Do you remember this scientific bs

[arauca]

. Arauca envisions himself as some sort of David who has found a stone to throw at the big, bad Goliath outfit that he thinks is wasting public money <yawn>

Pardon me, You must have brown eyes , meaning you are full of the brown stuff up to your eyes with that analysis .
For both of your opinion, we all have high respect for NASA. But NASA from time to time come up with dods, I don;t want to bring other examples . I understand they also need funding, so they rise the public enthusiasm ( congress is public )with great projects.

 

[Read-Only]

Pardon me, You must have brown eyes , meaning you are full of the brown stuff up to your eyes with that analysis .
For both of your opinion, we all have high respect for NASA. But NASA from time to time come up with dods, I don;t want to bring other examples . I understand they also need funding, so they rise the public enthusiasm ( congress is public )with great projects.

I'm not going to bother to point out what you're full of - everyone here can see that already.

You're completely inconsistent - you say something like the above and yet complain about everyone jumping on the funding bandwagon. And by the way, what the heck is a "dod?"

 

[gmilam]

I understand they also need funding, so they rise the public enthusiasm ( congress is public )with great projects.

Right... bacteria living in arsenic is guaranteed to excite the public.

 

[Grumpy]

arauca

You must be a teacher of High school , you don't understand business .

Guilty, over 30 years teaching physics and chemistry to minds full of mush. And business is not science, though they often employ science. But it wasn't business that found the original organism or studied it. Nor was it business that found the flaws in the original reports. NASA is one of the organizations funded by society to do research for it's own sake(and boy are the makers of Tang glad about that). Same goes for Velcro. Freeze dried foods. Weather satellites. Direct TV. GPS. And our colleges and universities are doing pure research without the profit motive. Corporate science tends to be grinds with a specific direction in mind(which is why the drug companies' ears perked up so quick on the first reports). That's not research so much as it is filtering results of chemistry and biology experiments, looking for new drugs or better crops. For that kind of "science" you might have a hint of a point. But that is a bastardized version of scientific research that won't invest in other lines of inquiry and it is not what NASA does. NIST is another publicly funded research organization. DARPA is a publicly funded research organization with emphasis on military uses. DOE conducts research for power generation(and atomic bombs), again, publicly funded. All of these publicly funded organizations bubble along unseen by the general public unless there are interesting things found that make the news. But the vast majority of what they do is unknown and none of it is done for publicity or profits(though there is a lot of ego and competition, like every other human endeavor).

Grumpy

 

[arauca]

Right... bacteria living in arsenic is guaranteed to excite the public.

Beutifull sarcasm , the project was related to life in other planets or other life then our own on earth. By the way there other exciting news , like finding some minute piece of rock on the Antarctica, all that is tho send more flight to Mars.

 

[arauca]

Dod. I mean bad information . I hope you remember , when they landed on Mars and the analysis for water.

 

[gmilam]

Dod. I mean bad information . I hope you remember , when they landed on Mars and the analysis for water.

The point is that the system worked. The primary problem is in people not understanding the system. This is exasperated by people thinking that every word the media presents is gospel.

 

[wellwisher]

To prove science there is nothing as good as experimentation according to the scientific method. We can create models of reality, but until we test these in reality, it is at least partially speculation. The emphasis on experimentation creates a practical problem in that if resources are needed as the final referee, what happens if you lack resources but are right? Will right be called speculation and that will resources, better?

Or what happens if you have access to resources, when while others don't. Does that make you righter than them? Say the needed experiments are very expensive, so only a few get the opportunity, is this science the best authority? Could this be used to politically define right science while pre-empting rebutal by creating a cost wall?

If we go back to the opening post, the access to resources made the arsenic conclusion appear valid when it was released. One assumed experiments and publication meant reality results. If this was really expensive to do, an opposing argument could have been delayed until the resources were gathered. Logic alone may not have had enough influence since it is not considered as valid as experiment. I can see the potential for games.

For example, global warming resources are slanted to one side. This means one side can generate valid science faster than the other can rebuttal, simply due to the resource balance sheet. Does this mean we can control perception of truth, at least in the short term?

Hypothetically, say creationism was given 90% of the science resources and evolution only had 10%. Creation could run experiments and do research at a faster pace allowing them to outrun valid refutation, based on resources. One may counter argue soundly with logic, but if experiment is the final referee, you can't keep up. Would this mean the preponderance of the data and research would support creationism? This is only example of potential games based on cost.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Right, although there was a question about that before the study. I think it's resolved now, at least for this species.

I didn't get arauca's point, that NASA was wasting money or feeding the public BS.

Listen I have a great respect for you, but you have a ability and use it.- Is to add or twist the post . Now I have not mentioned waste of money,

You said:

My point is the institution that markets science.
NASA or others. They make big hoopla to get funded. And from time to time they sell us a plate of BS
The same time you or others to get funded you might sell a plate of BS.

In common parlance that means "wasting money". There's no twist in saying that.

I really don't understand your motives here. You're expressing a grudge against NASA, institutions in general, scientists in general, for being gullible, for being egotistical pseudo-intellectuals, etc. Considering your own career as a chemist, it seems to be a contradiction to your own intellectual life to attack science in this way. You seem to have bigger issues that are precipitating out of solution, so to speak, as if this particular study is just the tip of the iceberg or something.

 

[Aqueous Id]

His point is easy to get (in my opinion). He's just like another nut in literature that went lilting at windmills. Arauca envisions himself as some sort of David who has found a stone to throw at the big, bad Goliath outfit that he thinks is wasting public money <yawn>

It's a psychological phenomenon of some kind that's widespread. Other than the usual amount of anti-establishment ideas that go around - many of which have merit, it's only in the last decade or so that I started noticing this resentment of science and institutions. It sort of crept up, initially among the hardcore creationists. But there's some segment of the population who are anti-science now without seeming to care about the creation science arguments.

Obviously people can feel oppressed by technology - but science in general? Tilting at windmills says it best.

 

[arauca]

You said:



In common parlance that means "wasting money". There's no twist in saying that.

I really don't understand your motives here. You're expressing a grudge against NASA, institutions in general, scientists in general, for being gullible, for being egotistical pseudo-intellectuals, etc.
Considering your own career as a chemist, it seems to be a contradiction to your own intellectual life to attack science in this way.


I am not against science, I enjoy to see the new finding
I don't have a grudge against NASA they have done a great job in the past, in space exploration helped space communication. There are other areas on this earth that deserve more attention , I understand each agency wants to survive , so they propose exiting programs , Do you thing a project drilling a hole in the earth will bring much public interest ? But going to Mars or to some of the Saturn moons , that really rises enthusiasm. 1968 Nixon declared war on cancer , I am not sure we have not gain much ground , what about aging , Alzheimer.
Science is not the problem in my thinking , what bothers me ho people use science to promote their objective .