Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    436
    Post Thanks / Like

    Is Bush Stifling Science?

    I thought you might like this discussion, Paintist. I got some of this information from the link on your signature.

    http://defendscience.org/statement.html

    http://www.livescience.com/othernews...h_science.html

    "IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY SCIENCE, AS SCIENCE, IS UNDER ATTACK AS NEVER BEFORE.

    The signs of this are everywhere. The attacks are coming at an accelerating pace, and include frequent interventions by powerful forces, in and out of the Bush Administration, who seem all too willing to deny scientific truths, disrupt scientific investigations, block scientific progress, undermine scientific education, and sacrifice the very integrity of the scientific process itself -- all in the pursuit of implementing their particular political agenda. And today this dominant political agenda is profoundly allied and intertwined with an extremist (and extremely anti-science) ideological agenda put forward by powerful fundamentalist religious forces commonly known as the Religious Right. These fundamentalists now have extensive influence and representatives in major institutions of the U.S. government, including Congress and the White House. This itself goes a long way towards explaining why science itself is under such unprecedented attack.


    Research into human sexuality in general has been suppressed and faulty studies and outright disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and other birth control methods have been promoted and disseminated by the Administration.

    Entire new fields of scientific inquiry, like stem-cell research, with potential for path-breaking medical breakthroughs, are denied federal funds because of fundamentalist religious objections...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    There are repeated efforts by government officials to over-rule scientists on such things as which plant and animal species to include on the "Endangered Species" list, which natural habitats are in critical need of preservation, how to set air and water quality standards, and so on...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Is it true that the Bush administration is stifling science? Or is this just one more attack to add to the many? It is my understanding that appliable scientific achievements are advancing at an exponetiating rate, so exactly is science being stifled?

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    NASA's budget was limited and certain programs eliminated - I don't blame Bush for that. I trust the experts when it comes to science and not Bush or any of his stooges.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Upper South
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    I don't think he means to, you know bugdets are hard to work, Science isn't a top priority. The present is. I don't trust bush, but i don't think he is smart enough to stifle science.
    I am over my head. However I like it down here. It is quiet and peaceful, just like my library.
    evil look for all racist, idiotic, homophobic, and sexist people.
    Some people say i am but i know i am just awsome.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    I am for cutting NASA budget 100% (along with every other government agency )

    Private business can do "space" better...

    Basically private reserach institutions are the way to solve this whole problem. Government can do whatever it wants with its own property...obviously not justly acquired...so of course they can say "don't research X or Y".

    Private labs can solve this problem by picking and choosing what they want to research...not subject to the caprice of a constantly changing government.
    "If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -Murray Rothbard

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Upper South
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    I am for cutting NASA budget 100% (along with every other government agency )

    Private business can do "space" better...

    Basically private reserach institutions are the way to solve this whole problem. Government can do whatever it wants with its own property...obviously not justly acquired...so of course they can say "don't research X or Y".

    Private labs can solve this problem by picking and choosing what they want to research...not subject to the caprice of a constantly changing government.
    Then again you still have private funding. Which have some problems. Public govermental funding provodes access to the public. While private funding can hide things in the dark.
    I am over my head. However I like it down here. It is quiet and peaceful, just like my library.
    evil look for all racist, idiotic, homophobic, and sexist people.
    Some people say i am but i know i am just awsome.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Overmyhead101
    Then again you still have private funding. Which have some problems. Public govermental funding provodes access to the public. While private funding can hide things in the dark.
    I don't see any problems with private funding. People who don't support stem cell reserach don't have to pay for it with tax dollars, and those who do can support it with their own private money.

    Anyway, most inventions aren't "kept in the dark" all you have to do is pick up a book by Brian Greene to see how the public is being kept up with the latest advancements in science. String theory, private space shuttles, the human genome, etc. are all things really advanced by the private sector and made public.
    "If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -Murray Rothbard

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Upper South
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    I don't see any problems with private funding. People who don't support stem cell reserach don't have to pay for it with tax dollars, and those who do can support it with their own private money.

    Anyway, most inventions aren't "kept in the dark" all you have to do is pick up a book by Brian Greene to see how the public is being kept up with the latest advancements in science. String theory, private space shuttles, the human genome, etc. are all things really advanced by the private sector and made public.
    True, True. Kudos on that!
    I am over my head. However I like it down here. It is quiet and peaceful, just like my library.
    evil look for all racist, idiotic, homophobic, and sexist people.
    Some people say i am but i know i am just awsome.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Haha thanks.
    "If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -Murray Rothbard

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Bush and his cronies don't so much stifle science as ignore or spin it if it doesn't suit their 'agenda'. The likes of ExxonMobil and Haliburton are the paymasters and supply the spin.

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ke_it_hot.html
    http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/shareholder2004.html
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    I am for cutting NASA budget 100% (along with every other government agency )

    Private business can do "space" better...

    Basically private reserach institutions are the way to solve this whole problem. Government can do whatever it wants with its own property...obviously not justly acquired...so of course they can say "don't research X or Y".

    Private labs can solve this problem by picking and choosing what they want to research...not subject to the caprice of a constantly changing government.
    Yeah. but they need a reason besides just research. Research is fine for the government. They don't always have to turn a profit. Big difference in the private sector.

    The privates need a $ making reason to get out there, and currently, it simply doesn't exist.

    The original cost and production of space "stuff" (vehicles, training, tools, etc.) simply is too prohibitive with current levels of technology for privates to make a big enough profit with the "research" angle.

    Launching a satellite, and doing science in zero g are worlds apart.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Thanks for making this thread man!

    Here's the thing, I don't entirely buy the accusation that Bush is stifling science. Indirectly he's undermining science and, by his shear ignorance, misrepresenting the scientific community but for his direct funding of science as being less than that of other presidents - I don't know - I haven't done the research. Nonetheless, I personally see the evidence that science is being underminded.

    But... there is a weird thing going on and I was thinking about making a thread about it but I think putting it here is just as good. There are few movements being made by naturalists (basically, all those who don't hold a supernaturalist worldview) to somehow garner support for themselves (The-Brights.Net, DefendScience) in order to make sure they are established as a credible socio-political influence. The naturalists are doing this because they view that religious supernaturalism is the proletariat so to speak, the dominant group. They support this claim with evidence of supernaturalists undermining science and so forth.

    On the flip side... supernaturalists think the same thing. They believe empiricism and technology (as the application of science) are taking over the Earth spiraling us toward amorality/immorality. They evidence this by the ubiquity of technology in our culture, the rise of "complexity", and because they fallaciously believe science "removes mysticism".

    So which is happening? It doesn't make much sense to me that each side thinks the other side has too much power. Anyways, sorry for the digression but there's a false dichotomy being practiced by both sides of the debate here. Scientists naturally think they are being stifled in their research while the Spiritualist think their religious foundations are being subverted.
    I rebel - therefore we exist.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    436
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    I find the statements made by the Defend Science group a little one sided and transparent. It is a joke to consider government research into human sexuality and the effectiveness of condoms essential to scientific advancement.

    Ths statement:
    Entire new fields of scientific inquiry, like stem-cell research, with potential for path-breaking medical breakthroughs, are denied federal funds because of fundamentalist religious objections...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    is absolutely false. Stem cell research is ongoing with funding from the government. It is embryonic stem-cell reseach the the administration has a problem with. the ethics question is comparable to harvesting organs from Chinese political prisoners.

    I have heard these arguments over and over again that the Bush administration is stifling science and am amazed at how people are sucked in to believing it.

    Here is my take.

    The Bush administration has decided there needs to be an increasing
    emphasis on development rather than on just pure research. Basic
    research is mostly what we have been doing for decades. Look at NASA
    for instance. For the last thirty years all we have been doing is
    probing around the solar system, sniffing around and collecting
    samples. It is time to apply the knowledge we have accumulated and
    finally do something.

    The Bush administration has decided focus the DOE on development
    rather than basic research and applied reseach. Do not be duped by
    those who would have you believe otherwise.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basic (aka fundamental or pure ) research is driven by a scientist's
    curiosity or interest in a scientific question. The main motivation
    is to expand man's knowledge , not to create or invent something.
    There is no obvious commercial value to the discoveries that result
    from basic research.

    For example, basic science investigations probe for answers to
    questions such as:

    How did the universe begin?
    What are protons, neutrons, and electrons composed of?
    How do slime molds reproduce?
    What is the specific genetic code of the fruit fly?

    "The President proposes to spend $137.2 billion on R&D in FY07, about a
    2.6 percent increase over FY06. The proposed R&D budget increases are
    heavily weighted toward development, which would receive a 7 percent
    increase, while basic research would receive a 1 percent increase, and
    applied research would decline by 7 percent."


    "The Administration's budget highlights five 'multi-agency R&D
    priorities' and provides a precise budget breakdown for three of them-
    nanotechnology, climate change science, and networking and information
    technology. The Committee strongly endorses these initiatives, and
    agrees that they deserve priority in funding."

    "...Such research is needed to ensure that the nation is adequately
    prepared for future threats and that the nation has a cadre of S&T
    professionals with appropriate training."

    "...The Administration meets the levels authorized for the Office of
    Science in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) with its request
    of $4.1 billion for FY07, a 14 percent increase over FY06. This $505
    million increase is 50 percent larger than the largest increase
    requested for the Office of Science in the preceding decade. The
    Committee believes the FY07 request will restore to health the Office
    of Science, an office which provides more than 40 percent of Federal
    support for basic research in the physical sciences. The
    Administration's out year commitment to provide annual increases
    averaging roughly 7 percent over the next 10 years will enable dramatic
    advances in the cutting-edge research underpinning our economic
    competitiveness and national security."

    "...the FY07 request allows the Office of Science to bring on line the
    new Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) and four of five Nanoscale Science
    Research Centers."



    Over the next ten to fifteen years we will all be blinded by the advances made in the arena, from astronomy to molecular engineering.







    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    I am for cutting NASA budget 100% (along with every other government agency )

    Private business can do "space" better...

    Basically private reserach institutions are the way to solve this whole problem. Government can do whatever it wants with its own property...obviously not justly acquired...so of course they can say "don't research X or Y".

    Private labs can solve this problem by picking and choosing what they want to research...not subject to the caprice of a constantly changing government.


    I disagree. Thanks to government research, research that no private organization would have been willing to undertake in the early years of exploration or even today for that matter, civilization has reached a revolutionary milestone in its history.
    Few are aware that every time they use an ATM or telephone they are relying on technology twelve thousand miles from the Earth. Or that every patient receiving medical care or has a pacemaker owes some thanks to technologies that have taken man to the moon.

    Communication satellite, the Global Positioning System were developed by the U.S. Defense Department. The drive into space via government agencies has transformed many aspects of daily life. One result is a $100 billion worlwide satellite industry composed of manufacturers such as Boeing, EADS/Astrium and Alcatel Space; launch firms like China Great Wall Industry Corporation, operators and coordinators such as Intersputnik in Russia, not to mention a variety of service firms, space imaging and ground equipment suppliers. All thanks to massive government funding into science that could produce a trickle down affect into the economy. This is the science we need to keep pouring our money into. No private agency would be willing to take the risks that were necessary to get us where we are today. After the first misshap, the first death or sign of incompetence people would start to pull their money out and call for the heads of the CEOs. And nothing would ever get done and the world would be a much dimmer place. Kinda similar to the Iraq situation, huh?

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Yes, he is. Bush is stifling science that is immoral, such as human cloning. You see, we shouldn't do every possible thing just because we can. I could construct ten different types of weapons and kill someone with each of them just to see which was the most efficient, and it wouldn't be right or good just because I was doing it a new way each time.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    436
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    Yes, he is. Bush is stifling science that is immoral, such as human cloning. You see, we shouldn't do every possible thing just because we can. I could construct ten different types of weapons and kill someone with each of them just to see which was the most efficient, and it wouldn't be right or good just because I was doing it a new way each time.

    The claim by the Defend Science group, as well as others is that because condom effectiveness funding is running dry and human sexuality studies are being cut that science is harmed somehow. While Bush may be cutting some research that he finds morally repugnant, I believe the shift in funding is due to a need to focus on development and application of what has been gathered over the last four decades. Condoms are great and all, but they are not going to power my spaceship.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    Yes, he is. Bush is stifling science that is immoral, such as human cloning. You see, we shouldn't do every possible thing just because we can. I could construct ten different types of weapons and kill someone with each of them just to see which was the most efficient, and it wouldn't be right or good just because I was doing it a new way each time.
    There is another side of the coin, Kevin. I'll conceed that there is a discrepency in which 'moral' is given more concern than another but the science that Bush is stifling is not as "immoral" as the science he is apparently encouraging and utilizing. Stem-cells and human cloning might seem "immoral" but they are also at the pursuit of saving humanity. Bush stifles human cloning because he "just think's it's wrong" while he uses the technological advancements of military weaponry to murder thousands. It seems to me that the moral against human cloning is of a larger concern to him than the moral against killing.

    Quote Originally Posted by unkcheetah
    is absolutely false. Stem cell research is ongoing with funding from the government. It is embryonic stem-cell reseach the the administration has a problem with.
    I don't know about "absolutely" false. It's partly false because it's vague but it is a fact that the administration stifled stem-cell research by refusing to fund embryonic stem-cell research, saying they should only use the remaining embryos they have. I sort of view this as a pathetic compromise by the adminstration though. If they truly felt using human embryos is "wrong" they would/should completely disallow the research entirely. But in order to be "somewhat" nice, they compromised by disallowing the use of of any new stem-cells.

    Otherwise, you did a good job of presenting evidence suggesting Bush isn't stifling pure science, but by neglecting some applied science research he's stifling them. It also makes perfect sense that he'd fund pure science over that of applied science. Pure science doesn't have as many "moral" dillemmas that applied science has. It's also less likely to conflict with his faith (eg. evolution).
    I rebel - therefore we exist.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Upper South
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by paintist
    Thanks for making this thread man!

    Here's the thing, I don't entirely buy the accusation that Bush is stifling science. Indirectly he's undermining science and, by his shear ignorance, misrepresenting the scientific community but for his direct funding of science as being less than that of other presidents - I don't know - I haven't done the research. Nonetheless, I personally see the evidence that science is being underminded.

    But... there is a weird thing going on and I was thinking about making a thread about it but I think putting it here is just as good. There are few movements being made by naturalists (basically, all those who don't hold a supernaturalist worldview) to somehow garner support for themselves (The-Brights.Net, DefendScience) in order to make sure they are established as a credible socio-political influence. The naturalists are doing this because they view that religious supernaturalism is the proletariat so to speak, the dominant group. They support this claim with evidence of supernaturalists undermining science and so forth.

    On the flip side... supernaturalists think the same thing. They believe empiricism and technology (as the application of science) are taking over the Earth spiraling us toward amorality/immorality. They evidence this by the ubiquity of technology in our culture, the rise of "complexity", and because they fallaciously believe science "removes mysticism".

    So which is happening? It doesn't make much sense to me that each side thinks the other side has too much power. Anyways, sorry for the digression but there's a false dichotomy being practiced by both sides of the debate here. Scientists naturally think they are being stifled in their research while the Spiritualist think their religious foundations are being subverted.
    natural human feelings! to complain. Spiritualists need to adapt. Science out ranks all, because it has evidence. Faith, may see nice, but it has no proof that their actually is anything out their. Now i agree with the supernatiuralists, I do believe tech. is getting out of hand, but not to an extreme, to a-mortality.
    ~
    Science is being undermined to an extent, but not directlky by any one person.
    I am over my head. However I like it down here. It is quiet and peaceful, just like my library.
    evil look for all racist, idiotic, homophobic, and sexist people.
    Some people say i am but i know i am just awsome.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    I feel that science and 'religion' in one sense need eachother as a counter-tension and a foil with which to question the morality, ethicity and rationale of human direction and thought. For one or the other to gain a total 'upper hand' would result in a tyranny of power that can lead to greater problems/anomie in society.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    KevinBrowning wrote:

    Yes, he is. Bush is stifling science that is immoral, such as human cloning. You see, we shouldn't do every possible thing just because we can. I could construct ten different types of weapons and kill someone with each of them just to see which was the most efficient, and it wouldn't be right or good just because I was doing it a new way each time.
    Most of our technology came from research with the design goal of making it easier and cheaper to kill other human beings while avoiding being killed oneself. That research that wasn't initiated by that value set, frequently gets developed with that in mind once someone sees the barest glimmer of usage on the battlefield. So look around you, practically everything you have is from some merchant seeing a way to turn the technology of warfare into a convienence for profit. Be certain that the "ten different weapons" are being developed and nothing like a real shooting war to test them out on real live targets, and that's one area of science Bush is most assuredly NOT stifling.

    The technology itself isn't evil, after all the same roads that allow combat troops and their logistics to move quickly can also be used to allow farmers a faster way to market. I agree we, as a society, should not "do every possible thing because we can." Like forced human experiments by the Nazi's on Jews and the infamous Tuskegee syphilus experiment. Of course data from those experiments are still used today. But regardless, we are not doing every possible thing because we can, the fact that we don't know is why we do research.

    But it appears that unless it'll turn a buck (which means patents for those things that can be reverse engineered and secrecy for those that can't) or kills better, Rove won't support it.

    The worst part of the stifling comes from the administration's war on scholarship. One must stay firm in one's prior stated position, no matter what the facts turn out to be. My favorite is the whole "Evolution is just a Theory" without having the honesty to mention that creationism (or whatever they're calling it this week, that in itself the definition of equivocation) is mearly a premise.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    436
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by paintist
    Thanks for making this thread man!

    Here's the thing, I don't entirely buy the accusation that Bush is stifling science. Indirectly he's undermining science and, by his shear ignorance, misrepresenting the scientific community but for his direct funding of science as being less than that of other presidents - I don't know - I haven't done the research. Nonetheless, I personally see the evidence that science is being underminded.

    "The President proposes to spend $137.2 billion on R&D in FY07, about a
    2.6 percent increase over FY06. The proposed R&D budget increases are
    heavily weighted toward development, which would receive a 7 percent
    increase, while basic research would receive a 1 percent increase, and
    applied research would decline by 7 percent."

    "The Administration's budget highlights five 'multi-agency R&D
    priorities' and provides a precise budget breakdown for three of them-
    nanotechnology, climate change science, and networking and information
    technology. The Committee strongly endorses these initiatives, and
    agrees that they deserve priority in funding."

    "...Such research is needed to ensure that the nation is adequately
    prepared for future threats and that the nation has a cadre of S&T
    professionals with appropriate training."

    "...The Administration meets the levels authorized for the Office of
    Science in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) with its request
    of $4.1 billion for FY07, a 14 percent increase over FY06. This $505
    million increase is 50 percent larger than the largest increase
    requested for the Office of Science in the preceding decade
    .
    The
    Committee believes the FY07 request will restore to health the Office
    of Science, an office which provides more than 40 percent of Federal
    support for basic research in the physical sciences. The
    Administration's out year commitment to provide annual increases
    averaging roughly 7 percent over the next 10 years will enable dramatic
    advances in the cutting-edge research underpinning our economic
    competitiveness and national security
    ."


    "...the FY07 request allows the Office of Science to bring on line the
    new Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) and four of five Nanoscale Science
    Research Centers."
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.rss.html?pid=19969




    But... there is a weird thing going on and I was thinking about making a thread about it but I think putting it here is just as good. There are few movements being made by naturalists (basically, all those who don't hold a supernaturalist worldview) to somehow garner support for themselves (The-Brights.Net, DefendScience) in order to make sure they are established as a credible socio-political influence. The naturalists are doing this because they view that religious supernaturalism is the proletariat so to speak, the dominant group. They support this claim with evidence of supernaturalists undermining science and so forth.

    But the evidence they bring forth is federally funded research on condoms, human sexuality, endangered spesies lists and are not entirely honest about their claim that Bush is stifling stem cell research. I believe much of this can be done privately.

    On the flip side... supernaturalists think the same thing. They believe empiricism and technology (as the application of science) are taking over the Earth spiraling us toward amorality/immorality. They evidence this by the ubiquity of technology in our culture, the rise of "complexity", and because they fallaciously believe science "removes mysticism".

    So which is happening? It doesn't make much sense to me that each side thinks the other side has too much power. Anyways, sorry for the digression but there's a false dichotomy being practiced by both sides of the debate here. Scientists naturally think they are being stifled in their research while the Spiritualist think their religious foundations are being subverted.
    It doesn't make much sense to me either. I don't think it is as simple as naturalists vs. spiritualists. No scientist that is receiving federal funding wants their program to be cut as they have likely spent years in research and view it as important to humanity, not to mention bringing home the bacon. Then we also have a politically polarized society ready to point fingers at each other if for no other reason than to say, see, I told you so. This is a perfect opportunity for activists to seize the moment and make claims that Bush is stifling science. The statement made by the Defend Science group in the first paragragh couldn't help but to attack religion and the Bush administration. They make many claims but have failed to back it up with references.

    In my opinion, this couldn't be further from the truth. As noted above, Bush has increased spending on science, "...the FY07 request allows the Office of Science to bring on line the new Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) and four of five Nanoscale Science Research Centers."
    This is the science that needs the funding. These sciences are our future and if we don't stop quibbling we will find in the not too distant future countries like Japan China and India will have outpaced the U.S. in this very important technology.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomer
    KevinBrowning wrote:



    Most of our technology came from research with the design goal of making it easier and cheaper to kill other human beings while avoiding being killed oneself. That research that wasn't initiated by that value set, frequently gets developed with that in mind once someone sees the barest glimmer of usage on the battlefield. So look around you, practically everything you have is from some merchant seeing a way to turn the technology of warfare into a convienence for profit. Be certain that the "ten different weapons" are being developed and nothing like a real shooting war to test them out on real live targets, and that's one area of science Bush is most assuredly NOT stifling.

    The technology itself isn't evil, after all the same roads that allow combat troops and their logistics to move quickly can also be used to allow farmers a faster way to market. I agree we, as a society, should not "do every possible thing because we can." Like forced human experiments by the Nazi's on Jews and the infamous Tuskegee syphilus experiment. Of course data from those experiments are still used today. But regardless, we are not doing every possible thing because we can, the fact that we don't know is why we do research.

    But it appears that unless it'll turn a buck (which means patents for those things that can be reverse engineered and secrecy for those that can't) or kills better, Rove won't support it.

    The worst part of the stifling comes from the administration's war on scholarship. One must stay firm in one's prior stated position, no matter what the facts turn out to be. My favorite is the whole "Evolution is just a Theory" without having the honesty to mention that creationism (or whatever they're calling it this week, that in itself the definition of equivocation) is mearly a premise.
    Not true. Many advances that have trickled down that have benefited all humanity comes from research from space exploration.
    Few are aware that every time they use an ATM or telephone they are relying on technology twelve thousand miles from the Earth. Or that every patient receiving medical care or has a pacemaker owes some thanks to technologies that have taken man to the moon.

    Communication satellite, the Global Positioning System were developed by the U.S. Defense Department. The drive into space via government agencies has transformed many aspects of daily life. One result is a $100 billion worlwide satellite industry composed of manufacturers such as Boeing, EADS/Astrium and Alcatel Space; launch firms like China Great Wall Industry Corporation, operators and coordinators such as Intersputnik in Russia, not to mention a variety of service firms, space imaging and ground equipment suppliers. All thanks to massive government funding into science that could produce a trickle down affect into the economy. This is the science we need to keep pouring our money into. No private agency would be willing to take the risks that were necessary to get us where we are today. After the first misshap, the first death or sign of incompetence people would start to pull their money out and call for the heads of the CEOs. And nothing would ever get done and the world would be a much dimmer place.

    I could go on and on. It staggers the mind, actually. Did you know that the design of the artificial heart was derived from a water pump for the space shuttle?
    Last edited by unkcheetah; June 14th, 2006 at 03:32 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Bush Stifling Science?

    Actually, in the above unkcheetah post, KevinBrowning quoted me, he did not write anything in the quote box.

    In response to my idea that most technology comes from military needs, unkcheetah says:

    Not true. Many advances that have trickled down that have benefited all humanity comes from research from space exploration.
    I thought it was well known that the "Race to the Moon" was the public (and 'scare the ruskies' while keeping space 'peaceful') face for ICBM, ABM, and satellite lift development. And that NASA continues today with more military missions than commercial.

    Below is the support, if needed I'll look around for the cites:

    1944- Missile age begins, V-2 can hit London from France. (Pedemunde) Research into ICBM's

    1945-1946- Debriefing Pedemunde scientists, US decides to start ICBM program, hires German scientists, including top dog Von Braun.

    Same time USSR also embarks on the same project with THEIR collection of German scientists.

    8/57- Russians test launch first ICBM

    10/57- Russians launch Sputnik

    12/57- The US successfully launches its first ICBM (Atlas)

    1958- Read here http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...line/1958.html how NASA came about directly from the Pentagon (first called NACA) to be 'Civilian' in order to adhere to the letter of disarmament agreements and that "outer space should be used only for peaceful purposes" as Eisenhower said.

    Then continue through the rest of the site if you wish:
    http://history.nasa.gov/timeline.html

    So I say my thesis stands.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 100 reasons not to vote for bush
    By Zhavric in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 26th, 2004, 12:09 PM
  2. First Presidential Debate
    By emtee10 in forum Politics
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: October 8th, 2004, 12:08 PM
  3. YAFF from Kerry
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2004, 07:52 PM
  4. Kerry: Flip Flopper? Or Not?
    By Crimson in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 21st, 2004, 01:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •