Wasn't the USA the leader of science at one time?

You know the world really is flat!!! <_<

 

well, the extremist religious right, and politicians... and the frightening way that politicians are making religious belief into a party platform.

there are many many other factors in play here, all of them rather depressing.

it's evident that science is no longer a priority in america.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Aug 11 2006, 07:51 PM) [snapback]301830[/snapback]</div>

From http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p25.html
"The US now ranks 17th in the proportion of its 18− to 24−year−olds earning S&E degrees, the report says. In 1975, the US ranked third."

 

When another country lands a monkey on the moon, come and talk to me about the US not being the leader in science!

 

I was chided roundly by my freshman classmates when I majored in math and pre-engineering...

comments from my MBA bound cohorts were

"why do you want to work for a living and get dirty"

It ani't just Protestant belief killing the science and engineering desires; it is our society preaching that an MBA is worth more than the engineers behind the designs and products that that MBA pushes.

Whew....

BTW: my 'freshman' year was 1967...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 11 2006, 09:07 PM) [snapback]301841[/snapback]</div>

when funding for war practically ends funding for cancer research... the US is no longer the leader in science.

when scientists are told flatly that they are going straight to hell upon telling a stranger what they do for a living... the US is no longer the leader in science.

when scientists are leaving the US in droves to work in other countries... the US is no longer the leader in science.

when labs are closing for good, left and right... the US is no longer the leader in science.

when the government decides whether collected data is "true" or not in accordance with its own agenda... the US is no longer the leader in science.

when less than 15% of grant applications are funded, and not all that are funded are fully funded... the US is no longer the leader in science.

 

And this is why science will never be able to prove Global Warming to the satisfaction of anyone of any influence to actually do something before it is too late.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Aug 11 2006, 06:30 PM) [snapback]301850[/snapback]</div>

When scientist tell me that their great great ancestors were rocks, I can believe that. :lol:

Wildkow

p.s. But mine weren't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 12 2006, 01:28 AM) [snapback]302010[/snapback]</div>

Yes they were.

 

China, in Ming dynasty (about 500 yrs ago), was the most powerful and technologically advanced country in the world. So what?!

US dominated the 20th century. If we don't put more resource into education, it is hard to say if US can continue to dominate the 21th.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ceric @ Aug 12 2006, 02:10 AM) [snapback]302020[/snapback]</div>

There isn't much point to it if Intelligent Design becomes a required part of the science curriculum. (It's "if" now, but if it becomes "when", then you'll know we've become the United Theocracy of Amerika)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 12 2006, 12:28 AM) [snapback]302010[/snapback]</div>

Your ancestors were apes. Get over it....

It's not funny. It just is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 12 2006, 03:07 AM) [snapback]301841[/snapback]</div>

Even in 1969, manned landing on the moon had nothing to do with leading in science, but everything with engineering know-how, and lots of money.

Nevertheless, in virtually every field, the US is leading in both science and engineering. If anything, the gap has further increased rather than decreased in the last 20 years.

There was a story a couple of years ago (don't know if it's true or an urban legend, but it's too nice not to tell). A German high-tech company had developed an extremely small drill, for drilling the tiniest holes. They were so proud about it that the embassies gave examples of this micro-drill to many other countries, for showing off the German technology. The US gave its sample of the micro-drill back with a hole drilled in it.

There are many reasons for this leadership. One of them is that the US has an excellent, open and competition-based allocation system of money for scientific grants. Another, equally important reason is that the US has a tradition of attracting bright people from all over the world ("brain drain"), because they offer premium working and career opportunities. There are some recent signs though that this mentality is changing, and that would very bad for the US in the long term.

 

This thread is a hoot... Wow for a gathering of ignorant people..

I saw one guy post who probably knows something about the theory of evolution. The rest of you have no clue, no details about evolution, you just buy in and beat the drum. But, you know so little about it. The best part about your support for evolution is your ability to overlook the gaps in the 'science' of the THEORY of evolution. You don't have to choose to overlook those gaps because you don't really have a clue about the theory and the science behind it, and you don't actually know about the gaps. Real scientists who beat the drum at least have to choose to overlook the huge problems with the THEORY. In a few years, maybe ya'll can start calling it the FACT of evolution since you don't have a clue anyhow, why not up the rhetoric.

This is a crowd of extreme faith. You have to have more faith (believing in things unseen) to believe in this theory than you do to believe that God made it all.

How many of the posters in this thread are in any kind of scientific job with a real science education?

A couple.. Less than half would be a great guess. Why? Oh.. that's right, you're just beating the drum again, not really going to do anything about it yourself. Oh.. but i have too many things going on to persue engineering and science in my life... great excuse, I'm sure someone else will do the hard work and studying to be the engineer or scientist, you just relax and wait by the internet for someone else to make a discovery or think up a new idea.

Nice thread people...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 12 2006, 08:09 AM) [snapback]302060[/snapback]</div>

I'll post later, after I'm done with the "What I Think is Wrong with America" rant I'm working on. I just wanted to say that I *suspect* that YOU are just mindlessly repeating what you have heard. I think you choose to believe what those in your circles tell you to believe, just as much as these posters believe what they've been told.

The difference is that the other people in this thread are blindly believing people who have been taught and trained in the sciences, in making EDUCATED guesses and confirming, rejecting, or changing them with real experiments. You are blindly believing people who have no such credentials, or are mockeries in the scientific world for their refusal to actually use the scientific method - they tell you what you *want* to hear, and you believe it.

Don't get on a high horse by saying that most of these posters don't actually understand the science - I find it unlikely that you have a much better grasp of the situation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Aug 12 2006, 08:29 AM) [snapback]302082[/snapback]</div>

You forgot to highlight the word guesses, so I'm here to help out.

I'm fine with telling people that there is a theory of evolution, and there are people who believe there is a creator. I have to ask why you are so opposed to the same?

Why must you propogate your theory and guesses as the only possible choice for the existance of the planet and people.

When I say "God made it all", I am happy to tell you that I don't have a video tape of it happening, but after all of my analysis of the evidence, this is what I believe and the only thing that can compute.

Why, when you present your theory and guesses do you fail to acknowledge that you have no more proof of your theory than anyone has of any theory. I never hear from the evolution side that there are huge holes in the fabric of the guess ya'll have made. I know you don't want to damage your own credibility, so the gaps, holes and bad science are never discussed. Which, by definition is just a cult.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Aug 12 2006, 06:29 AM) [snapback]302082[/snapback]</div>

Oooo,

I smell fodder for a new poll:

How many have any training in science and/or hold a job with science/engineering/technical credentials?

How many have almost no science training, yet hold a job in the science/engineering/technical field in a admistration/clerical position?

How many have advanced degrees in the science/engineering/technical field, but are currently flipping burgers due to the fact that they don't live in Bhophal or New Dehli?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 12 2006, 09:55 AM) [snapback]302093[/snapback]</div>

This is just the standard BS with how creationists play off the scientific meaning of "theory" and "educated guess," so it's not really worth responding to (i.e. beyond this sentence).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 12 2006, 09:55 AM) [snapback]302093[/snapback]</div>

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is a fundamental difference between the theory of evolution and a belief in creationism. One of them is based on testable hypothoses that can be proved right and wrong and the other is based on, well, a belief. I have no problem with telling people that there is a theory of evolution (but, please, make sure that they understand what "theory" means in the scientific sense) and that there are people that believe in Creation. But Creationism is not science.

You claim that you have "analysis of evidence" telling you that there is a creator. Can you make (falsifiable) predictions about future evidence you might find? How much of this evidence is based on the Bible (which is clearly a subjective account of things that may or may not have happened with lots of evidence that the stories have changed over the years)? Other than the Bible, do you have any objective evidence of creationism? Do you have any evidence that affirms your theory and not (just) evidence that you believe pokes holes in evolution?

I don't think you'd meet a single evolutionary scientist that tells you that our theory of evolution is complete. I don't think you'd meet a single evolutionary scientist that doesn't think that there are some problems with the current theory of evolution. BUT, the current theory is a working theory that is supported by a ton of evidence.

Oh yes. Here's a definition of "theory":

Notice the difference between defintions the first three definitions and definitions 4 & 6? Creationists know that most people use the latter definitions in everyday life, and exploit that to turn them against evolution and science (which uses the first definition).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Aug 12 2006, 03:55 PM) [snapback]302093[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps I can mention that I have a scientific degree (PhD in astrophysics), and have an active profession in science (biotechnology). But that doesn't give any credibility to my words by itself. Only the content of arguments counts.

First of all, you can never prove a theory. You can only falsify a wrong theory. That's one of the cornerstones of science. The best a theory can do is (1) never have been falsified and (2) explain many observable things with a minimal amount of assumptions (do a search on "Ockham's razor" if you want to learn more about that). It really becomes interesting if it can (3) do a prediction that can be verified later (like Einstein's relativity theory has done several times).
You can never claim that a scientific theory is absolute truth. It then becomes a religion. I definetely follow you in that.

So, how does this translate into evolution vs. intelligent design? Both have never been falsified (or at least they have been adapted to incorporate new aspects). Concerning the second criterion, evolution has the advantage that it explains a lot of observable facts in a more or less elegant way, with a small number of assumptions. This ranges from fossiles to the bone structure of dolphins and DNA homology. Does that prove anything? Nope. But it does give some value to the theory. Intelligent design has the problem that it's too vague to really offer any verifiable statement. Does that mean it's wrong? No again. But, from a scientific perspective, it doesn't really add anything. That's why most scientists won't consider intelligent design as a science: it doesn't really produce any observable facts that you can verify.

I don't agree with you if you say that "the gaps, holes and bad science are never discussed". There are libraries full of journals with articles that discuss the weak parts of Darwin's theory, written over more than 100 years.

But science can only bring you so far. The scientific methodology is one way to explore our surroundings, and it definetely has proven its value. But there are other, spiritual approaches as well. They also have their merits. But it's wrong to mix both approaches and to try to sort of benchmark them against each other. They are too far apart from each other.