Doug:
I guess as a scientist, you'll be marching for science this weekend?
David:
Why would I be marching for science? Are artists marching for art? Are plumbers marching for plumbing? Electricians marching for electricity? Do you think everything needs a march or a protest?
Doug:
As you could see from the above flowchart from PhD comics, there are reasons to march.
David:
Right. You're literally getting your marching orders from the comics.
So, if I'm not out marching, I'm against science? Or could it be that I'm still for science (as I always have been) here at home? According to government statistics, there are roughly 6.2 million scientists in America. According to Reuters News, tens of thousands marched (split over numerous locations), and a good portion of marchers were there to protest Donald Trump, not to support science. It would seem a good number of scientists were not out marching, but were carrying on with their everyday lives.
Doug:
600 hundred marches over 6 continents (and some underwater). I had no idea that the March for Science was a worldwide event. I see pictures from all over the world. I thought it was just a US protest to the current Republican administration's actions against science-based agencies. Who knew?
David:
I'm really not sure what you mean. Seriously, I don't know exactly what your beef with the current administration is about regarding science. I do see that you're trying to frame Republicans once again as being anti-science, which isn't true. Reducing the scope and size of government is a conservative theme for sure. But equating that with being anti-science is a falsehood. Because of massive deficit-spending during the last administration, Trump is cutting costs at essentially all government agencies. He hasn't taken any actions against science.
If people want to encourage more young people to get involved with science, math, and engineering, which is where the jobs of the future may be, and it's a world-wide movement, I certainly encourage that. March on, science nerds! We are the future! Live long and prosper!
Doug:
Your argument is this: "I don't know why you believe the Republicans are anti-science. And, even though I don't know why, I know that it can't be true. And Big Government is bad." In any event, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was just wondering if you joined the thousands and thousands of people marching? I guess not. So, it happened last weekend. Let me show you some pictures to try to answer your questions about why people are marching. Which is your favorite?
There are millions more pictures. I think my favorite that I saw was a sign that said "Because we're not stupid." Short, simple, sweet.
David:
Once again, you've interpreted my points, filtered through your liberal kaleidoscope. So much for your efforts at understanding what I think. Perhaps instead of rephrasing what I say into your own words, you should just stick to speaking for yourself.
There are millions of pictures? There were only tens of thousands marching. Did they just keep taking photos of each other, over and over?
Many of the pictures on-line indicate this was pretty much another liberal anti-Republican, anti-Trump, I'm-really-mad-I-didn't-get-my-way march. Many were still wearing their pink vagina hats. That really weakens the point of the march, I think. Once again, when you make an issue appear even a bit partisan, the issue is watered down. Here's a nice piece pointing out why mixing politics and science is a bad idea.
Doug:
Most scientists I know don't want to march. But they feel that science is under attack and they want to do something.
David:
And, to the larger context, science doesn't need government funding to survive. One of the speakers at the march in Washington was on the research team that figured out how to create human insulin through recombinant DNA using E.Coli bacteria. That research and process was developed here in Indianapolis at Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company. Aerospace science R&D comes out of companies like Boeing. The government is not only not necessary, but again, due to our current financial state, all government agencies (the discretionary spending portion of the budget) need to be trimmed. If the prior administration had not increased our debt more than all the administrations that came before it combined, we might not be in a position where we need to cut funding to differing agencies.
Doug:
Science doesn't need the government? Yes it does! If you believe otherwise, you don't understand how academia works. Even Eli Lilly runs on government money. All of the scientists there got their training working on government-funded research. If you let commercialism run science, you'll only get "science" that makes money for those companies. Imagine if Microsoft had invented the internet rather than our government. It would cost $250 a year subscription, and you'd have to use Microsoft Explorer. Of course, Apple would have their own, incompatible version. The internet was developed by our scientists and our taxes and given back to us, and the world. Our Big, Great Government did that! We can make the world a better place. That is what scientists do. If you try to make science about money, then that is what you will get: things that you don't need that cost a lot of money.
David:
Al Gore invented the internet. He said so. Right before he said California and Florida would be under water by 2008. Here's another well-balanced article about why you should not mix science with politics. (It's surprisingly balanced, as it's from the NY Times.)
Doug:
Imagine that you are a company working on cures for cancer. You have two pills: one that cures cancer with a single dose, and the other that keeps you alive, but doesn't cure cancer, and you have to take a pill every month. What are you going to do? How much are these pills going to cost? You have to recoup your costs! And keep the jobs flowing. Maybe the scientists could refine the pill so you have to take it every hour... now you are thinking!
David:
That last comment shows a complete misunderstanding of how pharmaceutical companies work. They have real scientists as well as the government, who work to come up with the best solutions, not to maximize profits.
Doug:
You been hanging with Martin ‘Pharma Boy’ Shkreli? Trust us. Sure. If he hadn't been sooo greedy, it would have worked.
David:
You're going to denigrate an entire industry of scientists over one man? If you believe that scientists working for private corporations work for their own benefit, why do you not believe that government scientist would also work for their own benefit.
Doug:
I was just pointing out that there are at least some greedy players. But there are some scientists that fake their data. There are some scientists that make honest mistakes. I don't believe every scientist... I believe the science venture. We repeat science experiments to make sure that we ferret out bad science.
David:
Government science is pure, and science in private industry is bad and faked. Got it.
Doug:
I just said that there can be bad science anywhere.
David: Your bias against corporations blinds you to your own inconsistency. If you don't trust the science coming out of corporate America, you should be able to see why some don't trust the science coming out of Big-Government. When scientist join a partisan political rally, it cements that thinking.
Doug:
I'm arguing to not trust any single source, but trust the collective, the consensus. A single drug company can pick their price. They can focus on treatments rather than cures. I don't blame them, but that can't be the entire playing field.
David:
Yet you've lumped all pharmaceutical scientists into one bag. Corporate scientists fake their findings, and government scientists just make honest mistakes? Why can't it be the other way around?
Doug:
It is neither. Imagine that a company that can sell you stuff that makes you sick (think sugary drinks, or air pollution) and that same company sells things that can make you better (think medicine or air ventilation systems). This is win-win! This is Corporate Think at its best!
David:
Imagine government workers producing data showing the world is ending before our very eyes (without allowing anyone to see the data). Then, they produce regulations that they must enforce to "cure the world" of those dangers. Their jobs are secure, and they can hire their friends to work with them, because they need more help to do the job. If you say that's a nonsensical argument, I'd say it's the same argument you're selling about corporations.
Doug:
A worldwide conspiracy?! It is not the same argument. Science is made to be tested. If it doesn't hold up, throw it out. We may need to do another march because if you understood, you would realize that a worldwide science conspiracy is impossible.
David:
And yet most climate science is governmental, here in the US and abroad at the UN.
Doug:
You just said that science doesn't need government funding, and now you say that most climate science is funded by governments. But you claim that we need more study.
David:
Climate science cannot be tested.
Doug:
You don't believe in climate science?! It isn't that you doubt one conclusion or another; you don't even believe that there could be a science of climate because (you claim) that it can't be tested. Well, at least you admit it. Like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. How could I? If you deny that science even exists, then there is no argument against that.
David:
We can check to see if temperatures change, sure, but what is driving the change cannot be known or tested. How do you test the greenhouse effect? On a global scale? You cannot. My questioning of climate science is their conclusions, and the predictive models, which is where I believe they over reach. My point about the continued shortcomings of their predictions proves they don't know enough about what's happening to draw the conclusions they have.
Doug:
Do I want to leave my health and prosperity to be determined by corporate greed? No! We need to support general science exploration; you don't know where it will lead. Are all companies evil? No, of course not. But Big Government can level out the playing field by supporting research without commercial constraints. This has impacts on the ethics of science. For example, if the commercial world won't cure cancer (or any other disease), federally-funded research will.
David:
Are you kidding? Dozens of companies' have thousands of scientists and doctors working very diligently to cure cancers of all types. (Not all cancers are the same. It isn't cancer, it's cancers) You talk as though they could cure all of these diseases tomorrow, but they just refuse to do it.
All of these companies are engaged in basic research. Personally, as a diabetic, I'm grateful that Eli Lilly invented the process of recombinant-DNA to create human insulin. "Are all companies are evil. No...". That's quite magnanimous of you, but insinuates that you believe most companies are evil.
Doug:
The march was pretty non-partisan. Scientists, largely, did not want to march. They like to keep their fields free of bias. But pro-science is not a political stance. Perhaps you see something in these pictures that others don't. I'm sure that there were signs of all kinds.
David:
I have to admit that every march of any kind from now on should have science nerds make their signs. Here are some of those other signs that show the cleverness of science-minds:
Doug:
I see people all over the world marching for science, and the joy of science. I think I even saw some Republicans marching for science. That really strengthens the point of the march, don't you think? Regarding why people are marching, here is a nice story on how some Republicans came to embrace anti-environmentalism. Here is a list of the top 7 ways the Republican administration is attacking science, just at the EPA. Here are 5 ways that the Republicans attacked science in just one week. Or this one: Donald Trump's Science Denial Is Becoming National Policy.
Here is a nice quote that sums up many people's feelings:
David:
Yes, I'm sure your left-wing web-sites feel that Trump is a very bad man, and Republicans hate the environment. Most of us still live in caves. Seriously, a distaste for science? Only for profit? Arguing for the dark ages? Hyperbole at it's finest.
Doug:
Republicans value coal miner jobs over the environment. If we continue such policies we are headed to a dark ages, literally. Everything will be covered in soot, and there won't be enough electricity to power our needs.
David:
Um, perhaps you have forgotten the very recent past. Coal and natural gas still account for most of the energy we use in this country. Wind and solar? They combine for a whopping 7% of our energy needs. Whoop! And yet, we aren't covered with soot. Relying on solar and wind is a sure way to guarantee our energy needs won't be met.
Perhaps the EPA misused it's authority, passed regulations based on studies sponsored by groups that stood to profit from those regulations, and hid all of the data from the public. The EPA is a paragon of waste, fraud and abuse.
Doug:
The EPA has made our world safer and more clean, while creating jobs in new industries like solar power and other renewable energy.
David:
It is not the EPA's job to create jobs in new industries.
Doug:
Sorry! That was an unintended side-effect. But it is true: Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal.
David:
Because coal was regulated out of business. It was Obama's goal.
That's part of the over reach I'm complaining about. The EPA is supposed to make our water and air quality better. They have done that, but somewhere along the way, they became a regulatory bureaucracy. They are not there to pick and choose winners in the marketplace. While they're busy regulating the mud puddles in your back yard, they completely failed the people of Flint, Michigan. Perhaps they should be scaled back to perform their most basic tasks?
Doug:
If the EPA is going to be testing the water in every city, they need expanded funding, not cuts.
David:
Perhaps we should have a blog just about how you can support science, yet reach different conclusions about raw data. (Of course in the instance of the EPA, they don't release the raw data.) Here's a small study that illustrates that scientist have not even come to a consensus about how to measure the amount of carbon released by forest fires. They also don't know why their predictive models have not matched actual data. Carbon levels doubled, but the temperatures didn't change at all within the margins of error. Why not? We need to figure out what variables are in motion, and how they work, before we claim the science is finalized and beyond debate. Science isn't perfect. Obama may have poisoned the well when he claimed it could not even be questioned.
Doug:
Scientists overwhelming agree that climate change is human made, is getting worse, and we can do things today to help ameliorate the situation. You are calling for more research into climate change, and I agree. But how can that happen if you cut funding? You can't, and so we march!
David:
Again, for your last comment to be true means that all climate change research is funded by the government. I say that alone makes the science suspect for bias. If the only research being done about cancer was from one company, you'd probably say the science was biased to reward that company with profit. If most scientists said they had a certain view about cancer based on that company's research, anti-corporate Americans would say those scientists are being spoon-fed tainted data. More climate change research needs to be privately funded. Studies from the private sector would negate the taint of research being paid for by the UN or Big-Government regulators. Government research is not unbiased if researchers get rewarded for findings that support a certain political party's narrative. If your funding gets renewed only if you find a certain way, your results will be questioned if your research supports that narrative, even if it's 100% on the level. If most scientist get their data from a single source, they are only able to see that point of view.
Let me tell a quick story, to make sure I'm making myself clear on this point. A scientist performs an experiment to see how far a frog can jump. He sets the frog down and yells "JUMP". Then he writes down in his records,"a frog with four legs jumps 15 feet". He cuts a leg off the frog, and once again yells, "JUMP". He records, "a frog with three legs jumps 10 feet". He cuts off another leg and yells, "JUMP" once again. "A frog with two legs jumps 8 feet". He cuts off another leg and yells, "JUMP". The result he records is, "a frog with one leg jumps 2 feet". He then cuts off the frog's last leg, sets him down and yells, "JUMP". Nothing happens. "JUMP!" Again, nothing. He writes down in his log book, "a frog with no legs is deaf".
While it is true that the frog did not jump, and you can certainly conclude that a legless frog does not jump, the scientist is in error in concluding the reason why the frog did not jump. It is a reasonable theory to propose, if he doesn't know anything about biology or physiology, but we know it is false.
Right now, climate scientists may be able to say that temperatures are warming. And they can also say that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere appear to be rising. But the conclusion that carbon dioxide causes warming cannot be determined. It is a plausible theory, but it cannot be tested or proven. It may be completely wrong, as even climate scientists admit they don't understand all of the variables at work. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Two things happening at the same time may have no effect on each other, or they could be related. In this case, there is no way to know for sure. To say that because the greenhouse gas explanation makes the most sense is still not enough to conclude the debate is over.
PS: Have you decided what this week's anti-Trump march is going to be about yet? Some new banner about something else, when in reality it's just a march of bitterness against everything Trump.
Doug:
You noticed that there have been a lot of protests! I like your idea: weekly marches. There does seems to be a lot of energy in the streets. We'll see if this gets turned into election activity in 2018. Of course, that is the goal: let politicians know that science is important, and we vote.
David:
I disagree with your paradigm. The issue isn't science in general. I've met many politicians. I've spent time with all of Indiana's current Congress-people, and former Senator Dan Coats. I shook hands with folks at polling centers next to Democrat Andre Carson for a few hours when I ran for office. Mike Pence held a fund-raiser for me and several other State-House candidates. They all believe in science, and I feel they all believe that the best science should direct policy. The current issue is how to fund it all. How to fund all of the programs, and at the same time get the economy going again so average Americans can get jobs. Some programs are going to get cut back. Should that be programs at the EPA or a program to feed poor children? There are priorities that will need to be made, and the decisions on what to cut will be hard to make. Abusive agencies with a track record like the EPA will certainly take a hit, and they should. Other agencies, like HHS or HUD, likely will not.
Doug:
Of course: it is the EPA or feeding the poor! I think the greatest nation in the world can do both! If those Republican administrations believe in science, they better start acting like it. Else, they will be the ex-administration.
David:
Spoken like true Democrat. We'll just pay for everything, without doing the hard, adult work of making any priorities.
Doug:
Fund everything? I thought it was a choice between Meals on Wheels or clean air. I think we can have food and air. But that is just me thinking that I can have it all!
David:
And if you decide you can't afford something, then you don't believe it's worthwhile? That isn't true. We all make those hard decisions at the dining room table every month when we pay the bills. We prioritize what's most important, and when we're done paying those bills, we decide what we can do with our discretionary money left over. Unfortunately, if you've accumulated a huge mountain of debt, you have to use that money to address that mountain. Obama built a massive mountain. And now we're forced to cut back our spending.
Doug:
If you are playing Blank v. Blank Bingo at home, put a marker on "Blame Obama for Opposite of What He Did". You can also put a marker on "Just Argued the Opposite." It sounds like you are picking winners and losers.
David:
Not at all. If you regulate a business out of existence to fit a policy agenda, and divert funding to competing businesses to shore them up, you are picking winners and losers. If you recognize you only have a certain amount of money, prioritize the government programs according to their value, and cut the ones at the bottom because you cannot pay for every idea that politicians come up with, you are not picking winners and losers. You are managing a budget, something that Democrats failed to do for years under Harry Reid.
If the economy improves and more people get back to work, have lower taxes, and more disposable income, this science march, and any other protests you think up, will have no meaning. If those things don't happen, Trump and the Republicans will go the way of the Democrats during the past 8 years. In the end, results matter, both in politics and in science.
Doug:
I agree with your last few words: results matter, both in politics and in science. Negative results in science are called "science"; negative results in politics are called "backlash."
I guess as a scientist, you'll be marching for science this weekend?
 |
| http://phdcomics.com/ |
David:
Why would I be marching for science? Are artists marching for art? Are plumbers marching for plumbing? Electricians marching for electricity? Do you think everything needs a march or a protest?
Doug:
As you could see from the above flowchart from PhD comics, there are reasons to march.
David:
Right. You're literally getting your marching orders from the comics.
So, if I'm not out marching, I'm against science? Or could it be that I'm still for science (as I always have been) here at home? According to government statistics, there are roughly 6.2 million scientists in America. According to Reuters News, tens of thousands marched (split over numerous locations), and a good portion of marchers were there to protest Donald Trump, not to support science. It would seem a good number of scientists were not out marching, but were carrying on with their everyday lives.
Doug:
600 hundred marches over 6 continents (and some underwater). I had no idea that the March for Science was a worldwide event. I see pictures from all over the world. I thought it was just a US protest to the current Republican administration's actions against science-based agencies. Who knew?
David:
I'm really not sure what you mean. Seriously, I don't know exactly what your beef with the current administration is about regarding science. I do see that you're trying to frame Republicans once again as being anti-science, which isn't true. Reducing the scope and size of government is a conservative theme for sure. But equating that with being anti-science is a falsehood. Because of massive deficit-spending during the last administration, Trump is cutting costs at essentially all government agencies. He hasn't taken any actions against science.
If people want to encourage more young people to get involved with science, math, and engineering, which is where the jobs of the future may be, and it's a world-wide movement, I certainly encourage that. March on, science nerds! We are the future! Live long and prosper!
Doug:
Your argument is this: "I don't know why you believe the Republicans are anti-science. And, even though I don't know why, I know that it can't be true. And Big Government is bad." In any event, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was just wondering if you joined the thousands and thousands of people marching? I guess not. So, it happened last weekend. Let me show you some pictures to try to answer your questions about why people are marching. Which is your favorite?
 |
| "Show me your evidence." |
 |
| "Einstein was a refugee. No science. No Health. No Technology. No Progress." |
 |
| "Basic research drives innovation." |
 |
| "March for Science, Greenland. Science not Silence." |
 |
| "Got polio? Me neither. Thanks Science." |
 |
| "Pretty absurd that this march is necessary." |
 |
| "We're so mad even the introverts are outside with people!" |
 |
| "I knew to wear this because science predicted rain." |
 |
| "Don't mess with science. We have lasers. The Optical Society." |
 |
| "'Science is magic that works.' Kurt Vonnegut." |
 |
| "I can't believe I'm marching for facts." |
 |
| "At the start of every disaster movie there's a scientist being ignored." |
 |
| "Science is greater than poop you read on Twitter." |
 |
| Ben Franklin at the March for Science, Philadelphia, PA. |
 |
| "I'm not a mad scientist. I'm absolutely furious." |
 |
| "Linear regression (left). Societal Regression (right)." |
David:
Once again, you've interpreted my points, filtered through your liberal kaleidoscope. So much for your efforts at understanding what I think. Perhaps instead of rephrasing what I say into your own words, you should just stick to speaking for yourself.
There are millions of pictures? There were only tens of thousands marching. Did they just keep taking photos of each other, over and over?
Many of the pictures on-line indicate this was pretty much another liberal anti-Republican, anti-Trump, I'm-really-mad-I-didn't-get-my-way march. Many were still wearing their pink vagina hats. That really weakens the point of the march, I think. Once again, when you make an issue appear even a bit partisan, the issue is watered down. Here's a nice piece pointing out why mixing politics and science is a bad idea.
Doug:
Most scientists I know don't want to march. But they feel that science is under attack and they want to do something.
David:
And, to the larger context, science doesn't need government funding to survive. One of the speakers at the march in Washington was on the research team that figured out how to create human insulin through recombinant DNA using E.Coli bacteria. That research and process was developed here in Indianapolis at Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company. Aerospace science R&D comes out of companies like Boeing. The government is not only not necessary, but again, due to our current financial state, all government agencies (the discretionary spending portion of the budget) need to be trimmed. If the prior administration had not increased our debt more than all the administrations that came before it combined, we might not be in a position where we need to cut funding to differing agencies.
Doug:
Science doesn't need the government? Yes it does! If you believe otherwise, you don't understand how academia works. Even Eli Lilly runs on government money. All of the scientists there got their training working on government-funded research. If you let commercialism run science, you'll only get "science" that makes money for those companies. Imagine if Microsoft had invented the internet rather than our government. It would cost $250 a year subscription, and you'd have to use Microsoft Explorer. Of course, Apple would have their own, incompatible version. The internet was developed by our scientists and our taxes and given back to us, and the world. Our Big, Great Government did that! We can make the world a better place. That is what scientists do. If you try to make science about money, then that is what you will get: things that you don't need that cost a lot of money.
David:
Al Gore invented the internet. He said so. Right before he said California and Florida would be under water by 2008. Here's another well-balanced article about why you should not mix science with politics. (It's surprisingly balanced, as it's from the NY Times.)
Doug:
Imagine that you are a company working on cures for cancer. You have two pills: one that cures cancer with a single dose, and the other that keeps you alive, but doesn't cure cancer, and you have to take a pill every month. What are you going to do? How much are these pills going to cost? You have to recoup your costs! And keep the jobs flowing. Maybe the scientists could refine the pill so you have to take it every hour... now you are thinking!
David:
That last comment shows a complete misunderstanding of how pharmaceutical companies work. They have real scientists as well as the government, who work to come up with the best solutions, not to maximize profits.
Doug:
You been hanging with Martin ‘Pharma Boy’ Shkreli? Trust us. Sure. If he hadn't been sooo greedy, it would have worked.
David:
You're going to denigrate an entire industry of scientists over one man? If you believe that scientists working for private corporations work for their own benefit, why do you not believe that government scientist would also work for their own benefit.
Doug:
I was just pointing out that there are at least some greedy players. But there are some scientists that fake their data. There are some scientists that make honest mistakes. I don't believe every scientist... I believe the science venture. We repeat science experiments to make sure that we ferret out bad science.
David:
Government science is pure, and science in private industry is bad and faked. Got it.
Doug:
I just said that there can be bad science anywhere.
David: Your bias against corporations blinds you to your own inconsistency. If you don't trust the science coming out of corporate America, you should be able to see why some don't trust the science coming out of Big-Government. When scientist join a partisan political rally, it cements that thinking.
Doug:
I'm arguing to not trust any single source, but trust the collective, the consensus. A single drug company can pick their price. They can focus on treatments rather than cures. I don't blame them, but that can't be the entire playing field.
David:
Yet you've lumped all pharmaceutical scientists into one bag. Corporate scientists fake their findings, and government scientists just make honest mistakes? Why can't it be the other way around?
Doug:
It is neither. Imagine that a company that can sell you stuff that makes you sick (think sugary drinks, or air pollution) and that same company sells things that can make you better (think medicine or air ventilation systems). This is win-win! This is Corporate Think at its best!
David:
Imagine government workers producing data showing the world is ending before our very eyes (without allowing anyone to see the data). Then, they produce regulations that they must enforce to "cure the world" of those dangers. Their jobs are secure, and they can hire their friends to work with them, because they need more help to do the job. If you say that's a nonsensical argument, I'd say it's the same argument you're selling about corporations.
Doug:
A worldwide conspiracy?! It is not the same argument. Science is made to be tested. If it doesn't hold up, throw it out. We may need to do another march because if you understood, you would realize that a worldwide science conspiracy is impossible.
David:
And yet most climate science is governmental, here in the US and abroad at the UN.
Doug:
You just said that science doesn't need government funding, and now you say that most climate science is funded by governments. But you claim that we need more study.
David:
Climate science cannot be tested.
Doug:
You don't believe in climate science?! It isn't that you doubt one conclusion or another; you don't even believe that there could be a science of climate because (you claim) that it can't be tested. Well, at least you admit it. Like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. How could I? If you deny that science even exists, then there is no argument against that.
David:
We can check to see if temperatures change, sure, but what is driving the change cannot be known or tested. How do you test the greenhouse effect? On a global scale? You cannot. My questioning of climate science is their conclusions, and the predictive models, which is where I believe they over reach. My point about the continued shortcomings of their predictions proves they don't know enough about what's happening to draw the conclusions they have.
Doug:
Do I want to leave my health and prosperity to be determined by corporate greed? No! We need to support general science exploration; you don't know where it will lead. Are all companies evil? No, of course not. But Big Government can level out the playing field by supporting research without commercial constraints. This has impacts on the ethics of science. For example, if the commercial world won't cure cancer (or any other disease), federally-funded research will.
David:
Are you kidding? Dozens of companies' have thousands of scientists and doctors working very diligently to cure cancers of all types. (Not all cancers are the same. It isn't cancer, it's cancers) You talk as though they could cure all of these diseases tomorrow, but they just refuse to do it.
All of these companies are engaged in basic research. Personally, as a diabetic, I'm grateful that Eli Lilly invented the process of recombinant-DNA to create human insulin. "Are all companies are evil. No...". That's quite magnanimous of you, but insinuates that you believe most companies are evil.
Doug:
The march was pretty non-partisan. Scientists, largely, did not want to march. They like to keep their fields free of bias. But pro-science is not a political stance. Perhaps you see something in these pictures that others don't. I'm sure that there were signs of all kinds.
David:
I have to admit that every march of any kind from now on should have science nerds make their signs. Here are some of those other signs that show the cleverness of science-minds:
Doug:
I see people all over the world marching for science, and the joy of science. I think I even saw some Republicans marching for science. That really strengthens the point of the march, don't you think? Regarding why people are marching, here is a nice story on how some Republicans came to embrace anti-environmentalism. Here is a list of the top 7 ways the Republican administration is attacking science, just at the EPA. Here are 5 ways that the Republicans attacked science in just one week. Or this one: Donald Trump's Science Denial Is Becoming National Policy.
Here is a nice quote that sums up many people's feelings:
"The March for Science is a response to the Trump administration’s distaste for science — or at least the kind that gets in the way of profit — but it is also a celebration of those among us who have devoted their lives to understanding how the world works." - Why they MarchOf course, many people---scientists and poets alike---are devoted to understanding how the world works. Science is a worldview, a way of seeing the world. We celebrate that worldview. To attack that view is to argue for another dark ages. We shouldn't allow that to happen.
David:
Yes, I'm sure your left-wing web-sites feel that Trump is a very bad man, and Republicans hate the environment. Most of us still live in caves. Seriously, a distaste for science? Only for profit? Arguing for the dark ages? Hyperbole at it's finest.
Doug:
Republicans value coal miner jobs over the environment. If we continue such policies we are headed to a dark ages, literally. Everything will be covered in soot, and there won't be enough electricity to power our needs.
David:
Um, perhaps you have forgotten the very recent past. Coal and natural gas still account for most of the energy we use in this country. Wind and solar? They combine for a whopping 7% of our energy needs. Whoop! And yet, we aren't covered with soot. Relying on solar and wind is a sure way to guarantee our energy needs won't be met.
 |
| 2014 chart - Wind energy production has increased 2%, but the rest of the chart has remained fairly stable. |
Perhaps the EPA misused it's authority, passed regulations based on studies sponsored by groups that stood to profit from those regulations, and hid all of the data from the public. The EPA is a paragon of waste, fraud and abuse.
Doug:
The EPA has made our world safer and more clean, while creating jobs in new industries like solar power and other renewable energy.
David:
It is not the EPA's job to create jobs in new industries.
Doug:
Sorry! That was an unintended side-effect. But it is true: Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal.
David:
Because coal was regulated out of business. It was Obama's goal.
That's part of the over reach I'm complaining about. The EPA is supposed to make our water and air quality better. They have done that, but somewhere along the way, they became a regulatory bureaucracy. They are not there to pick and choose winners in the marketplace. While they're busy regulating the mud puddles in your back yard, they completely failed the people of Flint, Michigan. Perhaps they should be scaled back to perform their most basic tasks?
Doug:
If the EPA is going to be testing the water in every city, they need expanded funding, not cuts.
David:
Perhaps we should have a blog just about how you can support science, yet reach different conclusions about raw data. (Of course in the instance of the EPA, they don't release the raw data.) Here's a small study that illustrates that scientist have not even come to a consensus about how to measure the amount of carbon released by forest fires. They also don't know why their predictive models have not matched actual data. Carbon levels doubled, but the temperatures didn't change at all within the margins of error. Why not? We need to figure out what variables are in motion, and how they work, before we claim the science is finalized and beyond debate. Science isn't perfect. Obama may have poisoned the well when he claimed it could not even be questioned.
Doug:
Scientists overwhelming agree that climate change is human made, is getting worse, and we can do things today to help ameliorate the situation. You are calling for more research into climate change, and I agree. But how can that happen if you cut funding? You can't, and so we march!
David:
Again, for your last comment to be true means that all climate change research is funded by the government. I say that alone makes the science suspect for bias. If the only research being done about cancer was from one company, you'd probably say the science was biased to reward that company with profit. If most scientists said they had a certain view about cancer based on that company's research, anti-corporate Americans would say those scientists are being spoon-fed tainted data. More climate change research needs to be privately funded. Studies from the private sector would negate the taint of research being paid for by the UN or Big-Government regulators. Government research is not unbiased if researchers get rewarded for findings that support a certain political party's narrative. If your funding gets renewed only if you find a certain way, your results will be questioned if your research supports that narrative, even if it's 100% on the level. If most scientist get their data from a single source, they are only able to see that point of view.
Let me tell a quick story, to make sure I'm making myself clear on this point. A scientist performs an experiment to see how far a frog can jump. He sets the frog down and yells "JUMP". Then he writes down in his records,"a frog with four legs jumps 15 feet". He cuts a leg off the frog, and once again yells, "JUMP". He records, "a frog with three legs jumps 10 feet". He cuts off another leg and yells, "JUMP" once again. "A frog with two legs jumps 8 feet". He cuts off another leg and yells, "JUMP". The result he records is, "a frog with one leg jumps 2 feet". He then cuts off the frog's last leg, sets him down and yells, "JUMP". Nothing happens. "JUMP!" Again, nothing. He writes down in his log book, "a frog with no legs is deaf".
While it is true that the frog did not jump, and you can certainly conclude that a legless frog does not jump, the scientist is in error in concluding the reason why the frog did not jump. It is a reasonable theory to propose, if he doesn't know anything about biology or physiology, but we know it is false.
Right now, climate scientists may be able to say that temperatures are warming. And they can also say that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere appear to be rising. But the conclusion that carbon dioxide causes warming cannot be determined. It is a plausible theory, but it cannot be tested or proven. It may be completely wrong, as even climate scientists admit they don't understand all of the variables at work. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Two things happening at the same time may have no effect on each other, or they could be related. In this case, there is no way to know for sure. To say that because the greenhouse gas explanation makes the most sense is still not enough to conclude the debate is over.
PS: Have you decided what this week's anti-Trump march is going to be about yet? Some new banner about something else, when in reality it's just a march of bitterness against everything Trump.
Doug:
You noticed that there have been a lot of protests! I like your idea: weekly marches. There does seems to be a lot of energy in the streets. We'll see if this gets turned into election activity in 2018. Of course, that is the goal: let politicians know that science is important, and we vote.
David:
I disagree with your paradigm. The issue isn't science in general. I've met many politicians. I've spent time with all of Indiana's current Congress-people, and former Senator Dan Coats. I shook hands with folks at polling centers next to Democrat Andre Carson for a few hours when I ran for office. Mike Pence held a fund-raiser for me and several other State-House candidates. They all believe in science, and I feel they all believe that the best science should direct policy. The current issue is how to fund it all. How to fund all of the programs, and at the same time get the economy going again so average Americans can get jobs. Some programs are going to get cut back. Should that be programs at the EPA or a program to feed poor children? There are priorities that will need to be made, and the decisions on what to cut will be hard to make. Abusive agencies with a track record like the EPA will certainly take a hit, and they should. Other agencies, like HHS or HUD, likely will not.
Doug:
Of course: it is the EPA or feeding the poor! I think the greatest nation in the world can do both! If those Republican administrations believe in science, they better start acting like it. Else, they will be the ex-administration.
David:
Spoken like true Democrat. We'll just pay for everything, without doing the hard, adult work of making any priorities.
Doug:
Fund everything? I thought it was a choice between Meals on Wheels or clean air. I think we can have food and air. But that is just me thinking that I can have it all!
David:
And if you decide you can't afford something, then you don't believe it's worthwhile? That isn't true. We all make those hard decisions at the dining room table every month when we pay the bills. We prioritize what's most important, and when we're done paying those bills, we decide what we can do with our discretionary money left over. Unfortunately, if you've accumulated a huge mountain of debt, you have to use that money to address that mountain. Obama built a massive mountain. And now we're forced to cut back our spending.
Doug:
If you are playing Blank v. Blank Bingo at home, put a marker on "Blame Obama for Opposite of What He Did". You can also put a marker on "Just Argued the Opposite." It sounds like you are picking winners and losers.
David:
Not at all. If you regulate a business out of existence to fit a policy agenda, and divert funding to competing businesses to shore them up, you are picking winners and losers. If you recognize you only have a certain amount of money, prioritize the government programs according to their value, and cut the ones at the bottom because you cannot pay for every idea that politicians come up with, you are not picking winners and losers. You are managing a budget, something that Democrats failed to do for years under Harry Reid.
If the economy improves and more people get back to work, have lower taxes, and more disposable income, this science march, and any other protests you think up, will have no meaning. If those things don't happen, Trump and the Republicans will go the way of the Democrats during the past 8 years. In the end, results matter, both in politics and in science.
Doug:
I agree with your last few words: results matter, both in politics and in science. Negative results in science are called "science"; negative results in politics are called "backlash."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!