
It ain't me
Got my own world to look thru
And I ain't gonna copy you

Now if 6 turned out to be 9
I don't mind
I don't mind
If all the hippies cut off all their hair
I don't care
I don't care
Dig it
Got my own world to look thru
And I ain't gonna copy you

White collared conservative flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic fingers at me
They're hoping soon my kind will drop and die
But I'm gonna wave my freak flag high, high

Fall mountain, just don't fall on me
Hello, Mr. Businessman, why you ain't dressed like me?

I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die
So let me live my life the way I want to
Sing on, brother,
Play on, drummer"

Don't really see how jimi hendrix is relevant, but cool song, great album. anti establishment message true, but interesting that he had a work ethic that anyone could be proud of. You don't become a virtuoso at anything without working really really hard at it.

Well, Nomo,

The reason that you don't understand ToT is because, in addition to operating on many more working brain cells, you're a scientist. You're biased coming out of the gate. The problem with people like you is that you churn out scientists, who in turn will probably pop out some ultra intelligent children.

...uh, I forgot where I was going with that one.

marcus says

interesting that he had a work ethic that anyone could be proud of

He also choked to death on his own vomit.

Kevin says

marcus says

interesting that he had a work ethic that anyone could be proud of

He also choked to death on his own vomit.

Did they ever prove it was his vomit? You can't really dust for vomit.

I like this post.... looking forward to more comments here...

Who knows? That was uncalled for. May he rest in peace. Organized crime used to have a big role in the music business. So, we'll never know what happened. One thing we do know, and that is the guy was a great artist, even if his stuff wasn't your taste. And he was very smart. So the idea that he went crazy overboard with the pills is hard to believe, unless it was suicide. I still say, may he rest in peace.

No disrespect meant - it's a line from Spinal Tap.

marcus says

Who knows? That was uncalled for. May he rest in peace. Organized crime used to have a big role in the music business. So, we’ll never know what happened. One thing we do know, and that is the guy was a great artist, even if his stuff wasn’t your taste. And he was very smart. So the idea that he went crazy overboard with the pills is hard to believe, unless it was suicide. I still say, may he rest in peace.

I like Jimi Hendrix as a musician, but the dude had a serious drug problem. Lots of great musicians have.

That's why musicians shouldn't be role models.

It's not uniquely American, however it's more noticeable for the USA. We are incredibly dependent on science for our lifestyle and our global power. Yet we deride the very basis of it and get away with it, at least for now. Richy Rich is squandering the family fortune, this will end badly.

Vicente says

Yet we deride the very basis of it and get away with it, at least for now.

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

http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/12/republicans-reject-science-scientists-reject-republicans/

One animated movie I can think of has a scientist as a hero:

Disney's Atlantis

Also there was that guy in the Core.

And isn't Indy Jones a professor and archaelogist?

Granted these are exceptions though...

I don't think Americans are anti science. I live in a very American neighborhood, no one cares.

Most science is in China/India... they are cheaper so anything in US are usually migrants from India doing it... not sure if xenophobia gets conflated with science.

You guys are funnier than a jar of nickels at Neimen Marcus.

ChrisLA says

Most science is in China/India

I'm speechless. Do you really think this way?

marcus says

theoakman says

I will say, the scientific profession is not nearly as professional and respectable as it was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Seems like a difficult comparison to make. Not only because you are comparing real time perception to history (sort of ancient history in modern science), but also because in most areas we are in such a different part of the learning curve (learning curves look like a logarithmic function).
Huge dramatic gains are made in short periods of time in the early part of any learning curve. Hard to compare to the breakthroughs that don’t come nearly as easily later.

I wasn't so much talking of the breakthrough as I was about the integrity of the scientists themselves. They were incredibly careful to not declare they were right until proven right. The theory of relativity was a race to the truth. Everyone wanted to be right, but no one claimed to be prematurely. Present day science involves people drawing all sorts of unsupported conclusions that they want you to accept as the gospel.

People are not pursuing science fields because there are no jobs thanks to outsourcing and the H1-B criminal enterprise. It far more profitable to become an investment banker or a doctor.

And when people do pursue science fields on the PhD level, in most cases they want to become tenured professors. Nobody actually wants to work in the field.

You guys getting the Picture yet?
Is this thing on?

The more I think about it, it must stem for religious fervor. The people who think that "everything I need to know comes from one book" are always the same. Example a large percentage of people in the USA don't believe in evolution, preferring to believe the Earth was formed about 10,000 years ago and fossils are a tool of Satan. You can encounter the same thing in Turkey quite frequently. There's no real difference between an Islamist and a Christian when it comes to their hostility to science as a DISTRACTION from their magical thinking.

I'm reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer and it's good. I recommend it.

Vincent but what you don't realize, the religious have always been skeptical, nothing has changed.
It's the modern Liberals that grabbed Science from behind and is using Science as a human shield, to push policy.
I don't think there's not a single person in the world, with out genuine concern for what is going on in the world with all of it's natural resources, and the resulting pollution. The Liberal voice has seized those realities and are injecting their agendas to monetize the rational fears that are already inherent in everyone on this planet. Their solutions does nothing to convince most that the Liberal intent is as Sincere as they claim. Especially when the proposals on the table consist of things like Carbon credits, tax burdens on efficient energies while we blunder our way to alternative energies that yield as much efficiency and is cost effective to do so.
The Poor and the lower class are the ones ultimately will be on the hook, for everything that has been politicized in the last decade. While the Liberals keep claiming otherwise. I've been poor most of my young adult life, I know damn well who pays for Political feathers, and the hat where they stick them.

Meanwhile what about Deforestation, over fishing, water and land pollution, over developing?
A bullet train from Miami to Tampa does nothing to address those realities.

People aren't as stupid as the Left would like to claim, they dispute Science, they are calling the guy giving the PowerPoint presentation a Liar and a Cheat.

I don't think Americans are becoming more anti-science Luddites. It just seems that way from our sensationalized media.

We are a nation of specialists. Does it really harm the science of biology if a dance teacher doesn't believe in evolution? Or an accountant at a shoe lace factory doesn't believe in Global Warming? Or that the owner of my local Baskin Robbins believes in all sorts of wacky untrue things about contraception?

As long as we trust the dance teacher to know and understand dance, the accountant to balance the shoe lace books, and my Baskin Robbins guy to give me my double scoop of Chocolate Escape; we should also only trust our scientists to know and understand science.

You don't have some poofy haired Kansas School Board member who worked at a dry cleaners her whole life decide science policy for Biology. One should consult the experts and follow their advice.

As the bumper sticker on my engineer friend's care used to say: "Repeal Ohm's Law NOW!"

I think that with a free press and relatively comfortable lifestyles, we have the luxury of looking at the downside of engineering and science marvels. We take the upside for granted, and consequently look at advances with a skeptical view: drug resistant bacteria vs. antibiotics; advances in microelectronic design and fabrication vs. pollution in the majority world; the automobile vs. environmental degradation. The scientist/engineer then becomes the whipping boy for unintended consequences. There is also an uneasiness with the the military industrial complex, which was a driver of much of the technological innovation in the 20th century. Not to mention, the Cold War was not exactly an easy peace; a relative calm coupled with the the overwhelming fear that you might not wake up tomorrow.
It's interesting to note that the IEEE recognizes this perception problem, and recently changed their tag line to Advancing Technology for Humanity. I consider myself someone who lives in tension with these competing ideas. Clearly, though, I have no desire to go back living in a cave. I have only to look at my friends thriving children; they have a metabolic disorder which was diagnosed and treated by scientific advances. Without their daily formula, they would be mentally retarded; we live in the age of miracles...

EBGuy says

We take the upside for granted, and consequently look at advances with a skeptical view: drug resistant bacteria vs. antibiotics; advances in microelectronic design and fabrication vs. pollution in the majority world; the automobile vs. environmental degradation. The scientist/engineer then becomes the whipping boy for unintended consequences. There is also an uneasiness with the the military industrial complex, which was a driver of much of the technological innovation in the 20th century.

Yeah it really pisses off a community when they sprout up Cancer clusters in their kids all around the same age, and lived at the same site for the same amount of time.

Just because Science can make things differently, doesn't always mean it's better or safer.

Polio Vaccine - Scientific achievement
Edible Plastic - Creators of the Human Goat.

EBGuy says

we live in the age of miracles…

Thats a nice thing to remember. Ever seen this:

Louis CK - Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

@Tenouncetrout

>People are not pursuing science fields because there are no jobs thanks to outsourcing and the H1-B criminal enterprise. It far more profitable to become an investment banker or a doctor...its alot move exciting to think about being an actor, athelete, or even a wall street person making 400k a year.

@PersainCAT

>When the average physicist makes 200K a year and breakthroughs occur every 6 months come back to me about the usa being pro science/tech

'nuff said.

On one forum I read occassionally, here is one informative post someone recently authored:

If one more person quotes the science shortage I will scream. I have an MSc in Chemistry and unfortunately currently work in the private sector.

I have since spread word far and wide for all Americans to avoid science degrees like the plague. If I don't get into a fed job by fall I am starting grad school for A MS in accounting. I am through.

How about looking at it from a stand point of a "successful" society. Science is hard work, it's interesting, but so is Art and Literature, everyone has their preferences. One pays well when society is hurting in general (science), but both can offer a decent life style when society is doing well (like now).

People take courses that are necessary for their survive, but if survival is guaranteed then it's less likely they'll take them.

Look at countries like China, or India. They put out masses of women scientists, not just men. They put out a lot of people who don't necessarily enjoy science, but do it because they know they'll be able to survive with this skill set. That is important for them.

ten oz,

do you ever read what you write? you're very angry at the "left" and the "liberals" but you make little sense. Would you please restate your point in english?

Vicente says

Example a large percentage of people in the USA don’t believe in evolution, preferring to believe the Earth was formed about 10,000 years ago and fossils are a tool of Satan.

What percentage would that be? And what is the percentage that believes that organisms change over time but believe in a divine creator? I don't think evolution is incongruous with creationism. You won't be able to "prove" either one satisfactorily and in the end it is faith in one idea over the other.

Humanity is FAR different than our"closest" genetic bretheren. I have yet to see a dolphin hospital. Where are the monuments to the "apes of old" erected by non-humans in the rainforest? How about the weekly ape collections to support the ape orphanage on the other side of the mountain? My dog doesn't tell jokes and won't even laugh at my best ones. Somewhere along the line something happened that sets us apart - perhaps your science-based religion says evolution and deists believe in divine intervention? Why can't we agree to disagree rather than constantly denigrating each other? The only fact that most "science" proposes in this sphere is that there is no possible way for there to be a "divine" entity - even though they have no science to back this up...is it based solely on faith. They then turn around and impugn the other side for having faith of a different color. Humanity needs both science (the understanding of nature) and religion (the understanding of morality and philosophy) - either one on their own leaves much to be desired.

I do know some people that have made the ludicrous statement "Dinosaurs didn't exist because they aren't in the bible" - I disagree with this person more (actually completely disagree) than someone with a theory of "life started on the backs of crystals" primarily because the former is illogical whereas the latter might be plausible. Being plausible, however, doesn't mean it is correct...let's get real here...it IS plausible that you'll win the lottery...after all someone has to win...but do you want to base our beliefs on something that is simply a mathematical possibility?

theoakman says

Present day science involves people drawing all sorts of unsupported conclusions that they want you to accept as the gospel.

Scientific consensus does not equate to truth. There was consensus that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and spontaneous generate existed. One should not be surprised that Al Gore's declaration of scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming is viewed with a skeptical eye - sometimes the skeptics are right, after all...and if there were no skeptics then the politicization (remember hundreds of years ago when "religion" ruled the politics of the day?) of science would allow all sorts of kooky ideas to run roughshod over society. You can often tell what is politicized and what is not by looking at the solutions to the "problem" - a carbon-credit trading scheme is simply a forced wealth transfer that does nothing to solve the "problem" ... a perfect example that most normal people can understand. A direct tax on coal-fired generated electricity with the funds going towards nuclear-based power generation would not have the same push back as it actually does something to solve the "problem" of CO2 emissions. Even though I'm a anthropogenic skeptic (I don't doubt that is something going on - I'm just not sold on the "consensus" reasoning as to what it is or even that we can do something that will make a difference), I would have no problem with this. Most people have no problem with "doing something just in case" - but that something has to have some chance of success.

I liked watching Bill Ney

Ellie, there are many reasons, why the Liberal have their Ass in a wad believing that every American that isn't a Liberal, must be anti Science. I pointed out religion being one, and others have stated other good reasons.

Pick one for your self and go with it.

Tenouncetrout says

Ellie, there are many reasons, why the Liberal have their Ass in a wad believing that every American that isn’t a Liberal, must be anti Science. I pointed out religion being one, and others have stated other good reasons.
Pick one for your self and go with it.

Not true, my Dad is a staunch conservative and a religious man, but believes in Evolution and Science.

However, it's pretty clear from surveys that the percentages of God-made-the-world-10Kyears-ago are similar in Democrats and independents, but jumps up quite a lot in Republicans.

Evolution is a FACT, as my Dad would say. The theory of Natural Selection as the mechanism was what Darwin came up with. Gravity is a demonstrable FACT of our existence. The theory of gravitation allows you to model and accurately predict outcomes, giving you the ability to do everything from calculate simple terminal velocity to basic orbital mechanics. Most Americans don't understand what a "theory" is in science terms. They think if they burned toast and then wreck their car, they can hypothesize a connection between the two and label it a theory.

Tenouncetrout says

Ellie, there are many reasons, why the Liberal have their Ass in a wad believing that every American that isn’t a Liberal, must be anti Science. I pointed out religion being one, and others have stated other good reasons.
Pick one for your self and go with it.

What planet exactly do you live on? Where is it that anyone believes that every American that isn't a liberal must be anti Science. You need a another hobby other than hating liberals 24/7.

The Christian religion has always been anti science. This was not true of other religions. The muslim religion was very pro science for the first 400 years and made great scientific achievements. Then the fundamentalist leaders became more powerful and gradually shut out science. The Jewish religion has always been pro education and pro science.

Christian anti science stems from the very simple fact that in the early days of Christianity almost all of the educated people like scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. were pagans. The church deeply resented this challenge to church teachings and made it policy that all education for Christians must be done through the church from the bible in order to have tight control over their congregations. As the church gained large amounts of power this led to the dark ages that lasted until the writings of Aquinus suggested that education in secular subjects might be pursued again. If not for the Muslim churches and scholars almost all scientific and philosophical documents that existed would have been destroyed during the dark ages. This anti education anti science attitude of the Christian church has carried on to the present day. The pope did recognize that the church were wrong about Galileo after only 300 years so things are progressing I guess.

So it's not a conservative vs liberal thing. It's a fundamentalist religion vs everyone else thing.

is it not odd that the question posed goes unnoticed? is there any possibilty that the oposing view could pose a question in the same manner? "Where did the antiChristian/Jewish, anti-moral mentality of American society come from?" .... for some, that is a more important question than the other.

bob2356 says

The Christian religion has always been anti science.

Hmm...Kelvin, Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Descartes...the list of scientists that saw no conflict with Christianity goes on forever. Try again. If you are going to rewrite history you'll need a lot more ink for your fountain pen and be able to burn more books than the muslims did at the library of alexandria.

EightBall says

What percentage would that be? And what is the percentage that believes that organisms change over time but believe in a divine creator?

Half of Republicans believe God poofed humans onto the planet in recorded history.

Half of Republicans are blithering morons by this.

I don’t think evolution is incongruous with creationism.

It is completely incongruous with the "intelligent designer" hypothesis, since there are so many blind alleys and sub-optimal ad-hoc optimizations evident in life's development over the eons, and also evident in our DNA.

If the religious community offered the "drunk and incompetent, or evidentally totally random designer" hypothesis, the scientific community would not have much to object to.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO.

You won’t be able to “prove” either one satisfactorily and in the end it is faith in one idea over the other.

anyone with a functioning brain can see the sheer randomness of the development of life over the past several billions of years.

anyone with knowledge of the near infinity of the cosmos can reasonably assume this same process has occurred countless times in countless other environments.

Only pitiful fools who are blinded by their religious dogma hold onto any idea of special creation or guided evolution.

It is simply an excuse to wedge their beliefs into science, to buffer them from the cold reality that humans are apes, tailless monkeys, mammals, chordates, and animals, and that all of us share an unbroken common ancestry dating back, generation after generation, eon after eon, to the most basic of living organisms on this planet 3-odd billion years ago.

Creationism of any stripe is entirely similar to arguing a supernatural power has been shoving the continents around for billions of years to make interesting shapes on the map.

It is literally moronic, though if you want to argue your God zapped a mud puddle ~3.5 billion years ago and got life started, we can find common ground to very mildly agree to disagree on.

Bap33 says

“Where did the antiChristian/Jewish, anti-moral mentality of American society come from?”

Jefferson and Madison? Thomas Paine? You know, that thing called . . .

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

EightBall says

bob2356 says

The Christian religion has always been anti science.

Hmm…Kelvin, Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Descartes…the list of scientists that saw no conflict with Christianity goes on forever. Try again. If you are going to rewrite history you’ll need a lot more ink for your fountain pen and be able to burn more books than the muslims did at the library of alexandria.

That's why Copernicus hid his writings until he died. That's why Descartes abandoned his most signifigent work after Galileo was tortured. The list of educated people persecuted by the church goes on forever.

Maybe you should read this http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm for a little more insight. There is no need to rewrite the history of abuses by the church, it stands on its own just fine.