If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The GOP has once again heroically stopped science in its tracks. Take that, "science"   (salon.com) divider line 646
    More: Hero, Linda McMahon, sex discriminations, skinny jeans, cloture, gels, Mick Jagger, Cannes, write-in campaign  
•       •       •

49100 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2010 at 9:25 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



646 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-05-20 02:13:02 AM
Arcanum: You need to convince the people that there will be no more NASA global warming lying, for example.

It would help if they stop listening to people like Glenn Beck on science issues.

Arcanum: I agree there is long term sense. If we weren't already out of money

So, you support cutting the military budget. It *may* be of long term benefit, but we're out of money and defense comprises the bulk of discretionary spending.
 
2010-05-20 02:14:04 AM
As a practicing scientist who depends on the federal government for research funds, I think I have no choice but to take my research elsewhere.

Have fun wallowing in scientific obscurity, America!
 
2010-05-20 02:15:52 AM
Arcanum: a lot of these

a lot? as in what a few out of thousands? That counts as a lot? And if we're out of money, why are we funding the F-35 program when it's late and overbudget? We're hardly out of money.

you should also give as much as you can to charity before you tell everyone to do the same, i

charities help people in need, they don't fund science, save for some medical research.

you don't think this will make money or you'd be happy to invest in it.

science isn't about making money, it produces some stuff that makes money down the line, but it itself is not about money.
 
2010-05-20 02:16:26 AM
pleiotropic: Have fun wallowing in scientific obscurity, America!

Ahem...

4.bp.blogspot.com

You know you want it.
 
2010-05-20 02:22:39 AM
There's an interesting difference between the United States and Europe and Japan. In the US if you want to be an executive at an industrial company, you get yourself an MBA. In Europe or Japan? You're better off by far with a masters or even better a PhD in engineering, or if you're into finance, applied mathematics.

John Delorean turned Chevy around in no time flat by doing nothing but looking at the process by which Chevy made cars. Everywhere he saw an inefficiency he came up with something new. And that was all it took to take Chevy from being in the red to making tons of profit. Took him less than two full years. His background? Mechanical engineering. He looked at it's problems as a matter of engineering, not finance. His reward? He was made to feel so alienated that he quit. Yep, cause you know you can't have people who actually know what they're doing running a company.
 
2010-05-20 02:24:34 AM
Arcanum: I think it's pretty clear that a lot of scientific funding amounts to terrible science. Science that changes results to better get grants by saying what they are supposed to.

Also, we're out of money.

It's easy to troll on this, and I do think we should fund research and space exploration and all kinds of things. They do profit mankind quite often. But this is democracy and the democrats and republicans have already spent all the money. We need to stop spending more money, even on things that are super shiny and cool.

If you can work these investments into a balanced budget, that would be cool... and not one of those pretend ones that Clinton and Gingrich had, but an actual year where we don't go further into debt.

We're really in a crisis of debt right now. Just this fiscal year, far from over, we've added $7000 per person. You're going to have to come up with that money, with interest. Or your kids will. Or we suffer massive economic collapse.

Sure, if you're just a partisan who doesn't care about reality, you can find plenty of fault with the GOP or Dems, depending on your side. Whatever. Both sides need to vote no on any spending that isn't really necessary.

Also, if you're so sure it's a great investment, take out a loan or sell your stuff and invest in it, instead of demanding I take out a loan and invest at the gunpoint of the government. Either practice what you preach or STFU. Same for those who want progressive taxation... you had better be extremely generous to charity (and many progressives are... many aren't).


At the risk of repeating myself:

1) You are monumentally incorrect.

2) The dollar is still the reserve currency of the world.

3) If we stop spending (or if we hadn't pumped money into the economy when we did) the economy would grind to a halt. TARP was a mess and horribly mismanaged, but it was crucial to keep the economy from imploding. 90% or so of economists agree.

4) A main factor in recovery is to increase consumer confidence. It's a self-fulfilling prophrecy: If consumers are more confident about keeping their job and things getting better in the future, they spend; this causes more businesses to hire, output expands, the velocity of money (look it up -- if you don't know what the velocity of money is, you shouldn't comment in threads involving spending and the economy), and voila, we recover.

5) If we cut spending now, the economy contracts, people lose jobs, the velocity of money decreases, etc.

6) An investment in science is a no-brainer when it comes to ROI. That dollar you don't spend today will cost you $100 in twenty years.

7) Where were all these "stop spending" people when Bush ran the deficit up from ~$5 to ~$11 trillion during his time in office? Bush cut taxes (mostly for the rich) DURING WARTIME. An unprecedented and foolish course of action.
 
2010-05-20 02:25:37 AM
swangoatman: GAT_00: The media plays by the GOP's dance card.

Your right there...ummm.. Comrade. Your a Pinko Liberal blind assssss.


GAT_00 is correct. Name calling does not change that.
 
2010-05-20 02:28:33 AM
WhyteRaven74: His reward?

Back to the Future
and getting f*cked by the country he made rich.
 
2010-05-20 02:30:58 AM
jasimo: the velocity of money is

the rate of change in the position of money

it's why I always drive fast
 
2010-05-20 02:33:32 AM
jasimo:
7) Where were all these "stop spending" people when Bush ran the deficit up from ~$5 to ~$11 trillion during his time in office? Bush cut taxes (mostly for the rich) DURING WARTIME. An unprecedented and foolish course of action.


Gotta say it...
img221.imageshack.us
 
2010-05-20 02:34:06 AM
RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

I'm sure other farkers have answers your flametastic question, but how about Article 1, Section 8, which states that the enumerated (there are only 18) powers of Congress include "to promote the Progress of science..."

Now go f yourself.
 
2010-05-20 02:34:36 AM
thamike: Back to the Future and getting f*cked by the country he made rich.

that would be another way to put it.

It's funny, I've heard people say that pursuing advanced engineering degrees isn't worth it because you just make yourself unemployable. In Europe? It does the reverse, makes you more so, in more places. Imagine a newly mined PhD in mechanical engineering showing up trying to get a job at GM or Boeing.
 
2010-05-20 02:35:32 AM
jasimo: Arcanum: I think it's pretty clear that a lot of scientific funding amounts to terrible science. Science that changes results to better get grants by saying what they are supposed to.

Also, we're out of money.

It's easy to troll on this, and I do think we should fund research and space exploration and all kinds of things. They do profit mankind quite often. But this is democracy and the democrats and republicans have already spent all the money. We need to stop spending more money, even on things that are super shiny and cool.

If you can work these investments into a balanced budget, that would be cool... and not one of those pretend ones that Clinton and Gingrich had, but an actual year where we don't go further into debt.

We're really in a crisis of debt right now. Just this fiscal year, far from over, we've added $7000 per person. You're going to have to come up with that money, with interest. Or your kids will. Or we suffer massive economic collapse.

Sure, if you're just a partisan who doesn't care about reality, you can find plenty of fault with the GOP or Dems, depending on your side. Whatever. Both sides need to vote no on any spending that isn't really necessary.

Also, if you're so sure it's a great investment, take out a loan or sell your stuff and invest in it, instead of demanding I take out a loan and invest at the gunpoint of the government. Either practice what you preach or STFU. Same for those who want progressive taxation... you had better be extremely generous to charity (and many progressives are... many aren't).

At the risk of repeating myself:

1) You are monumentally incorrect.

2) The dollar is still the reserve currency of the world.

3) If we stop spending (or if we hadn't pumped money into the economy when we did) the economy would grind to a halt. TARP was a mess and horribly mismanaged, but it was crucial to keep the economy from imploding. 90% or so of economists agree.

4) A main factor in recovery is to increase consumer confidence. It's a self-fulfilling prophrecy: If consumers are more confident about keeping their job and things getting better in the future, they spend; this causes more businesses to hire, output expands, the velocity of money (look it up -- if you don't know what the velocity of money is, you shouldn't comment in threads involving spending and the economy), and voila, we recover.

5) If we cut spending now, the economy contracts, people lose jobs, the velocity of money decreases, etc.

6) An investment in science is a no-brainer when it comes to ROI. That dollar you don't spend today will cost you $100 in twenty years.

7) Where were all these "stop spending" people when Bush ran the deficit up from ~$5 to ~$11 trillion during his time in office? Bush cut taxes (mostly for the rich) DURING WARTIME. An unprecedented and foolish course of action.


Equation=The Corporation...

Umm.

Smart, and yet not brilliant...

"Prophrecy" tubed you dude...

;)
 
2010-05-20 02:41:25 AM
Farking Repub's?? How do they work?
 
2010-05-20 02:47:07 AM
pleiotropic: As a practicing scientist who depends on the federal government for research funds, I think I have no choice but to take my research elsewhere.

Have fun wallowing in scientific obscurity, America!


/facepalm

Uh, i am also a "practicing scientist" (who the hell calls themselves that?), I'm a lab manager at an academic biomolecular lab in Madison, WI. My lab recently received a ~2.4 million dollar NIH grant.

I'm not "taking my research elsewhere" because that makes less then no sense if you know anything about how labs are run. Either you are talking out of your ass and actually are some fry cooker at McDonalds, or you are the most thick headed "practicing scientist" on this continent and I would be pleased to see you go and do research in Mexico or wherever you have in mind.

Fact is the NSF and the NIH are immensely huge, no other country even comes close to comparing to the funds provided to american labs.
To put this in perspective to you non science weenies Its like comparing the US military to the militarizes of South America. Then one day Congress decides to vote on an additional 60 billion dollars for the military, and when it doesn't pass everyone cries that now the US will collapse as a military power.

American labs are funded out the ass already. We need more people with degrees, not more billions thrown around. Money isn't the answer people. I hate the pompous people that donate $20 to cancer research and then spend weeks bragging about how they are doing something to cure cancer. No you're not, you just helped some phd to get a new iMac in his office. You want to help find the cure for cancer? How about encouraging your kids to study and go into the sciences instead of telling them to play football in high school and get buisness degrees and become bankers.

/ rant
// In truth I wouldn't mind more money given to the sciences, it would be great actually, but this country is overspending like mad and we ALL need to make cuts. My livelihood depends on the NSF/NIH and I can still see this.
 
2010-05-20 02:48:57 AM
Namahs: academic biomolecular lab in Madison, WI.

Go Bucky!
 
2010-05-20 02:50:22 AM
farking stupid.
 
2010-05-20 02:56:53 AM
Science is a good thing. Damn the GOP!
 
2010-05-20 03:00:45 AM
GOP= Guaranteeing Our Peril.

Go. Away.
 
2010-05-20 03:04:11 AM
Namahs: We need more people with degrees

Umm, no you don't.

"...we need more people with degrees..."

I call bullshiat. You need people with brains that work. I suggest that these people don't necessarily have pedigrees...

I suggest these people count too.

I suggest you start paying attention to the human.

Do you read that?

Do you read me?

;)
 
2010-05-20 03:09:25 AM
Science is for NERDS!!!
Way to go, guys!!
 
2010-05-20 03:10:58 AM
Totally off topic but whatever.
I just finished reading about the Manhattan Project, as bad as the final product was, that was one badass time to be a scientist.

I never realized the scope of it all. During the Manhattan Project the Oak Ridge Laboratory was consuming over 30% of the electric output of the entire United States.

Even the scientists were badass, iirc, Niels Bohr was leaving Germany as the war began and begged Heisenburg to come with him and leave Europe. Between the two of them was the world's understanding of the atom and they more then anyone else knew the theory behind building a nuke.
However, Heisenburg refused to leave Germany, he believed that if he left Hitler might recruit scientists to build a nuclear bomb, Heisenburg vowed to stay in Germany and use his position to sabotage the work of other nuclear scientists.
As Bohr left, Heisenburg told him [sic] "Bohr, go to the UK and I will stay here. I will prevent Germany from ever using nuclear power in war, and you do the same with the Allies. We must never let this power be used for destruction."

That's pretty ballsy, here is a egghead giving up a life of fame and power to protect the peace of science. Bohr on the other hand did the opposite and begin writing letters and informing the Allied Powers of the potential....

/cool story
 
2010-05-20 03:14:39 AM
www.xboxaddict.com>www.xboxaddict.com
 
2010-05-20 03:15:06 AM
The GOP: Those with everything (except a soul) using those with nothing (except a bible).
 
2010-05-20 03:16:37 AM
Zamboro
Well isn't that sweet. Nice thought. History shows any leadership of any importance who empowers people working for some higher cause liberal in nature for that society gets a bullet. I don't think the GOP will ever end their dream of fascism.
 
2010-05-20 03:19:44 AM
ThreeEdgedSword: What a Genetic Engrineering lab may look like...
i789.photobucket.com


+1 for Space Quest V.


/genetix
//we play god so you don't have to
 
2010-05-20 03:21:13 AM
Namahs: Totally off topic but whatever.
I just finished reading about the Manhattan Project, as bad as the final product was, that was one badass time to be a scientist.

I never realized the scope of it all. During the Manhattan Project the Oak Ridge Laboratory was consuming over 30% of the electric output of the entire United States.

Even the scientists were badass, iirc, Niels Bohr was leaving Germany as the war began and begged Heisenburg to come with him and leave Europe. Between the two of them was the world's understanding of the atom and they more then anyone else knew the theory behind building a nuke.
However, Heisenburg refused to leave Germany, he believed that if he left Hitler might recruit scientists to build a nuclear bomb, Heisenburg vowed to stay in Germany and use his position to sabotage the work of other nuclear scientists.
As Bohr left, Heisenburg told him [sic] "Bohr, go to the UK and I will stay here. I will prevent Germany from ever using nuclear power in war, and you do the same with the Allies. We must never let this power be used for destruction."

That's pretty ballsy, here is a egghead giving up a life of fame and power to protect the peace of science. Bohr on the other hand did the opposite and begin writing letters and informing the Allied Powers of the potential....

/cool story


Yer so semi-cool I almost felt the breeze...

;)

P.S. I didn't, though.
 
2010-05-20 03:25:30 AM
Book learnin'?

Them dang white trash an' neegrahs and sech hain'ta gonna buy me no damn house in Connecticut by gettin' a lot of book learnin'!

Nah, yew jess get rid of that bill and yew pick up a dang shovel. HArrumph!

Harrumph, bwah!
 
2010-05-20 03:25:56 AM
Wow. There are some huge and, assuming these people vote, potentially dangerous misconceptions about government funding and research. Some points:

1) Private-sector research doesn't happen unless there's some basic science in place first. It isn't in a corporation's interest to fund basic science research, as it usually takes too long to produce a commercially viable product (i.e., more than a few years).

2) This isn't a "right now" kind of issue and can't be addressed as one. Stopping this bill is like a farmer selling his seed corn instead of taking out a loan. Yes, he owes less money after the sale, but now has no way to keep making money.

3) A large portion of the bill dealt with scholarships and money devoted to businesses in the technology sector.

4) Government bodies like the NSF (which is funded specifically by this bill) don't just fling money at random assholes who ask for it. An applicant has to make a case for why the research is important, what facilities and equipment they'll use, and how they'll divide up the money they're asking for down the the last dollar. Most grant applications are rejected anyway.

5) A lot of postdoc and professorial income comes from stipends that are part of a research grant (the college I went to doesn't pay professors over the breaks). If the bill doesn't pass, then a lot of people are going to say, "the hell with this" and take their research to other countries, which will get the benefits that America would get otherwise (see #1).

6) Medical diagnostic machines use either huge magnets, radioactive isotopes, or both. The radioactive material is made by government-funded labs because you can't mine it. So if funding is pulled, hospitals have to use older, slower, and less reliable methods.

Finally, to the farkers complaining about how we're out of money, what were you doing when Reagan and Bush 2: War Harder were raising the national debt into the ionosphere? If we're looking for a budget to cut, then the defense budget is candidate #1. The biggest part of that isn't research (hint: research is big money in absolute terms but a relatively tiny part of a national budget). It's the salaries and pensions of the soldiers.

So how about we pull every last US soldier out of Iraq and Afghanistan, honorably discharge them, and pay for a year of college or trade school for the non-officers?
 
2010-05-20 03:27:21 AM
vartian: RobertBruce: vartian: RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

Where in the constitution does it say congressmen can funnel billions for useless military programs in their home state? Start getting rid of those first and we can talk about basic scientific research.

I'll wait.

No I agree with you. Cut that shiat out too.

Really? Okay, well my apologies, I misjudged you. Question then: what do you think we should spend money on? No snark, actually curious.


Probably answered later in the thread, but I'll jump in: to whit, not much. The Constitution lays out national defense, courts, the salaries of congresscritters and the president, minting currency, a post office (though in fairness it says that there has to be a post office, it doesn't say that the government has to fund it), establishing a uniform system of weights and measures (which actually does justify some funding of basic research-Wired ran a cool article on the bureau that does this a few years back, but I'm too lazy to search the archives :P-and not much else. No undeclared wars, no bridges to nowhere, no federal retirement insurance, no dropping defoliants (chemical weapons really) all over South America in the name of the War On Drugs, no foreign aid, no money to Campbell's Soup to buy overseas advertising, and no funding of science and technology education, which should be a state, local, or ideally private function anyway.

Also, I'll see the person who quoted the preamble one tenth amendment (passed after the preamble, and therefore superseding it)-
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

/Interestingly, the only crime in the Constitution is treason. You could probably make a case under the necessary and proper clause for a few other things related to specific federal powers, but that would still only leave you with treason, espionage, piracy, counterfitting, mail fraud, and bribery of federal officials.
//The feds could save a lot of money by only having and enforcing laws that are their job to have and enforce too.
 
2010-05-20 03:29:16 AM
Indubitably: Namahs: We need more people with degrees

Umm, no you don't.
;)

Hehe, come to think of it I did misspeak. We don't need more people with degrees, we need more of the people currently getting degrees, to get useful degrees. I'm looking at you Philosophy majors.

There was this one girl, smartest girl I have ever seen (and not too bad looking if I do say so myself) Anyway, she was just absurdly smart. In 7th grade she taught herself Latin and knew french and spanish by 9th grade. One day in math class in highschool I realized she she had memorized the decimal values for sine and cosine. You could say Sin of 97 and she would instantly say 0.37 without even thinking about it, you might have just asked her what 1+2 was.

She never got below an A on any assignment or test for her entire high school career, she even got an A in Phy Ed. Then she gets a 2350 on the SAT and the college offers pour in. MIT, Oxford, Harvard and so forth.

-She decides to go to Yale for Astrophysics. Me and some other science types were ecstatic with her choice of major. "Yay, in 10 years we're going to have warp drives! Go super advances in space technology thanks to her!!!

-After the first semester she changes majors to Renaissance Art.


She graduated with the art major. Last I checked she works as a "Document scanner" for Wells Fargo.
*sigh*

/true story, I wish it wasn't
 
2010-05-20 03:30:30 AM
Namahs: Totally off topic but whatever.
I just finished reading about the Manhattan Project, as bad as the final product was, that was one badass time to be a scientist.


Man, if the only thing ever to keep two imperial powers from total war and clear Europe (of all places) of inter-country warfare for most of a century is a bad final product, it must suck to live with your standards.

//This "Mona Lisa", it's just not 'Da Vinci' enough...
//Weapons get a bad rap, but they ensure stability as often as they stabilize things. In the case of nukes, waaaaaay more of the former.
 
2010-05-20 03:32:02 AM
bunner: Book learnin'?

Them dang white trash an' neegrahs and sech hain'ta gonna buy me no damn house in Connecticut by gettin' a lot of book learnin'!

Nah, yew jess get rid of that bill and yew pick up a dang shovel. HArrumph!

Harrumph, bwah!


Thick dialogue is brilliant because it's true...

;)
 
2010-05-20 03:34:37 AM
Indubitably: Namahs: We need more people with degrees

Umm, no you don't.

"...we need more people with degrees..."

I call bullshiat. You need people with brains that work. I suggest that these people don't necessarily have pedigrees...


It's pretty hard to get a degree in a physical science without being able to think. Unless you cheat, which would probably become obvious when you defend your thesis/dissertation.

...Did I just get sucked into a joke?
 
2010-05-20 03:35:05 AM
bigsteve3OOO: We are broke. We borrow money to pay our bills and there is no plan to stop. We should not support this or any other non-defense spending item until we can pay for it.


I'll agree, go one step further. Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to cost over a trillion dollars _each_ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3 419840.ece), and that's leaving out the mess we made of those two countries and before you factor in all the productive and useful things our troops would have done as civilians had they not been maimed, psychologically scarred, or killed. How about we end that batch of horseapples as a good first step? If we make this choice, all it takes is a vote of Congress to zero funding, and it's over in a day.
 
2010-05-20 03:36:50 AM
Namahs: Indubitably: Namahs: We need more people with degrees

Umm, no you don't.
;)
Hehe, come to think of it I did misspeak. We don't need more people with degrees, we need more of the people currently getting degrees, to get useful degrees. I'm looking at you Philosophy majors.

There was this one girl, smartest girl I have ever seen (and not too bad looking if I do say so myself) Anyway, she was just absurdly smart. In 7th grade she taught herself Latin and knew french and spanish by 9th grade. One day in math class in highschool I realized she she had memorized the decimal values for sine and cosine. You could say Sin of 97 and she would instantly say 0.37 without even thinking about it, you might have just asked her what 1+2 was.

She never got below an A on any assignment or test for her entire high school career, she even got an A in Phy Ed. Then she gets a 2350 on the SAT and the college offers pour in. MIT, Oxford, Harvard and so forth.

-She decides to go to Yale for Astrophysics. Me and some other science types were ecstatic with her choice of major. "Yay, in 10 years we're going to have warp drives! Go super advances in space technology thanks to her!!!

-After the first semester she changes majors to Renaissance Art.


She graduated with the art major. Last I checked she works as a "Document scanner" for Wells Fargo.
*sigh*

/true story, I wish it wasn't


Hi,

I'm not a Philosophy major, douchie.

But, I'm not surprised you misappropriate me. Yer perspective is farked. farked, I tell you. ;)

Grow some perspective, please. Thanks.

Earth.
 
2010-05-20 03:37:49 AM
Oathed: Indubitably: Namahs: We need more people with degrees

Umm, no you don't.

"...we need more people with degrees..."

I call bullshiat. You need people with brains that work. I suggest that these people don't necessarily have pedigrees...

It's pretty hard to get a degree in a physical science without being able to think. Unless you cheat, which would probably become obvious when you defend your thesis/dissertation.

...Did I just get sucked into a joke?


No.
 
2010-05-20 03:43:56 AM
Namahs: After the first semester she changes majors to Renaissance Art.


She graduated with the art major. Last I checked she works as a "Document scanner" for Wells Fargo.
*sigh*

/true story, I wish it wasn't


She didn't even get a job in the art world? At least then one could say she's doing something she enjoys....
 
2010-05-20 03:50:32 AM
Zamboro: Nocens: "Do you understand what a telephone is? Do you understand what a cotton gin is? Do you understand what a computer is? Do you understand what pasteurization is?"

I understand what a computer is. I also understand that the development of the first (digital) computer was publicly funded.


actually the first real computer was COlossus made by the Brits during WW2, but was destroyed after the war because of fear that it would fall into the wrong hands. :( Sadly this was largely lost in history. Link (new window)
 
2010-05-20 04:01:10 AM
lordlight: Zamboro: Nocens: "Do you understand what a telephone is? Do you understand what a cotton gin is? Do you understand what a computer is? Do you understand what pasteurization is?"

I understand what a computer is. I also understand that the development of the first (digital) computer was publicly funded.

actually the first real computer was COlossus made by the Brits during WW2, but was destroyed after the war because of fear that it would fall into the wrong hands. :( Sadly this was largely lost in history. Link (new window)


As most is, unless it conforms to corporate re-branding.

Grr. Please stop expecting/making corporations like you...

They live for profit, and until they can live with us, humans, we should restrain them. We need to take away their power. Their legal power, yo. Now.

We need to take our power back, as painful that is, and reclaim the appropriate buyer/seller relationship. Usuaries need not apply...

I have stories I won't tell.

And yet, I speak from experience. Please trust me.

We have to change. Period.

'Tis time...
 
2010-05-20 04:26:25 AM
img163.imageshack.us

RELATIVELY OFF-TOPIC

Apologies for the OT slide, but I came across something recently that made me think back to an old argument trotted out on Fark.

So the "old argument" is the notion that if I claim that I have a dragon in my garage, the logical default for that position is false until provided with evidence. Makes sense (and was made 'famous' in the safe-for-work FUTILITY image meme: http://tinyurl.com/33mz2h7)

However, after briefly studying formal logic this year, I was interested to see that the default logical position for if-then propositions is TRUE, not FALSE, based upon the formal truth tables.

A -> B (i.e. if A then B) is only FALSE if A is TRUE and B is FALSE. So, the following assertion: "If you come to my garage, you will see a dragon" will have the logically default position of TRUE until you actually come to my garage (and observe that I, in fact, don't have a dragon... much to my dismay.)

Obviously this all relates most heavily to the religion/evolution/ID debate.

Anyhow, just wanted to throw that out there and get some comments about it. And please, if you're a formal logic enthusiast, add your comments in plain english! Formal proofs that mean nothing to outsiders are... well... meaningless to us outsiders! :)

Cheers!

/had to use teh boobies
//otherwise no one would have read this
 
2010-05-20 04:29:44 AM
From TFA:

The requested URL /news/feature/2010/05/19/us_congress_technology/index.html was not found on this server.

And the victory of the DERP Old Party is complete!
 
2010-05-20 04:40:48 AM
gerbopel: RELATIVELY OFF-TOPIC

Apologies for the OT slide, but I came across something recently that made me think back to an old argument trotted out on Fark.

So the "old argument" is the notion that if I claim that I have a dragon in my garage, the logical default for that position is false until provided with evidence. Makes sense (and was made 'famous' in the safe-for-work FUTILITY image meme: http://tinyurl.com/33mz2h7)

However, after briefly studying formal logic this year, I was interested to see that the default logical position for if-then propositions is TRUE, not FALSE, based upon the formal truth tables.

A -> B (i.e. if A then B) is only FALSE if A is TRUE and B is FALSE. So, the following assertion: "If you come to my garage, you will see a dragon" will have the logically default position of TRUE until you actually come to my garage (and observe that I, in fact, don't have a dragon... much to my dismay.)

Obviously this all relates most heavily to the religion/evolution/ID debate.

Anyhow, just wanted to throw that out there and get some comments about it. And please, if you're a formal logic enthusiast, add your comments in plain english! Formal proofs that mean nothing to outsiders are... well... meaningless to us outsiders! :)

Cheers!

/had to use teh boobies
//otherwise no one would have read this


Which is exactly the problem, no, mate?

I have to use yer logic?

WTF do you know?

;)

P.S. I'm human, right, devoid of yer academic hullabaloo...

P.P.S. I know that the ground/night/air rumbles at night because the bats are out...AND they bite my cattle, me, and my family...

P.P.P.S. How does yer dragon-motif help my children's skin lacerations?

P.P.P.P.S. Hullabaloo is fun on paper...
 
2010-05-20 05:07:24 AM
Indubitably: Grr. Please stop expecting/making corporations like you...

They live for profit, and until they can live with us, humans, we should restrain them. We need to take away their power. Their legal power, yo. Now.

We need to take our power back, as painful that is, and reclaim the appropriate buyer/seller relationship. Usuaries need not apply...

I have stories I won't tell.

And yet, I speak from experience. Please trust me.

We have to change. Period.

'Tis time...


THIS.

Anybody who thinks that busting your ass for umpteen years to come away holding a chuck of elabourately fonted parchment for the privilege of putting some corporate meatball manager's dick in your mouth for 7 hours a day is an accomplishment, or even an ideal - learned nothing at university.

Nothing.

Corporations are sociopathic c*nts whose idea of success is stealing the f*cking paint off the wall and making you put it in the trunk of their getaway car. Remember when businesses used to answer their phones and your questions? We used to use things and love people. Corporations say it works the other way around.

Spit out the kool aid, pull your head out of your ass and do something that makes you happy and keeps the roof from leaking. There's more to life than having a more "elite" brand on your ass than the next cow. Wake the fu*k up and DO something USEFUL. I guarantee you people wont gather around your rotting ass with a doughnut and a hankie and bemoan the loss of another corporate whore. History wont even notice. Stop sucking off every yoyo in a Brooks Brother's suit and grow a pair, America. Greed is sort of passè, don't you think?
 
2010-05-20 05:08:50 AM
JerkyMeat: "History shows any leadership of any importance who empowers people working for some higher cause liberal in nature for that society gets a bullet."

Yes, but his cause is soon picked up by a younger fellow, the movement trudges onward, and with each step the world gets a little brighter. Every bullet they put in one of us may as well have been fired into their own feet.

JerkyMeat: "I don't think the GOP will ever end their dream of fascism."

Nor will they ever succeed. We shaved apes have had our ups and downs, but the averaged trend is demonstrably an upward one. We are not an innately unreasonable animal that must be taught to reason; it's intuitive. We know how to reason, to some extent, from birth. No one is invulnerable when confronted with a well reasoned argument. For this reason, although it's been a painfully slow process with a great number of bloody, regrettable missteps, as good ideas have supplanted bad ones and risen to the top (in spite of furious opposition, most often religious) we've managed to elevate ourselves from shiat flinging cavedwellers to masters of the land, sea and air. It won't be long until we are also masters of the stars.
 
2010-05-20 05:24:47 AM
bunner: Indubitably: Grr. Please stop expecting/making corporations like you...

They live for profit, and until they can live with us, humans, we should restrain them. We need to take away their power. Their legal power, yo. Now.

We need to take our power back, as painful that is, and reclaim the appropriate buyer/seller relationship. Usuaries need not apply...

I have stories I won't tell.

And yet, I speak from experience. Please trust me.

We have to change. Period.

'Tis time...

THIS.

Anybody who thinks that busting your ass for umpteen years to come away holding a chuck of elabourately fonted parchment for the privilege of putting some corporate meatball manager's dick in your mouth for 7 hours a day is an accomplishment, or even an ideal - learned nothing at university.

Nothing.

Corporations are sociopathic c*nts whose idea of success is stealing the f*cking paint off the wall and making you put it in the trunk of their getaway car. Remember when businesses used to answer their phones and your questions? We used to use things and love people. Corporations say it works the other way around.

Spit out the kool aid, pull your head out of your ass and do something that makes you happy and keeps the roof from leaking. There's more to life than having a more "elite" brand on your ass than the next cow. Wake the fu*k up and DO something USEFUL. I guarantee you people wont gather around your rotting ass with a doughnut and a hankie and bemoan the loss of another corporate whore. History wont even notice. Stop sucking off every yoyo in a Brooks Brother's suit and grow a pair, America. Greed is sort of passè, don't you think?


There was a once day when Business served the interests of The People, but now its The People who server the interests of Business.

Our rights were supposed to be inalienable, but we sold them for a cookie-cutter tract home and two mediocre cars.
 
fdr
2010-05-20 05:29:49 AM
3StratMan: Spend, spend, spend, spend. Exactly what is the dollar amount that the national debt has to get to before all you liberal clodhoppers finally say enough is enough? Apparently $12,989,515,566,793.20* is just not enough.

*US national debt clock as of 20 May 2010 at 02:10:44 AM GMT.


On January 20, 2001, Geo. W. Bush's first day as President, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64

On January 19, 2009, Geo. W. Bush's last day as President, the national debt was
$10,628,881,485,510.23

So the national debt increased 86% under Geo. W. and the Conservative Republicans.

The debt also increased under Conservative Republican Presidents Reagan and Geo. W. Bush.

In marked contrast, all Democrat Presidents since 1945, yep, every one of them, reduced the national debt during their 4 or 8 year terms in office.

Distinguished Conservative leaders like Beck, the boys at Fox, Rush, Tea Baggers, and Mrs. Cut and Run of Alaska, never shouted spend, spend, spend when the Republicans were doing just that.

President Obama is trying to repair the mess created by 8-years of rightwing incompetence and I am willing to cut him some slack.
 
2010-05-20 06:14:46 AM
Namahs: We need more people with degrees, not more billions thrown around.

Interesting thing how those two are related, though.
More money for sciences increases the number of science degrees, which increases the number of academic labs that are founded by graduates, which increases the amount of money you need to fund labs, which increases science funding... I think that it works rather like a differential equation for population models, where you have a stable point with diminishing returns as you approach it.
 
2010-05-20 06:20:59 AM
Merkin For The Weekend: Diste

We ain't talking about unions. We talking about basic research and funding.

.
 
2010-05-20 07:29:02 AM
If the US civil war had been avoided and the South allowed to secede, the North would probably be exploring the galaxy by now.

The south would be pitifully poor, with its citizens farking their cousins, yelling "praise the LAWD, Y'all" and shooting each other.

But the North would have a really hi-tech solutions to keep the southerners from crossing the border.
 
Displayed 50 of 646 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report