Pages

Jump to bottom

16 comments

1 jvic  Tue, May 22, 2012 1:43:58pm

1. The national elites have been running the country in an unsustainable manner for years. That most emphatically includes the scientific elites, except one might replace 'years' with 'decades' in the previous sentence.

2. The vulnerabilities of US basic research have been taking shape for decades. They have received grossly inadequate attention from the scientific establishment because the overall enterprise was booming.

3. There is absolutely no acknowledgment in the NYT piece that some of US physics' problems may be its own doing.

4. There is absolutely no acknowledgment in the NYT piece that there is more to physics than space and fundamental particles. (Or so I presume: afaik Steven Chu's Nobel Prize was not in either of those areas.)

5. IMO the NYT piece is a schlocky piece of special pleading. IMHO American science is in a serious, worsening, godawful mess to whose creation it has contributed significantly. Give us more money is not a serious prescription.

6. NB: In principle I favor major increases in US funding for basic & applied research, but not under the rubric of business as usual.

2 Obdicut  Tue, May 22, 2012 5:19:33pm

re: #1 jvic

Can you back up any of your points, please?

3 jvic  Wed, May 23, 2012 6:37:18am

Can you back up any of your points, please?

Descriptions of the Physics Nobel Prize by subfield can be found at nobelprize.org. An insider's view of particle physics can be found at the Not Even Wrong blog and in the book of the same name. There may well be graduate student chat sites with a bottom-up perspective similar to what I hear from a professor friend who talks to me off the record.

4 Obdicut  Wed, May 23, 2012 12:46:37pm

re: #3 jvic

Seriously, that's your backup for a vast condemnation of the state of physics in America and basically blaming physicists themselves for the problems?

That you've got a friend who talks to you 'off the record'?

Why not on the record? Professors don't tend to be shy about complaining about the state of affairs.

5 jvic  Wed, May 23, 2012 2:19:09pm

I see no indication that you have examined the sites I mentioned, let alone that you have looked for the grad student forums whose existence I hypothesized.

And I am not interested in responding to hyperbolic questions.

6 Obdicut  Wed, May 23, 2012 2:24:16pm

re: #5 jvic

I see no indication that you have examined the sites I mentioned, let alone that you have looked for the grad student forums whose existence I hypothesized.
.

You seriously are upset I didn't go out looking for hypothetical fucking grad student forums? Seriously?

Holy shit.

You haven't backed up your claims in the least. All you have is bare assertion.

7 TDG2112  Wed, May 23, 2012 2:26:34pm

jvic,
I have to side Obdicut here. I don't see you doing any serious work to back up your points at all. Certainly not in articulating them.

8 wrenchwench  Wed, May 23, 2012 2:43:39pm

re: #1 jvic

I'm curious about this claim in particular:

1. The national elites have been running the country in an unsustainable manner for years. That most emphatically includes the scientific elites, except one might replace 'years' with 'decades' in the previous sentence.

Can you elaborate? Or clarify?

9 TDG2112  Wed, May 23, 2012 2:53:18pm

Okay, back to my original line of thought when I read the page's posting:

Much better articulation of the article and the argument being made by the article is by Neil deGrass Tyson. He is very often pointing out that we are falling behind other nations in science, and this will effect our economy in a big way in the future. He lays out the impact of science on the US economy, namely in how it spurs innovation. Space exploration is one of the best ways to spur scientific innovation as it brings together all the different sciences, plus engineering. We're looking for life, Biologists, we're looking at other planets, geologists, we are of course studying physics and astrophysics as well as chemistry going on out there. And then you have to get there.

Short version on youtube:

To the point, short and designed for Congress members to digest:

Long, rambling and targeting an audience involved in space exploration:

The article that got him invited to Congress:
[Link: www.foreignaffairs.com...]

Otherwise just, search YouTube for his stuff. He has been banging on this topic for years. Dig deep enough and his argument is that Republicans SHOULD be in favor of funding science more than anyone (he worked for Bush and uses the experience to say they are all about making money, therefore funding science to spur American Innovation SHOULD BE a no-brainer). He doesn't talk about Tang, or "spin-offs" from the space program. He talks about Innovation and the culture thereof.

I can't say for sure but it seems he is trying to make an argument that Republicans can pick up and run with that Democrats won't object too much too.

Anyways, that is my rambling random thoughts on the subject. Apologies if it isn't anymore coherent than anyone else's.

10 jvic  Wed, May 23, 2012 4:02:29pm

re: #7 TDG2112

jvic, I have to side Obdicut here. I don't see you doing any serious work to back up your points at all. Certainly not in articulating them.

TDG2112, the condition of US physics, chemistry, etc was decades in the making. I tried to indicate that I understand the problem, let alone the solution, imperfectly; the IMO and IMHO in my original comment were not expressed casually.

My post consists of assertions by someone whose standing to opine is neither verifiable nor stated. Granted. However, note that I indicated two references: the specialties of Physics Nobel Laureates, and Columbia lecturer Peter Woit's dissident blog about fundamental physics. And note the evidence which Obdicut introduced to rebut my opinion:

Professors don't tend to be shy about complaining about the state of affairs, says Obdicut regarding my anonymous physics professor friend. My friend's grants, which represent summer salary and money to run his lab, are awarded via peer review. Not surprisingly, some peers are more equal than others. My friend does not openly alienate the most influential people in his specialty because he is one of many qualified competitors vying for the same money.

11 jvic  Wed, May 23, 2012 5:27:43pm

re: #8 wrenchwench

I'm curious about this claim in particular:

1. The national elites have been running the country in an unsustainable manner for years. That most emphatically includes the scientific elites, except one might replace 'years' with 'decades' in the previous sentence.

Can you elaborate? Or clarify?

You put your finger on my most generalized, judgment-callish point, but I'll try.

At least three factors influenced the growth of government support for research: its contribution to winning WW2, the Soviet military threat, and the shock of the Soviet challenge in space. The physical sciences were a national priority and grew like topsy. Jobs in industry and academia were plentiful.

That began to change with the aerospace cutbacks after the moon landing. ("Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights?") Despite some major bumps and ruts in the road, academic science continued to roll along---but the composition of the graduate student population began to change: fewer Americans, more foreigners. The number of academic openings shrank; though PhDs continued to be employable in industry, the effort required to acquire the degree---especially when compared to degrees in law, business, medicine, etc---came into question.

The emerging development is the growth of opportunities in foreign economies. Some leading American scholars have accepted positions in China and Europe. some overseas applicants to US grad schools are seeing comparable opportunities at home. The eventual effects of this are not yet known, but in all likelihood they will not be small.

It's my impression, from outside the field, that the current science power structure has ignored, and is trying to continue to ignore, the foregoing secular changes. Add to that the irresponsibility of the nation's governing elite, and add the fact that research is especially vulnerable in times of austerity. There are structural issues with American science that are more important than leaving some experiments to the Europeans, which is only a symptom.

12 SidewaysQuark  Wed, May 23, 2012 8:29:20pm

re: #4 Obdicut

Why not on the record? Professors don't tend to be shy about complaining about the state of affairs.

Well, tenured ones....

13 wrenchwench  Thu, May 24, 2012 9:05:36am

re: #11 jvic

Who are the 'scientific elites' that are running the country?

14 jvic  Thu, May 24, 2012 12:49:16pm

re: #13 wrenchwench

Who are the 'scientific elites' that are running the country?

That's (apparently) your opinion, not mine. I wrote that the scientific elite is part of the national elite. Scientists influence the political process but they are not the ultimate decision makers.

Also the scientific elite has factions and sub-factions; it does not necessarily speak with a single voice. On the contrary, there is competition for resources. As I indicated, the NYT article does not distinguish between a couple of subfields of physics and the whole of the subject.

As for who the scientific elite are, the NYT article mentions some of them. The National Academy of Sciences contains a bunch more, as do the governing councils of various professional societies.

15 wrenchwench  Thu, May 24, 2012 1:25:47pm

re: #14 jvic

That's (apparently) your opinion, not mine. I wrote that the scientific elite is part of the national elite. Scientists influence the political process but they are not the ultimate decision makers.

Also the scientific elite has factions and sub-factions; it does not necessarily speak with a single voice. On the contrary, there is competition for resources. As I indicated, the NYT article does not distinguish between a couple of subfields of physics and the whole of the subject.

As for who the scientific elite are, the NYT article mentions some of them. The National Academy of Sciences contains a bunch more, as do the governing councils of various professional societies.

See, this is why I asked for clarification. Your #1 reads like you believe the scientific elite are part of the national elite that runs the country. The fact that there are a bunch of factions argues against them being very influential.

I don't see a lot of influence by professional scientists in our government. We need more. Science requires more federal money if we want to be competitive.

16 jvic  Thu, May 24, 2012 6:57:38pm

IMO the scientific community would agree with one voice that science deserves more money. (And I agree, though with reservations.) Where the money should go is quite another matter.

Actually, there have been at least two major scientific influences on national policy in recent decades: missile defense and AGW. I'm not claiming that either concept will successfully be put into practice, but I'm saying that each has strongly affected the climate of opinion. Also, most of the scientific elite oppose missile defense whereas most subscribe to AGW.

If you want to get a flavor of what scientific controversy is like, the Not Even Wrong blog I've been mentioning is a good place to start. It might take multiple readings to get a feel for what's happening; much of the liveliest action is in the archives and the comments.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 90 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0