Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science 954
fbg111 writes "From the NYT: A panel of experts convened by the National Academies, the nation's leading science advisory group, called yesterday for an urgent and wide-ranging effort to strengthen scientific competitiveness. The 20-member panel, reporting at the request of a bipartisan group in Congress, said that without such an effort the United States 'could soon lose its privileged position.' It cited many examples of emerging scientific and industrial power abroad and listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global lead."
Expected (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, shouldn't this be "lose" and not "loose"? It's in the NYT article too, and I would assume they can spell.
One major question is why the Panel didn't mention the fact that religious fundamentalists are trying to legislate science out of the classroom, as illustrated by the Intelligent Design lawsuit [nytimes.com] going on in Pennsylvania? If you're not allowed to teach biology in science class, but instead, you must give "equal time" to "creationism", doesn't that tend to degrade science, too?
It's not surprising that the U.S. will lose its scientific dominance. It's a combination of the guns versus butter argument [wikipedia.org], an alarming increase in the politicization of science, and the general retreat of science in the face of religious zealotry in this country. Overseas outsourcing of technical jobs isn't helping either.
I imagine that after three more years of Bush being in office, we should be ecstatic if the majority of the population is still toilet trained.
I wrote this yesterday (Score:4, Interesting)
John Gormley of 980 CJME.com had two guests debate Intelligent Design, and sadly almost 2:1 callers thought that ID should be in the science classroom. Every one that gave a reason why they thought that, presented a flawed understanding they held about a scientific concept. As one caller pointed out, only the United States is looking at this debate seriously, and every country in Europe is laughing at it because it's so stupid. Intelligent Design is an attack on science by Christian fundamentalists who want to get their foot in the secular school door. An understanding of science is a blow to the culture of ignorance that a few of the fundamentalist leaders count on to maintain control over a bewildered and sheep like flock.
Here's what I wrote to Gormley, but he was only taking calls so it wasn't read on the air:
Thank you for having a discussion about Intelligent Design today. Your guest Larry Krause put it so well when he said that the effort to insert creationism into the science classroom is a perhaps "well meaning attack on science". Intelligent Design makes no sense in Saskatchewan, where it's apparent that we'll have a half Aboriginal population in a few decades. If we're to require a creator to initiate our earth's development, why should it be a Christian God that puts it all in motion? There are a number of creation theories, and I've seen nothing that the Intelligent Design crowd has put forward that discounts a mythological figure from Aboriginal history being the earth's true creator.
-
I don't think it serves our children any better to have Aboriginal creation myths taught in science class than it does to teach them God created your little bits and it wasn't the laws of the universe that did it. But I wanted to make the point that this is about religion, and if someone who's for ID is against Aboriginal creation myth, then they show their true stripes. It isn't about an "intelligent designer" it's about Christianity's God. It isn't about the "science" behind ID [which there is none], it's about injecting Christian myth into a class that our future drug designers, and doctors rely upon to be effective professionals.
International Students (Score:5, Interesting)
This is sort of already in place. Every international student, who graduates can apply for a work permit known as OPT (Optional Practical Training, I believe). This allows that student to seek employment in a field that is relevant to his/her education and or qualification. It is not automatic but nonetheless I have yet to hear a student get rejected for it. But it ends right there. After the year is over the individual already has to have a work permit or have a petition for it to stay legally in this country. I have personally seen couple of brilliant students leave this country because they couldn't get the work permit in time. Thus this suggestion of "expedited residence status" could be a very benefecial.
But now comes the ugly side of it. I bet the locals will not approve of it immediately, for very good reasons. Now they have to compete with potentially very hard working and probably smarter people for the same job. And I have seen instances where an American has been passed on for an Asian because they believe that person is going to work harder for less pay. But this new suggestion, if it becomes law, tilts the balance in favor of international students a bit. They can bargain for higher pay and will that cause any difference is to be seen. Now, IEEE was really campaigning hard to curtail H1B a year or so ago. We have to see how they react to it.
It's not political. (Score:5, Interesting)
It has far more to do with school administrations, culture, and parenting.
#1 Tenure needs to be removed. Peer reviews need to be implemented. Salaries should be review / performance based. Schooling for teachers needs to be DRASTICALLY improved. Remove all the buzzword-techno-political crap that's found it's way into teaching and just TEACH.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed. Yeah, so be it, some kids don't get schooled. If they nor their parents can put forth the effort, then that's too bad. Sure, we'll hear sob stories about how some are going to get left behind. Let me clue you in to a little secret. If you hold back our best and brightest to make sure no one is "left behind" then you're going to DESTROY the best and brightest. Or at least you'll have managed to severely inhibit their potential.
#3 Parenting. Why aren't parents do "fun" things like having foreign langauge weeks where they all try to speak different languages. Turn the fricken TV and computer off. Interact. Socialize. Take your kid out in the f'in garage and fix the car with him.
Finally, TECHNICAL EDUCATIONS. Go to despair.com and read the quote that states not everyone grows up to be rocket scientists. It's true.
investment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not Surprising (Score:0, Interesting)
When is this irrational nonsense going to end? So some people are talking about introducing 'intelligent design' theories in school and are against not harvesting unborn babies for research and suddenly it's "Oh noes! Teh fundies are out to destroy sciences!!1!1"
Give it a rest. Christians don't control the government. Christians aren't out to end science. The US isn't becoming more and more "Christian" (the reverse has actually been happening for decades, and pseudo-Christianity has been on a steep rise).
Stop trying to blame society's problems on the Jews^H^H^H^HChristians.
decreasing engineer wages !?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
"...The cost of employing one chemist or engineer in the United States is equal to about five chemists in China and 11 engineers in India."
And how exactly will increasing the number of chemists, engineers and scientists graduating each year increase the appeal of this career to students currently choosing careers in business and law?
My thesis is that in increasing the amounts of graduates in sciences and "lowering prices" they will fail to actually improve the situation.
Microeconomics [wikipedia.org] (oh yeah... THAT natural law) says that increasing the supply of these graduates will DECREASE the price they cost -- in other words by training more... they get cheaper!
College kids are choosing business and law because (a) there are more jobs and (b) they pay better. Decreasing the pay chemists and engineers receive won't improve employment in this area. Why are there less computer scientists these days. Oh yeah, no jobs.
Hence I posit that: Decreasing the cost of engineering and chemists will do nothing to increase the United States' competitiveness in these scientific endeavors
m
People get scammed now (Score:3, Interesting)
Hundreds of years ago the most read books were written by scientists like Newton. Now that anyone can write for the world to read it, it only stands to reason that the quality will go down. The problem is that too many people believe the drivel they read, and don't think about it in a critical way.
Stewart had Outkast on his show, and the guy was playing with his PDA the entire time. Stewart obviously made a joke about it. But what saddened me is Outkast was bragging about his new home water filtration system, and was telling Steward how dirty the home water was before he had the filter installed. What obviously happened is that Outkast was tricked by a scam I learned of in University, where tap water is put into a clean glass, and then two electrodes are put into the water where a current is then passed through it. After a while the water becomes cloudy and yucky. The scam artist tells the victim that their water has that junk hidden in it, then he takes "filtered" water and does the same thing. The result in the filtered water is no clouds, because it's distilled water and doesn't conduct the electricity like the tap water does. The clouds are coming from the metal in the electrodes when it interacts with the minerals in the water.
This scam was given to the public at a science/chemistry lecture at the University of Regina in about 2001 on a topic concerning an erosion of scientific understanding at home about "chemicals".
ok fine but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
China already produces 800,000+ graduates every year with technical degrees. That's faster than we can produce McWorkers and we wonder why jobs are going overseas. They can say whatever anti-foreign slogan, "Made in America" speech they want. At the end of the day, the jobs will go to the qualified people who can do it the cheapest.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just religious belief--this also points to a certain anti-intellectualism in a country whose public education system has been gutted. Ignorant people don't like people who correct them, and we're in danger of churning out more ignorant people than ever before.
Re:I wrote this yesterday (Score:4, Interesting)
I was at a conference recently where we were discussing the state of science literacy in the US, and a leading authority on the topic (Jon Miller from Northwestern University) showed the results of a survey conducted in the US and in Europe.
I don't have a copy of his numbers, but I recall that his results showed that in the US, approximately 50% of those surveyed believed that evolution really occurs on the Earth. In Europe, using the same survey, the results for the same question were closer to 90% of those surveyed believe that evolution occurs.
Scary.
Re:Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:2, Interesting)
technology because they know in their hearts they are stupid and would lose
control. People don't like smart people, and tolerate them only so much as they
can exploit them. Look at how the first ones rounded up in any fascist state are
the intellectuals. Yes there is a huge mass of intelligent individuals who
choose to 'drop out' of the so called modern reality. I had the choice to work
on defence (attack) technologies or do something useful for mankind. For a while
I worked in healthcare. Then in the media business. With each new job I got more
and more disaffected and cynical at how technology is misused and abused for
corporate agendas and how ordinary people are exploited and controlled by it. I
reached the point where as a well educated computer scientist I take a salary a
street sweeper and enjoy the calm unpressured almost Buddhist existence of just
doing my own thing and writing code for what I like. The only science and
technology that still interests me is fundamental stuff, particle physics, but
I'm not even in in the league of smartness to contribute there. Right now I'm
looking at joining Medicine Sans Frontiers or the ICRC to find some
humanitarian, worthwhile outlet for my skills. If you want to find people who
are passionate about science and technology benefitting mankind I think you have
to look outside of orthodox society to the fringes. The corporate world is a
spiritual death to an enquiring and passionate mind. And by sitting in smoking
weed all day, you just let them win. The world is desperate for capable scientists
to tackcle new challenges from the environment, you can't make much money this way
but it's better than staying inside forever squandering your potential as a 'rebellion'.
That's what the ignorati want most.
Thanks for being my example. (Score:4, Interesting)
Evolution has been tested and verified. Check about it in reference to the common fruitfly. If you don't believe that, then it is your understanding that is in error.Why would you have to?
That's only necessary with Intelligent Design because that cannot be falsified in any other manner.Re-read your statement. Here, let me clarify it a bit for you:
"What pisses off a religious group is when people try to prevent the teaching of their religious beliefs in science class."
I can see why that would piss them off
Again, thanks for volunteering to be my example.
The reason not to teach a religious belief in a science class is because the two are not the same.What is the "philosphy" behind "gravity"?
How does that compare/contrast with Nietzsche's philosphical approach?
Because A is somewhat like B
But it is not correct.
For "Intelligent Design" to be considered scientific, it needs to be falsifiable without the need for time travel or for God to put in a personal appearance.
Until it is falsifiable, it is not referenced in a science class.
bad in the long run (Score:3, Interesting)
But one has to ask: if the US sucks up many of the smartest, most rational people in the world, how are nations like China, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan ever going to advance politically? They need an educated middle class, because it's the educated middle class, not the wealthy and not the blue collar workers, that drives nations towards democracy and freedom.
The best thing the US can do to fight terrorism and totalitarian regimes in the world is to educate people from around the world and then send them back. Of course, realistically, that's not going to happen.
not true in other countries (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a non-problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you're wrong The far left always proves a point by stereotyping the "religious right" into thinking they are a bunch of bible thumping granny's
The "religious right" they are talking about is *by definition* bible thumping. If you aren't a bible thumper, then you aren't included, so quite being offended
The truth is, it has nothing to do with right or left. The far left has "tree-huggers" who want to get rid of industry, dams, power generators, cars, etc.
Thats an objection to *industry*, not to *science*. The two, while often interrelated, are not the same thing at all.
Fact: Religious fundamentalism exists in America, and is growing.
Fact: Religions fundamentalists, because they are (by definition) vocal and passionate, command a very strong political powerbase
Fact: The Bush administration, more than any president in recent memory, caters to and sympathises with religious fundamentalists.
Fact: There is a long-standing and fundamental disconnect between religion and science, and while it can be and has been crossed many times, it is very present. At the core, religion teaches you to venerate the unknown, and treat it as unknowable, while science teaches you to investigate it.
Fact: Religious motivations have already affected public policy in several areas, including science.
The far left (and what you're talking about is the far, far, far left) has practically no political power in the US. Claiming that there is some secret cabal of hippies keeping us from investing in science is ludicrous. It is a simple fact that the religious right has a great deal of political power, and they have an opposition to many forms of science, and that is affecting the quality of scientific education in America. The whole "intelligent design" thing, an exercise in justification and hypocrisy if there ever was one is only one example.
It's not the only thing driving that of course - the current business climate, with it's emphasis on short term profits, definitely affects it. A n adminstration hostile to pure science (as opposed to military or readily commercially exploitable science) is another. But the religious right absolutely is a factor, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
Re:It's not political. (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA The panel cited many examples:
Last year, more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China, compared to 350,000 in India and 70,000 in the United States.
Recently, American 12th graders performed below the international average for 21 countries on general knowledge in math and science.
The cost of employing one chemist or engineer in the United States is equal to about five chemists in China and 11 engineers in India.
Chemical companies last year shut 70 facilities in the United States and marked 40 for closure. Of 120 large chemical plants under construction globally, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.
This relates to the political climate because it has been the policy of the US to flatten all trade barriers everywhere. It has been most successful where it has been easiest: removing barriers to imports into the US. They are almost all gone (except for agriculture), so scientific and engineering jobs are leaving the US. Smart kids know the jobs are leaving and so, except for personal satisfaction, there are no rewards for studying science and math.
This is the direct result of the WTO and its predecessor, GATT. And both WTO and GATT were creations of US policy.
We are held in thrall to economic theories that will, ultimately, cause the US economy to implode. For an example of what that looks like, see the recent collapse of the Argentine economy. (by the way, the US trade deficit for August was $59 billion. It hasn't been less than $50 billion, even one month, since Spring of 04)
Blaming teachers or students or parents is just another wookie. When science is rewarded like poetry is rewarded, we will have as many good scientists as we have good poets.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
Where do I sign?
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:2, Interesting)
When I see, read, or hear about smart people who actually do cool things, I never hear about people hating them. People love Albert Einstein. People love guys like Henry Ford. I bet most people think highly of the engineers and scientists at Motorola, Intel, IBM and Google. People like and respect smart people who do smart people things. At least that has been my experience.
And I'm not talking about school either. School is often insidious torture for smart people. But that isn't society's fault, that is the school's fault.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
The way I see it, anything that gets kids to ask question and find something interesting in science, even if what gets them interested is a theory that is completely wrong, is a good thing. (I'm definitely opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in high school, or in any circumstances as being better than or equal to the evolutionary story, but I think it might have long-term benefits even if it never comes to anything scientifically.) Particularly with Intelligent Design, it encourages kids to actually learn the relevant biology to come to a conclusion. Even if the biology they get through in high school isn't sophisticated enough to make an accurate judgement, it isn't like being wrong is fatal. At that level, accurate conclusions are the least important thing; the key is asking questions and developing an interest in science. In grad school they can worry about being right.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Because in religious private schools, one of the required classes each year is Theology. When you have an entire class period each day to devote to religious education, you don't need to cram it into other classes, leaving more time in those classes to teach what you're supposed to. At least that's how it worked in my (private, catholic) high school.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not what people think they believe, but what they actually do.
Just as the problem is not people's morality that is wanting: it's the way they act.
By the way, when we speak of the Religious Right, we are talking Christians of a certain stripe. Christianity is a very old religion. In its time frame, Right and Left as we know it are ephemeral: at various times in the last few centuries is found going along on either side of the road. In the era of William Jennings Bryan it was on the left; in the era of the Temperance Union it was allied with the (or a) women's movement.
In the end though, it won't really fit for long on either end of the spectrum, and will in time go its own way. In the mean time, unfortunately, it seems to infect it's political allies with its least attractive attributes (the paternalism on the left and the self-righteousness of the right) and few of its virtues.
Realistically, the reason is the almighty dollar. Everything revolves around it, it always has and always will. In the US $$ speaks more than any religious morals.
Well put. And like the medieval Christians who enganged in acts of unspeakable cruelty and violence in the name of the Prince of Peace, it strikes me that many of our era endorse a life of materialism and greed, serving Mammon and God, except Mammon gets eight solid hours for five days a week. It also strikes me that in some ways the idea of "The Market" has taken on Godlike characteristics: benevolent, and of unquestionable, all-knowing divine wisdom. Not that I don't think the Market is an amazing thing, but there's a difference between advancing the welfare of Humanity and advancing the welfare of people. No form of robbing Peter to pay Paul can be theft if it serves the Market because the Market serves Humanity.
Alan Watts once insightfully remarked that the most insidious idols are made of ideas.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Interesting)
As a christian and a scientist (not to be confused with christian science), I can tell you that this isn't completely accurate. Christianity and science are no opposites that are somehow diametrically opposed. I think that christianity teaches that some things are unknowable. But there's nothing that says that fire or natural disasters or the phases of the moon for example, are unknowable mysteries and the study of them is heresy. This view is somewhat medieval. I don't know any christians who think this way.
The entire point to christianity is faith. And you can't have faith in something that you can scientifically prove. Otherwise, what's the point?
I think that today, the vast majority of christians believe that nature and christianity fit together in some elegant, unknowable fashion. Many don't believe that humans first appeared 6000 years ago, or that the universe was created in exactly six days. These are most likely metaphores, as is much of the bible. While other parts of the bible are clearly intended to be taken as fact.
I think a lot of my views would surprise you. You may not want to paint christians with such a broad brush.
wingnuttery IS political (Score:3, Interesting)
That'd sure make it easier to get rid of all of those stubborn jerks that don't want to teach creationism in their classes.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed.
Yeah, if little Joey hasn't figured out by the second grade that he loves school, kick him out. Let him push a broom at the mill for a few years. That'll learn him.
#3 Parenting. Why aren't parents do "fun" things like having foreign langauge weeks where they all try to speak different languages.
Yeah, these slackers put in 50 hours a week, and they don't even have the decency to learn a foreign language on the side. What we need to do is get rid of their mamby-pamby social safety net. That'll learn 'em.
Wingnuts. Is there any problem they can't solve?
the panel of "experts" has lost its mind (Score:3, Interesting)
And on the other hand, they advocate a massive program to train many more engineers and scientists than we already have, but to what end?
If there is no neutralization of the cost of labor differentials between the United States and India/China, all of these newly created scientists and engineers will be unemployed. How is THAT going to help things?
In theory, in the fullness of time, the third-world economies will expand and their costs of labor will rise, as ours is falling due to inability to compete. Somewhere in the middle things will meet, and we will be able to sustain a population of technical workers.
But in the interim, I see nothing being proposed by the panel of "experts" to prevent careers in technical areas or the sciences from being stigmatized as "loser" careers, good routes to unemployment.
Keynes said "But in the long run, we are all dead", meaning that one cannot only plan things based on a long term point of view. The short term must be also accommodated, else we'll never make it to the long term goal.
Somebody needs to devise a plan that will preserve a national capability in the sciences, and will be not make our economy non-competitive in the process. It's certainly not going to be the Republicans, as they represent only the rich, with the rest of us as a resource to be plundered, and it's not going to be the Democrats, as they see business as a resource to be plundered.
Testify, brother! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, my kid listed "air" as part of his answer to "name four natural resources" and got points marked off (air, despite being a non-synthetic commodity resource, was not listed in the book).
I should mention that just outside of town the local gas company has a tower where they compress air to extract oxygen, nitrogen, and argon for commercial sale.
The same teacher marked "fuel" as a correct answer to the same question. When I pointed out that many fuels are synthetic, and thus not natural resources, it became apparent that the teacher did not know what natural resources actually are, and was simply parroting an incorrect textbook.
I know plenty of religious people who would never make such a stupid mistake; but the next generation is having all this wrong information drilled into them in lieu of actual education.
for money (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to remove politics from science then we should eliminate government funding for science. science should be about producing useful research not about whatever the current administration feels like funding this week.
The same goes for schools. Schools should be about what parents want for their kids. Not whatever the current administration wants. That means vouchers and more private schools.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Interesting)
For what it's worth, every Christian that I've met here in lovely San Diego DOES believe that evolution is a lie, that the Earth is 6000 years old, and they greet every press release from the Institute of Creation Science with joy - and then they promptly shove it in my face as "proof" of whatever lunacy they're promoting this year. They've recently taken to asking me why I don't talk to them anymore
It wouldn't be that big a deal, but they (fundamentalist Christians) now own most of the school boards here in town, and as per standard operating procedure, are now trying to cram creationism or ID into all the science classes. This has fairly predictable and disastrous consequences when these kids hit college.
I'm sure your views would surprise me. You post on Slashdot and work in the sciences, which already makes you a member of a very, very small group of the population. Were I you, I'd beware of extrapolating your own personal religious beliefs onto those of Christians in general. You already sound a lot smarter and far more tolerant than most that Christians I've met.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
Spend 500 billion a year more than you make, you end up with nice large debts (like we didn't start out with a big one). Spend hundreds of billions in "service payments" to this debt, and that is money you can't use for building schools.
Promise ever 65 year old that he can live on social security till he's 100 when they put in a minisule amount of money compared to what they put into the system (used to be 1% of payroll), you have to steal it from those with no political voice (under 18).
Need any more examples?
literal imterpretation of the Bible (Score:4, Interesting)
Many don't believe that humans first appeared 6000 years ago, or that the universe was created in exactly six days. These are most likely metaphores, as is much of the bible.
Ah but many Christians take the Bible literally. Years ago a friend became a "born again" Christian after an experience, er relationship, she had went sour. She frequently quoted her Bible, a King James version, and said what is said was fact. When I tried to point out that for instance the Hebrew word used in Genesis that was translated in English as "day", the world being created in 7 of these, the Hebrew year actually has more than one meaning with one of them I think was "eon" she kept making declarations that about how the tranlations were inspired by "God". Or that during the various councils such as the Councils of Constantinople in 381, 553, and 680-81 the books were chosen to be combined into the Bible while other were left out and the ones so chosen were edited. She wouldn't except any of this or that any translators had any political agendas.
And she wasn't the only one like this, I've talked with others that believed the same. As for me, though I used to believe or had a set of beliefs, after I had a bad accident I lost those beliefs and am now agnostic, "a" without, and gnosys, "knowledge". I am without knowledge of any supreme being or any soul or spirit. I am jealous of those who have faith.
FalconRe:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
Neal Stephenson on science in the U.S. (Score:3, Interesting)
The success of the U.S. has not come from one consistent cause, as far as I can make out. Instead the U.S. will find a way to succeed for a few decades based on one thing, then, when that peters out, move on to another. Sometimes there is trouble during the transitions. So, in the early-to-mid-19th century, it was all about expansion westward and a colossal growth in population. After the Civil War, it was about exploitation of the world's richest resource base: iron, steel, coal, the railways, and later oil.
For much of the 20th century it was about science and technology. The heyday was the Second World War, when we had not just the Manhattan Project but also the Radiation Lab at MIT and a large cryptology industry all cooking along at the same time. The war led into the nuclear arms race and the space race, which led in turn to the revolution in electronics, computers, the Internet, etc. If the emblematic figures of earlier eras were the pioneer with his Kentucky rifle, or the Gilded Age plutocrat, then for the era from, say, 1940 to 2000 it was the engineer, the geek, the scientist. It's no coincidence that this era is also when science fiction has flourished, and in which the whole idea of the Future became current. After all, if you're living in a technocratic society, it seems perfectly reasonable to try to predict the future by extrapolating trends in science and engineering.
It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. is turning away from all of this. It has been the case for quite a while that the cultural left distrusted geeks and their works; the depiction of technical sorts in popular culture has been overwhelmingly negative for at least a generation now. More recently, the cultural right has apparently decided that it doesn't care for some of what scientists have to say. So the technical class is caught in a pincer between these two wings of the so-called culture war. Of course the broad mass of people don't belong to one wing or the other. But science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:2, Interesting)
Christianity is about faith in what happened and why, not about how it happened.
Scientific investigation examines how it happened. Further investigation and discovery only seeks to clarify the mechanisms and processes in the world around us. It should have no effect on your faith, whether in Christianity or another religion. (I am not talking ID here, that is just a disguised attempt to treat religion as science.)
Portions of the Bible are clearly intended to be taken as generalizations, not an exact decision tree / flow chart. Anyone who does not see this is fooling themselves.
Oh, and you are right about this view being silent, IMHO. Probably because people that have belief system have better things to do than running around trying to impose their will on others.
What DO they teach in HS Science? (Score:1, Interesting)
I completed my undergraduate studies in the US and worked for a year on an OPT permit. My employer subsequently assisted with an H1B application, which was ultimately approved. Part of the H1B application process involved verifying that I was not earning below the market wage for my position, and not taking a job from an equally qualified American etc. A close college buddy of mine was denied an OPT permit based on a (IMHO) minor technicality with his F1 (student) visa. He had to return home. I have also heard one other case of a foreign student being denied OPT.
While at college I spent my elective classes on the hard sciences because I enjoyed them. I was a business major* and was not required pay much attention to sciences (or math for that matter!) The vast majority of the American students in classes with me were there because the classes were required in their majors. Most students were delighted when the professors (allegedly under duress from the administrators) curved them into passing grades and permitted them to move along in the curriculum. The sad part is that much (85-95%) of the material in the first couple classes (eg. Chem 101&102 and/or PHYS 101&102) was remedial - topics that I had covered in high school. However, it was completely new and challenging to my American classmates. I covered these topics in REGULAR 11th and 12th grade classes and it was REQUIRED knowledge for acceptance into most of the science related programs at our universities. According to my high school friends who studies at home, these topics were never re-taught AT ALL in their under-grad curriculum. It was assumed that the students had already mastered the material.
And so let me end this blusterous post with a question: What the hell do the American students learn in their high school science classes (and here I'm focusing on chemistry and physics - my apologies to biology etc.) if not the foundations of the science? Why don't they know about mols, atomic masses or (run and hide) stoichiometry? What about angular momentum? What about the magic of Ohms Law and the handy "FBI finger" trick? What were they learning instead?!?
* I chose to be a business major because it was much, much easier to find a job with a business degree than it would have been to find one with an engineering/science qualification. This fact is part of the problem, but I might elaborate in a different post.
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:2, Interesting)
The basic idea behind it is school. School is a microcosm meant to prepare people to enter society. Only their reward systems are different. Whoever get rewarded in school (the straight-A student usually) has a hard time being rewarded in society, which tends to make the better students stay in school, while the others get out to make the money. This naturaly introduces jealousy, which in term brings eliticism on behalf of those who feel they are not rewarded as they should be.
The article is at http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1. html [cato.org] and is written by Robert Nozick.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:1, Interesting)
There is an excellent book on the subject by Wade Rowland entitled Galileo's Mistake
Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Interesting)
Prove has a specific definition. Sure it's fine to bend that definition a wee bit in common usage, but when you're debating something, especially when it's a contentious issue, it's best to be as rigorous as possible.
It IS fundamental to science that you can never prove anything. All scientists should have that deeply ingrained before they make it out of undergrad (better yet, high school). Otherwise you get exactly the problem you mentioned in your last paragraph -- "scientists" who suddenly have blind faith in whatever they happen to believe. If you want to prove things, take up mathematics. Even then, you can only prove things given a set of base assumptions.
As you pointed out yourself, showing someone a chicken in the shed is very strong evidence, but not proof. Your statement could still be false, even if it is unlikely. Go to a magic show sometime and notice how your senses can be misled. Proper scientists should be humble -- no, we don't know for sure, but based on the evidence we have it is likely that....
Science is a method for accumulating knowledge and a method for selecting amongst possible explanations. Religion is belief in a set of ideas. Really they're two different things, and quite compatible except when a particular religion or the practitioners of a religion insist that their beliefs are absolute truth and critical examination or evidence to the contrary is heretical (Galileo anyone?). There are lots of Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu (and others!) scientists. They tend not to be fundamentalists, but may personally be very religious.
So sorry for wasting your time trying to sound smart. Oh, and I should correct myself... there are religions that also admit they don't know anything for sure. And lots of people from all (almost all?) religions who have quite good critical thinking skills.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the existence of a deity being a "supernatural" matter, I'd have to say that if a "deity" could be scientifically shown to exist, then it could no longer be considered supernatural at all. "Supernatural" is a word that we apply to that which is either outside of our knowlege, or that which does not exist. If it is objectively and demonstrably real, then what else would it be but a part of nature? The word "nature" is a lot like the word "universe". It expands to encompass whatever we have knowlege of. I suspect that this "deity" would also cease to be thought of as a deity, along with it's demotion from the misterious world of the supernatural (or promotion, depending on your point of view).
But I do agree that it is possible for a person to posess a religious mindset about religious matters, yet still be capable of approaching scientific matters scientifically. If that were not possible, a great many accomplished scientists could not have existed.
* One can reasonably conclude that a specific deity (as opposed to deities in general) does not exist, if the definition of that deity includes characteristics that are readily testable.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
For example: My g/f goes to Georgetown University, SFS (School of Foreign Service) which is the place to go if you're into language / politics like she is. She's fluent in French, working on Arabic, and planning on graduating with a Masters in 4 - 4.5 years. (she, like me, took ~ 10 A.P. courses in HS, so she is pretty much skipped her sophomore year) She works 20 hours a week, does Army ROTC, and just recently decided to drop the sailing team in favor of the Equestrian Team. She has a 3.7 at the best school anywhere for her concentration. The university offered her basically ZERO in terms of merit scholarships. It might have been something like 2 grand/year, which is roughly 5% off the total cost. She got more in terms of finianical aid, but she decided it wasn't enough and went with the AROTC idea.
Basically, the only place right now where you can get a full ride, non-sports (ie, involving actual acedemic merit) scholarship is the military. Both my g/f and I decided to "Take some personal responsbility," and went for it. I could have gone in state for free (VA tech was basically offering to pay me...) but I wanted to get a real top notch education, so I'm waking up at 0500 when everyone else is still sleeping off the night before's party.
I'm glad that when /where ever you went to school, they gave you cash, but today at top notch Colleges, they don't look at your merit when they're giving out scholarships. The article suggested that maybe we should remedy that by offering college money to good students in return for teaching, but you decided that to just blame religion, because attacking people is much easier than attacking actual problems.