One of the sites I follow (listed in the blog roll to the right of this post--scroll down) is the Science Cheerleader, a former Philadelphia 76ers Cheerleader who now works for Discover magazine and blogs about science.
The Science Cheerleader and I talked last week about the Sarah Palin nomination and what it meant to science. I sent her what I thought was just notes, but she published the whole message. If you are curious, it's here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Advocating for Ukraine in Washington DC, Part 1
Yesterday and Today I joined hundreds of advocates for Ukraine to advocate for funding to support the fight against the Russian invasion i...
-
Tasks, Conditions and Standards is how we learn to do everything in the Army. If you are assigned to be the machine gunner in a rifle squad... -
On 10 November 2003 the crew of Chinook helicopter Yankee 2-6 made this landing on a cliff in Afghanistan. Artist Larry Selman i... -
C.S. Lewis , best known for The Chronicles of Narnia served in World War I in the British Army. He was a citizen of Northern Ireland an...
Great thinking and writing, Neil. I continue to marvel at your seemingly infinite and incomparable ability to land "ink."
ReplyDeleteYour post/link has me curious.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a scientist because I try to use empiricism in making decisions as much as possible - though I realize that as a human, I'm pretty much going to make irrational decisions no matter what. Regarding issues on 'global warming,' I've pretty much resigned myself to the thinking that any data you see on the issue is basically science free (unless you're trying to perform an analysis of how politically motivated funding produces confirmation bias, even in those trying to be objective).
Do you really think that additional government funding of 'science' produces better research, any more than additional funding of public schools produces better education outcomes?
In general, I tend to think that government funding of basic science and research is a waste of taxpayer money. Witness Venter's mapping of the Human Genome in a year and a half and at relatively minimal costs when he figured out that he could make money doing in, when the guys at the NIH said that it would take 10 years. (A counter point to this might be the discoveries from NASA research that have produced real-world products, but those gems seem to have dried up since the 70s, and whose to say that most of those things wouldn't have been thought of anyway_...?
Thanks,
Burt
Thanks,
Burt
Meredith--Sure, you've got 97 books you have written on Amazon and I am the one getting ink. Thanks, Neil
ReplyDeleteBFH--Lisa didn't recognize you. She thought those sunglasses were strange even for you.
ReplyDeleteAs to your post I disagree with it completely. Probably better if we discuss off line.
Write me at ngussman@gmail.com