tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7970039076669181116..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Which Science is the most fundamental?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29276935131760479612011-01-08T02:00:22.839-08:002011-01-08T02:00:22.839-08:00"Unless you are preposterously arguing for pe...<i>"Unless you are preposterously arguing for peak everything"</i><br /><br />Sigh. This is what people don't seem to get, "Peak" is just the result of production. It isn't magic, or ideology. And it's no more debatable than gravity. It is simply a scale-invariant mathematical function that emerges from empirical observation of the production curve of any resource. Whether you are talking about a single mine (or well), or a region, or the world, a pattern always emerges, a bell curve. The "Peak" is just one moment in that pattern. Each resource has its own bell curve, but they all have them.<br /><br />(Just as people's heights or IQ scores fall into a bell curve, or earthquakes and eruptions into a power law curve, it doesn't matter if you believe in it, or are even aware of it, it just happens.)<br /><br />You can argue about the reason behind these curves, or about whether a global post-peak curve might work differently than past regional production curves. Or whether one specific resource is different to others. Etc etc etc. But you cannot have a meaningful discussion if you are still trapped in a "Peak Oil is just a Theory!!!one1" mentality.<br /><br />As to why a number of global production curves seem to be reaching there peak all within 50 to 100 years, (oil, uranium, coal, lithium, etc) regardless of whether they began production millennia ago or mere decades... Remember, there are 6 <i>billion</i> of us, and until just recently our numbers were increasing exponentially. (Another observational curve.) Our usage rates are enormous. It's no coincidence that everything arrives together.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89854426483556937342011-01-07T16:43:48.309-08:002011-01-07T16:43:48.309-08:00Well I tried to post a comment on one of the above...Well I tried to post a comment on one of the above poster's misconceptions about the scientific community, but go figure, Blogger is fighting me tooth and nail, giving random errors everytime I try to post (and now posting them wrongly even when it decides to cooperate). Oh well.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6495476959559155032011-01-07T06:28:44.245-08:002011-01-07T06:28:44.245-08:00I'm guessing someone has recently read "A...I'm guessing someone has recently read "Atlas Shrugged".<br /><br />:)LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20458775078186307362011-01-07T04:55:42.921-08:002011-01-07T04:55:42.921-08:00I see denial is not just a river in Egypt. jqhart,...I see denial is not just a river in Egypt. jqhart, did it ever occur to you that there are people out there who are not selfish greedy bastards? People who do their jobs because they love them? People who want to help other people because they consider it... oh, I don't know, the sort of thing their religious or secular icons (Jesus, some of our Founding Fathers, and so forth) would approve of?<br /><br />From the way you put it, everyone is a greedy bastard who only looks out for him or herself. Which, when you think of it, must be based on a personal philosophy. No doubt you make your trade in the oil industry or some other field where Republican rule is desirable for you, and you feel threatened by the rules and regulations that responsible government wishes to impose on your free ride.<br /><br />And if I'm wrong about that? Well, you did a fine job of creating that impression with your blind refusal to consider that <i>maybe climate scientists are right, maybe oil prices are going up for Supply/Demand reasons along with Peak Oil concerns, and maybe the Republicans are <b>wrong</b></i>.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12709899373454206572011-01-06T22:11:48.050-08:002011-01-06T22:11:48.050-08:00yes, new oil fields are added when old ones peaks....<i>yes, new oil fields are added when old ones peaks. But they always invariably are smaller and harder to reach. </i><br /><br />Um, no. History clearly shows that they usually are <i>larger</i> and <i>easier to reach</i>, due to technological progress and the vagaries of geological discovery. Oil extracted from Texas and California was cheaper than that from Pennsylvania, and that of Saudi Arabia cheaper than Texas and California. Over almost all of the history of oil extraction it has been getting cheaper.<br /><br />Of course, oil doesn't <i>invariably</i> get cheaper. It's unpredictable, depending on the vagaries of geological discovery and technological progress. Will we figure out a way to cheaply extract from tar sands? From shales? A cheaper way to synthesize gasoline from coal? Will we discover new sources of oil, coal, or clathrates farther out in the deeper ocean or farther below the surface of the earth? We will see, but history shows that we tend to keep discovering new hydrocarbons and the vast majority of the earth's crust remains to be explored, even ignoring the vast amounts of hydrocarbons available on many other planets, moons, and comets.<br /><br />It is true is that contrary to most of oil history, in the last decade extraction has gotten a bit more expensive. But not much more expensive. The current high oil prices are almost entirely due to the lower value of the dollar, in reaction to the Federal Reserve "printing money" in response to the 2000-3 dot-com bust and the 2006-present credit market problems, not to a greater difficulty in extracting oil. If we look at the gold-to-oil price ratio, or the ratio of the price of oil to the price of other mineral commodities, these ratios are well within the same range that they have been for many decades. And we've been extracting many of these, such as gold, silver, copper, and iron, for thousands of years. Unless you are preposterously arguing for peak everything, all at the same time, the problem with the price of oil is sinking dollar, not peaking oil.jqhartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46108004155315007342011-01-06T21:39:34.941-08:002011-01-06T21:39:34.941-08:00There is no mystery about why scientists are so di...There is no mystery about why scientists are so disproportionately Democrats: the funding for a very disproportionate number of them comes from tax revenues -- and even many in the private sector have their jobs created by regulations, e.g. food and drug safety regulations requiring extensive testing and thus a larger staff of scientists. Like everybody else, they know what side their bread is buttered on. And the viewers of Fox know that they are the ones, directly or indirectly, being taxed to supply the butter. To observe this and still claim that government-funded science is an unbiased source of truth is to engage in a superstitious worship of the supposed moral superiority of a priesthood -- the antithesis of the scientific method and, eventually, the destruction of actual science.<br /><br />It is very unhealthy to portray "civil servants" (what a euphemism for masters wielding the coercive powers of government!) or taxpayer-funded experts generally as unbiased, as opposed to those greedy bastard capitalists and the supposed massive biases created from the evil profit motive. Yet that is the ludicrous attitude of the left -- government employees and institutions unbiased angels, above human biases, and the private sector full of greedy devils.<br /><br />To get beyond this medieval leftist ideology and look at institutional reality, the _revenue motive_, the motive to get paid, is far more powerful than the profit motive and is common to private and governmental institutions. Furthermore, the concrete biases that spring from revenue and profit motives are very different in different industries, or even among different competitors in the same industry, and unlike most government biases tend to cancel each other out.<br /><br />So what you are seeing in the Tea Party and the media outlets that cater to the people who have to work in the private sector to pay, directly or indirectly, these taxes is a reaction to the hubris of the taxpayer-funded experts that they are unbiased priests whose authority should not be questioned. Of course, there is unfortunately plenty of ignorant populism mixed in with this critique, but that doesn't mean that at bottom they don't have a very good point.jqhartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59326105305269266502011-01-06T21:30:59.057-08:002011-01-06T21:30:59.057-08:00David, what you are seeing on Fox is populism, whi...David, what you are seeing on Fox is populism, which I won't defend, mixed with a critique of the supposed lack of bias of experts who derive their living, directly or indirectly, from taxes, and yet pretend to be unbiased about government-related issues. I'm not going to defend the ignorant populism but mixed in with it is legitimate and very important point.<br /><br />"Public" institutions tend to act in their members' self-interests just as private ones do. When education derives almost all its revenue from taxes it is not going to be neutral on the subject of taxes or related issues. Lawyers bias the law to increase their revenue from regulations and lawsuits. <br /><br />Taxpayer-funded scientists derive their revenues from solving actual or alleged problems that the private sector seems to be or is causing or at least not solving. Since this is how they make their living they aren't going to be unbiased about the existence of these problems -- they are going to hype up the problems in order to get more revenue, just as a marketing department hypes products and lawyers spin creative arguments to attack their client's opponent. Scientists are not, as unscientific worshipers of government science like to pretend, unbiased angels who are above such things. They are humans like the rest of us, they have mortgages or rents to pay like the rest of us, and the political funding process is very corrupting of the scientific method in scientifically difficult areas such as the climate.jqhartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65176921507225085512011-01-06T21:27:13.213-08:002011-01-06T21:27:13.213-08:00David, what you are seeing on Fox is populism, whi...David, what you are seeing on Fox is populism, which I won't defend, mixed with a critique of the supposed lack of bias of experts who derive their living, directly or indirectly, from taxes, and yet pretend to be unbiased about government-related issues. I'm not going to defend the ignorant populism but mixed in with it is legitimate and very important point.<br /><br />"Public" institutions tend to act in their members' self-interests just as private ones do. When education derives almost all its revenue from taxes it is not going to be neutral on the subject of taxes or related issues. Lawyers bias the law to increase their revenue from regulations and lawsuits. Taxpayer-funded scientists derive their revenues from solving actual or alleged problems that the private sector seems to be or is causing or at least not solving. Since this is how they make their living they aren't going to be unbiased about the existence of these problems -- they are going to hype up the problems in order to get more revenue, just as a marketing department hypes products and lawyers spin creative arguments to attack their client's opponent. Scientists are not, as unscientific worshipers of government science like to pretend, unbiased angels who are above such thing. They are humans like the rest of us, they have mortgages or rents to pay like the rest of us, and the political funding process is very corrupting of the scientific method in scientifically difficult areas such as the climate. <br /><br />There is no mystery about why most scientists are Democrats: their funding comes quite disproportionately from tax revenues -- and even many in the private sector are supported by regulations, e.g. FDA regulations requiring extensive testing. Like everybody else, they know what side their bread is buttered on. And the viewers of Fox know that they are the ones, directly or indirectly, being taxed to supply the butter. To observe this and still claim that government-funded science is an unbiased source of truth is to engage in a superstitious worship of a morally superior priesthood -- the antithesis of the scientific method and, eventually, the destruction of actual science. <br /><br />It is very unhealthy to portray "civil servants" (what a euphemism for masters wielding the coercive powers of government!) or taxpayer-funded experts generally as unbiased, as opposed to those greedy bastard capitalists and the supposed massive biases created from the evil profit motive. Yet that is the ludicrous attitude of the left -- government employees and institutions unbiased angels, above human biases, and the private sector full of greedy devils. <br /><br />To get beyond this medieval leftist ideology and look at institutional reality, the _revenue motive_, the motive to get paid, is far more powerful than the profit motive and is common to private and governmental institutions. Furthermore, the concrete biases that spring from revenue and profit motives are very different in different industries, or even among different competitors in the same industry, and unlike most government biases tend to cancel each other out. <br /><br />So what you are seeing in the Tea Party and the media outlets that cater to the net taxpayers is a reaction to the hubris of the taxpayer-funded experts that they are unbiased priests whose authority should not be questioned. Of course, there is unfortunately plenty of ignorant populism mixed in with this critique, but that doesn't mean that at bottom they don't have a very good point.jqhartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59202008453481334522011-01-06T18:11:04.694-08:002011-01-06T18:11:04.694-08:00I'm not old enough to have had the benefit of ...I'm not old enough to have had the benefit of being able to see the GOP before the present shifts in their attitudes.<br /><br />I was only 7 in 1995. I think it's to my loss that most of my formative years, of first becoming old enough to understand things like science and politics, all took place with my only real sampling of the GOP being the Bush White House, and his Congress, and Roberts and Alito.<br /><br />Nevertheless, they are responsible for their views. What they were doesn't in any way excuse what they've become. I can only hope that on the whole people my age don't come to see the Neoconservative or Tea Party movements as an acceptable norm for conservatism.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79367330771129407782011-01-06T17:47:46.261-08:002011-01-06T17:47:46.261-08:00onwardonwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32484355414379545802011-01-06T14:08:57.344-08:002011-01-06T14:08:57.344-08:00Anonymous... if it were only scientists who were b...Anonymous... if it were only scientists who were being savaged by the neocon populist rant machine, that would be one thing. I would be behooved to list mountains of evidence to show that the rationalizations spewed by Fox, to hate and despise the smartest and by far the most honest people, are wrongheaded propaganda.<br /><br />But I do not have to do any of that. Because the Murdocks are attacking EVERY possible source of expertise that could question the right's magical incantations.<br /><br />Scientists? Also civil servants, university professors & academics, journalists, school teachers, lawyers, name a source of independent expertise that isn't maligned. Only the US Officer Corps, because they don't dare. Though I know that the bad blood between the GOP and the generals and Admirals is hot and volcanic.<br /><br />What astounds me is the pretzel-twist rationalizations that folks are willing to engage in, to claim that this war on science has ANY valid basis, at all, even a scintilla. These are the smartest, most knowledgeable, most COMPETITIVE and diverse people in society. Yes, they are portrayed as moronic drones who connive with each other with hand-rubbing glee in order to foist on us false emergencies and ... and... benefit how?<br /><br />The best were already getting grants, studying true mysteries. Why would they need to concoct anything?<br /><br />What is boggling is that american idiots don't turn around ad ask, "what do Rupert Murdoch, Saudi princes and the coal mogul Koch brothers get out of drumming up hatred of the experts who might question the policies that a few dozen billionaires have crammed down our throats?"<br /><br />Ever asked that? Um. Not.<br /><br />Corey said "Also, as Larryhart says, the lack of coincidence between one being a Republican and one Being a scientist really probably has more to do with scientists not being welcome in the GOP, and not GOPers not being welcome as scientists."<br /><br />This didn't used to be true. Before 1995, scientists were at least a quarter goppers. Tearing down EVERY independent advisory board that used to serve congress, that was such a blatant act of Know-Nothing insanity that it drove out thousands of scientists... even those who believe in capitalism and small government.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32174993612375955832011-01-06T12:57:39.183-08:002011-01-06T12:57:39.183-08:00That's my point. By taking those organisms and...That's my point. By taking those organisms and slowly lowering the temperature that they thrive in and the conditions in which they live until it resembles that of the permafrost region (and arctic waters for another breed), you will have <i>some</i> of these microorganisms evolve so that they can exist and even flourish under these conditions. By establishing colonies of these microorganisms in the permafrost once they've been developed they may start eliminating these methane deposits which are in fact quite extensive (if there was a method of effectively harvesting it, we would have enough methane to power the entire world for a number of years - the problem being that these deposits are in a vast region and it's not economical to harvest it... while the harm that will occur if and when they release would be immense).<br /><br />A year or so ago a young man in Canada "created" a microorganism that eats plastic (the stuff that's littering our seas and causing a bit of grief among environmentalists). He did so through selective breeding of microorganisms that slowly ate plastics until one developed that ate plastics at a much higher rate. And this was something an amateur did, not a scientific team. So it can be done.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47786224452151482062011-01-06T12:24:53.917-08:002011-01-06T12:24:53.917-08:00Robert, my guess would be that there are limitatio...Robert, my guess would be that there are limitations to the types of environments in which these organisms can thrive.<br /><br />There's also only so much value to the attempt. Methane isn't insignificant in its impact on climate (if that's your thinking there), and it's a VERY effective greenhouse gas, but as I understand it, even under the worst scenarios it just isn't emitted in large enough quantities (right now) to be anything but a drop in the bucket, likely making it a poor use of finite funds to attempt to curtail those particular emissions.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57126439947324420842011-01-06T11:52:28.692-08:002011-01-06T11:52:28.692-08:00Microbes in the Gulf of Mexico have mostly elimina...<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730704576065942040672186.html?mod=googlenews_wsj%22" rel="nofollow">Microbes in the Gulf of Mexico have mostly eliminated the methane emissions from the Gulf Oil spill</a>. It seems that there's a breed of microbe in the Gulf that loves to eat methane... and dealt with the methane that escaped the Deepwater spill. <br /><br />I just have to wonder one thing: why aren't we breeding these little microbes to flourish in subarctic conditions and using them to deal with the methane clathates and methane emissions from melting permafrost? (Or are we?)<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82796550634965202292011-01-06T11:01:23.568-08:002011-01-06T11:01:23.568-08:00It was all summed up in the line: "Do not bec...It was all summed up in the line: "Do not become too proud of this technological terror you have created. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."<br /><br />In other words, science is an illusion. Magic is real power.<br /><br />As to the "God willed it" reference, though, I think that applies to the later movies moreso than the original. Luke didn't destroy the DS because of destiny--he had to work hard at it and could easily have failed. The part I'm criticizing (and tounge-in-cheek at that) is that his victory depended upon his abandonment of science and his embrace of a mystical power that (as a Star Wars parody once had it) he only heard about three hours ago.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81688683924345618782011-01-06T10:36:39.672-08:002011-01-06T10:36:39.672-08:00Yes, it would have been so amusing if Luke missed,...Yes, it would have been so amusing if Luke missed, but during Han's attack run he launched a torpedo that managed to strike at a sufficient angle to go in and destroy the Death Star, using revised targeting information that had just been transmitted to his ship from the Rebel Alliance, proving that Science triumphs over meta-mystical forces. ;)<br /><br />But then, that's probably contrary to what Lucas was trying to say and would have diminished Star Wars' appeal as Luke succeeded because God willed it, instead of from the ability and sciences of mankind.<br /><br />In fact, in many ways the Death Star itself represents science over mysticism. Everyone on the Death Star died... except Darth Vader, who practices mysticism (if a dark form of it).<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30367001684080546712011-01-06T10:27:59.028-08:002011-01-06T10:27:59.028-08:00LarryHart
I must admit "It's George Luca...LarryHart<br /><br />I must admit "It's George Lucas' fault" does have a certain flair...<br /><br />Tacitus2Tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3076396729361739092011-01-06T09:03:57.809-08:002011-01-06T09:03:57.809-08:00Illithi Dragon says:
From what I see, there are o...Illithi Dragon says:<br /><i><br />From what I see, there are only a tiny amount of Republican scientists (note Republican, not conservative) because the GOP has not only given little love to scientists and little praise to science and education in general, but also because they have been directly attacking science and knowledge for decades.<br /></i><br /><br />I've thought the same thing for decades now about journalists. Conservatives love to claim that journalists are biased toward liberalism, but to the extent that there is truth there, I don't think it's because journalists are left-wing commies out to wage class warfare. Rather it is the nature OF journalism (skepticism toward authority and digging to get at the REAL truth) which is biased against the tenets of the Republican Party, which tends to be authoritarian. The GOPpers would have one believe that if you don't take GW Bush at his word, you're "biased" against him, whereas I see "not taking at his word" as simply being the essence of journalism.<br /><br />Science fits that pattern as well.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54523486380746662932011-01-06T08:53:40.287-08:002011-01-06T08:53:40.287-08:00Also, as Larryhart says, the lack of coincidence b...Also, as Larryhart says, the lack of coincidence between one being a Republican and one Being a scientist really probably has more to do with scientists not being welcome in the GOP, and not GOPers not being welcome as scientists.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90619586934681745282011-01-06T08:51:09.700-08:002011-01-06T08:51:09.700-08:00Tacitus, that Pew poll that Brin mentions (which i...Tacitus, that Pew poll that Brin mentions (which is a survey restricted to AAAS members, and so not all-inclusive, even if fairly representative), shows that A LOT of scientists are independents.<br /><br />http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549<br /><br />If 38 +- a few percent of the public are independent according to your number (mind you, you shouldn't underestimate the force of it simply being "trendy" to call oneself "independent" these days), while 32 percent of scientists +- a few percentage points fit into the same category, then really, independents have about the same representation among scientists as among the general public (very roughly a third of people). Also, Pew's poll says 34 percent for general public, so that's even closer.<br /><br />Really, it's just that among those scientists are politically polarized in some way, there's very few that polarize towards the Republican side of things, overall.<br /><br /><br /><br />As for your question about Republicans getting into science, let's say that you're actually in a field that politics has attempted to polarize, like climate science. Let's say you're a Republican by affiliation, but as a climate scientist, someone who's a scientist first and foremost, you accept the conclusion reached by virtually every other climate scientist about anthropogenic effects on climate. In that case, your position on gun rights, or example, should have no bearing at all on your career.<br /><br /><br />Let's say you are in the tiny minority of scientists in that field who doesn't accept anthropogenic impact on climate, though, and you even want that to be a focus of your work. Would that stop you from becoming a successful researcher?<br /><br /><br />I don't know the actual political views of most climate scientists, but I can think of a few who have challenged typical models of climate, in ways that question AGW's validity, so how have they fared?<br /><br />Well Henrik Svensmark and Eigel Friis-Christensen are both scientists at the Danish National Space Center, and have both published multiple papers. They work in a fairly prestigious place, and have certainly been funded for their research. Roy Spencer went from working for NASA to working as the head of the climatology department at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, known as one of the few institutions that processes satellite temperature data for analysis by the scientific community (again, that's rather prestigious). The fact that he believes that humans have a very small impact on climate, and that the entire thing is basically driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is not an idea he's ever been able to really back solidly, and has never gained much traction, but it hasn't stopped him from having good jobs and doing influential work with the UAH temperature data. Richard Lindzen is also a fairly prolofic author of peer-reviewed research. Looking up papers authored by him on EBSCO, I find no less than 26 papers from him from 1994-2009. That's almost two a year!<br /><br /><br />Clearly, those few climate scientists out there who take the view of their field that could be called "conservative" don't lack for the ability to do their work, and are able to go about doing their work like anyone else, without interference (getting stonewalled on funding, peer review boards shutting them out, etc), so that should indicate that anyone who takes such a view can get into science just fine, so long as one has legitimate science to conduct (I know the religious right likes to point to a lot of bad papers or research that didn't get funding or was tossed out of peer review and pretend it's a giant orchestrated conspiracy to keep anti-AGW or "creation science" research from seeing the light of day, but it's clearly nonsense).Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54381840546825818172011-01-06T08:27:17.643-08:002011-01-06T08:27:17.643-08:00Tacitus2:
I continue to be surprised that indepen...Tacitus2:<br /><i><br />I continue to be surprised that independents are not better represented among our putatitvely independent thinking scientists, but there you have it.<br /></i><br /><br />Politically "independent" isn't quite the same thing as independent thinking. Political "independents" are simply those who don't see their interests in line with either major party.<br /><br />If (just for example :) ) one major party demands rigid ideological conformity, and the other one does not, then perhaps true "independent thinkers" would gravitate to the latter party and away from the former?<br /><br /><i><br />1. Chicken v. Egg, is the scientific community self selecting its members? Would I as a R leaning I (or a conservative if you prefer) be at a competitive disadvantage in gaining a grad school slot or a professorship? <br /></i><br /><br />Perhaps. But I think it's just as likely the other way around. The Republican Party (at the national level anyway) is self-selecting its members. As a scientific-minded thinker, I wold be at a competitive disadvantage in a Republican primary.<br /><br /><i><br />2. Is "science" held in less esteem right now as compared to some past times? Subjectively I think yes. We focus on the failures of big science...the space shuttle losses being obvious and public examples. And perhaps, just perhaps we are in an era where the accomplishments of science are either sparse or not of immediate impact on the lives of the average person.<br /></i><br /><br />Here I think you're on to something (although it doesn't seem to affect the relationship between scientists and any one party per se). I grew up as a kid in the 1960s when tv shows (Star Trek) and movies and superhero comics all seemed to glorify science. Often, scientists were heroes and vice versa. Since approximately the 1980s, this has changed. Scientists are now comic relief or tragic victims, and the place in escapist fiction that was once held by science has been given over to magic.<br /><br />As an armchair psychologist here, I'd say we've gone from a society excited by what we might accomplish just around the corner to a society retreating into wish-fulfillment.<br /><br />Could it have all started when Luke was told to turn off his targeting computer and "trust your feelings" instead?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67602038077833835492011-01-06T08:18:33.881-08:002011-01-06T08:18:33.881-08:00Tacitus,
I think you should add a subset to #2.
...Tacitus,<br /><br />I think you should add a subset to #2.<br /><br />2a. Does the lack of Republican representation in the scientific community stem from "science" being held in less esteem right now by the Republican Party?<br /><br />I think you will find that the answer is a resounding YES.<br /><br />From what I see, there are only a tiny amount of Republican scientists (note Republican, not conservative) because the GOP has not only given little love to scientists and little praise to science and education in general, but also because they have been directly attacking science and knowledge for decades.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91152859297416854482011-01-06T07:30:35.078-08:002011-01-06T07:30:35.078-08:00I have been pondering the surprising, but apparent...I have been pondering the surprising, but apparently legit stats on political inclinations of US scientists. The most recent Gallup numbers btw on the general population are iirc 29%R 31%D 38%I.<br />I continue to be surprised that independents are not better represented among our putatitvely independent thinking scientists, but there you have it.<br /><br />It has given me two thoughts.<br /><br />1. Chicken v. Egg, is the scientific community self selecting its members? Would I as a R leaning I (or a conservative if you prefer) be at a competitive disadvantage in gaining a grad school slot or a professorship? These are steps in the process of becoming a "scientist" that are not entirely merit based.<br /><br />2. Is "science" held in less esteem right now as compared to some past times? Subjectively I think yes. We focus on the failures of big science...the space shuttle losses being obvious and public examples. And perhaps, just perhaps we are in an era where the accomplishments of science are either sparse or not of immediate impact on the lives of the average person.<br /><br />I personally find exoplanets exciting. Someday human genome research might impact my life. But most of the progress I see daily is small conveniences like GPS or just plain frivolity. Wide screen TVs to watch Gilligans Island level programming.<br /><br />Radical scientific progress is not an even process. There are sudden leaps, often associated with times of conflict. (think WWII where the belligerants stated with biplanes and ended with jets...and with stealth tech on the drawing boards). Maybe crisis does not "create creativity" but it sure does fuel innovative adaptation. The Wehrmacht or the Red Army at your doorstep being a powerful stimulant.<br /><br />Well, just some random thoughts. Nothing would transform the concept of science from the pejorative "smartypants" to a much more elevated status than the Z.Cochrane Warp Drive. <br /><br />Get crackin' Zeph.<br /><br />Tacitus2Tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86609530465698817052011-01-06T06:19:06.340-08:002011-01-06T06:19:06.340-08:00Anonymous said:
Instead of robotically blaming Re...Anonymous said:<br /><i><br />Instead of robotically blaming Republicans for our ills...<br /></i><br /><br />at which point my brain shuts down.<br /><br />WHICH side has been "robotically" blaming their opponents for any and all ills for the last thirty-plus years? Give me an effing break.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9266199103565138292011-01-06T06:12:04.160-08:002011-01-06T06:12:04.160-08:00jqhart: yes, new oil fields are added when old one...jqhart: yes, new oil fields are added when old ones peaks. But they always invariably are smaller and harder to reach. And despite technological progress, the decline rate remains.<br /><br />After Pennsylvania peaked, the US added Texas. After Texas peaked, it added Alaska, the the Gulf of Mexico.<br /><br />And what happened? Nothing. The US peak of production remained in 1971. No amount of discoveries changed, or will ever change that peak. And it has been the same for every nation worldwide. There is no coming back from peak production.<br /><br />And that is the whole matter. There is enough oil in the ground, but there is not enough capital and resources to get it out at a sufficient flow to sustain current demand growth.<br /><br />Peak oil was 2005. We've been on an undulating plateau ever since. We will enter the decline phase shortly, dependly how quick the recovery is (or how quickly $100 oil derails it) and how quickly Chindia continues to grow.<br /><br />Brazil won't change that fact. Bakken won't change that fact. Iraq just might - but it is so hopelessly off target that even the IEA doesn't believe it will ever get to 12 million barrels per day.<br /><br />Oh, and 11 billion barrels is 4 months of current world consumption, give or take a few days. Without factoring in the ongoing exponential growth. India wants to grow oil consumption by 40% in the next ten years. That alone is more than 11 billion barrels. <br /><br />What we need is not a few billion barrels here and there. What we need is a new Saudi Arabia. Every three years.Hypnoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01409179274970587232noreply@blogger.com