The Decline of Science and Technology in America

[AK-Dave]

I hope this hasn't been posted already. There is an article from BBC that is being discussed here (http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/05/08/23/2012204.shtml?tid=126&tid=166&tid=219&tid=14) on slashdot.org. The original article is called The struggle over science (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4172504.stm). While I thought the original article was interesting, I really enjoyed going through the discussion threads on Slashdot.

I think that discussion of the article would also make a good thread here, so post your thoughts.

[Orangutan]

Yup, I posted this yesterday:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61458

But it isn't generating much discussion!

O.
:)

[espritch]

This isn't the first article I've seen making the point that the Bush administration tends to ignore or actively edit scientific findings when they conflict with his agenda. Let's face it. This is a guy who thinks Intelligent Design is just a good a real science. George Bush Jr. is a fundamentalist, and fundamentalists simply don't listen to information that doesn't agree with their preset world view. Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of science or view it as elitist. So this doesn't really hurt Bush at all politically.

[ungoliant]

the general en-dumbing of america that is being brought about by the religious right and the corporate interests greatly worries me. people actually believe alot of the misconceptions that pop culture drops on them. people are willing to follow the pablum they are fed instead of learning and doing research on their own.

this is troublesome. knowledge is power. the surest way to gain control over the public is to make them ignorant and then play on those ignorant beliefs. this is happening now in america.

the REALLY troubling thing is, the public is WILLINGLY and HAPPILY being led down this path to subservient existence, all in the name of theism and consumerism.

[Eos of the Eons]

Consumerism. How does that tie into consumerism?

I'll go down the slippery slope a bit here. We are entering a stage of stagnation, even a dark period. I'm hoping other countries see an opportunity and pick up the ball.

I'm afraid things are no better in Canada, and judging from the woos like the Royal Family heading things overseas, I don't have much optimism.

Is there any country taking the lead scientifically?

Even Australia is embroiled in the ID fight right now.

It's a mess. It's seems there is very little public support to advance beyond where we are at right now. Is everyone too comfortable? What will it take to shake everything up?

From ID to sCAM, things are getting scary. Maybe our population will see a drop due to the consequences. An energy crises, a pandemic flu...it will weed out some folks. Those who reject advances will be stuck in the cold. Those who oppose vaccination will succumb to illness.

How long will this take? 500 years? How long did it take for people to climb out of the dark ages? Any historians here?

Maybe this is some kind of cycle.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Consumerism. How does that tie into consumerism?

I'll go down the slippery slope a bit here. We are entering a stage of stagnation, even a dark period. I'm hoping other countries see an opportunity and pick up the ball.


And I'm hoping the competition will remind America the value of investing in science and research. Actually, I'm pretty optimistic it will eventually happen.

[Plognark]

If I remember right it appears that the U.S. at least tends to go on cycles of liberalism/conservatism. I think they run in 20-25 years cycles. We came out of the liberal end of things in the 90's at some point and are now in the middle of a conservative backlash. In another ten to fifteen years we'll probably be right back in the middle of a liberal phase, not unlike the 60's and 70's.

People just seem to like to rebel against the status quo if things aren't working right. The problem is, things rarely work right.

Once Conservative types accumulate more power and become sort of entrenched there will probably be a general sort of backlash, especially when they realize they don't have any better answers than anyone else.


I'm probably painting this as excessively black and white (liberal/conservative), but it's the best way I can explain it.

The real problem this time around is that the conservatives really latched onto Christian religious fundamentalists to with a vengeance, all for votes and to beat out the liberal democrats. However, the more libertarian conservative types have sort of lost control of things.

Think of it like a corporate merger where the two companies are roughly equal, but as the dust settles suddenly one company finds itself being shut out of board meetings and demoted in rank.

[Tony]

I just emailed this article to en engineer friend of mine and he raises, what I think, are valid concerns.

Professor Neal Lane at Rice University (here in Houston) said:

This is not just on global warming and stem cells, currently in the news, but on a whole range of issues - lead and mercury poisoning in children, women's health, birth control, safety standards for drinking water, forest management, air pollution and on and on.

Someone else goes on to say:

"How radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data ...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations."

Anyone have any concrete examples of what these people are referencing??

[ungoliant]

consumerism ties very directly into this topic. the corporations have a very real interest in keeping people in the dark about topics such as pollution, lobbying, kick-backs, and other business related issues.

also, they have an interest in keeping people spending, keeping people concentrated on acquisition of goods in oredr to keep their economy going.

protection of business interests was the first reason the US went to war over. and the most common through the years.

so, the ignorance of the general public is definitely in the interests of the corporate structure.

i know, i work for the world's largest media corporation.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by ungoliant
consumerism ties very directly into this topic. the corporations have a very real interest in keeping people in the dark about topics such as pollution, lobbying, kick-backs, and other business related issues.

also, they have an interest in keeping people spending, keeping people concentrated on acquisition of goods in oredr to keep their economy going.

protection of business interests was the first reason the US went to war over. and the most common through the years.

so, the ignorance of the general public is definitely in the interests of the corporate structure.

i know, i work for the world's largest media corporation.

This will happen irregardless of the state of scientific knowledge/advancement in America. Most people ignore science until they need it for something (and even then will reject it for non-science even where there health is concerned). If anything, science/technology can drive consumerism. Look at how many people have computers, gaming systems, dvd players, ipods, etc. This type of "science" won't see a lag. Most people don't care about scientific gains/evidence where the environment, business, or even politics is concerned.

No matter what scientific gains are made people will still buy into sCAM logic and reject things like stem cell research because of their own ignorance.

Just yesterday a guy at work was unable to do his job and was on light duty because of his bad back. He refuses to see a doctor, and doesn't even have a family doctor for his family. Instead, he sees chiros and accupuncturists. He does buy over the counter pain killers and such, but refuses to go to a doctor to get the right dosage or even a proper diagnosis as to whether they would even help. He is just managing his pain by himself with the OTC drugs. He called doctors quacks and said they were overrated. Meanwhile, he can't work due to pain quite often. Sometimes he can't even get out of bed. Yep, the chiros and accupuncturists sure help a lot!

Whether or not there is science or gains in scientific knowledge, there will be consumerism. With science people will still ignore whatever they want to and buy into illogical belief systems. There is ALWAYS "the other side" to contradict science, no matter how solid the scientific evidence is.

So, whether or not there is money for research, I don't feel it affects consumerism. You can have consumerism with or without science. Corporations will figure what will appeal to their consumers. Even homeopaths and psychics can make money these days. There is ample scientific proof, ample properly done studies to show these things aren't worth a penny, but people still put out their money for it. Corporations, sCAM, etc. can put out their own biased, flawed studies and convince consumers to consume their garbage. A kid just died from a chelation treatment, a treatment for a condition that isn't caused by what he was getting treatment for...does that deter anyone?? No.

So what does it matter if there is scientific research? To prevent ignorance? Nope. To help us advance little by little in spite of ignorance. To end scientific research is to stagnate an already sluggish process. To have pseudoscience replace science is to take a step backwards. I feel this is what is happening. A wrench is being thrown into a rusty innerworkings and being allowed to reverse the process.

Consumerism will continue whether or not there are scientific advancements. It will not be slowed by scientific advancement. That is not the reason to keep people ignorant. The majority of people keep themselves ignorant in the face of science.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
How long will this take? 500 years? How long did it take for people to climb out of the dark ages? Any historians here?

Maybe this is some kind of cycle. Forgive me for being a skeptic but I just don't buy it. I have asked over and over for a scenario for how we go from point A (current situation) to point Z (dark ages). For some odd reason no one can seem to supply one. There is a big blank spot in the theory. Some how some of us are embracing ID one day and the next we are all drooling and none of us can quite figure out how to start a fire.

I think you can demonstrate that the political pendulum can swing extreme at times but I don't think you can demonstrate that people are going to forgo science and enlightenment. Can ID be taught in schools? Sure. Will this cause the rejection of science? Oh come on. We love our science too much. We love the internet, TV, cd's, DVD's, TIVO, SUV's, Cell Phones, airplanes, medicine, etc., etc. just too damn much. There is incentive to teach and learn science. Consumerism actually plays in our favor. The Dark ages won't produce results. It won't give us what we want. Science is the only thing that does and will.

Further, people are not really as stupid as the elitists would like us to believe. Democratic nations didn't become the leaders in science and technology IN SPITE of the people. It is BECAUSE of the people that Democratic nations have become such. The competition of ideas and the freedom to compete for those ideas and reward for the best ideas is how we got here. So, in your explanation of how we get from point A to point Z you are going to have to effectively deal with this very real and significant aspect of democracy. To paraphrase, You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

So please, someone, anyone show us the steps from point A to point Z. Until then it is just an unfounded slippery slope argument.

If you want to fight ignorance and programs like ID that can truly cause harm then I'm on your side But I have to say, the sky is not falling.

[Eos of the Eons]

:D See, I said I was going to go into the slippery slope a bit, and you've called me on it, even using using some of the same points I had in my last post.

Can't say I can see everyone turning into drooling morons who can't start a fire! You certainly dispel that idiotic picture.

I have to ask though, where is all this anti-evolution going to lead? Can you blame me for being a bit scared? Doesn't it seem like we are going backwards by teaching ID?

I'm hoping to see some advancement, and I don't see any advancement with ID being taught and favored by so many. It's simply an easy path instead of taking time and energy to understand actual science.

So we may not revert into drooling idiots, but I can see some stagnation happening.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
:D See, I said I was going to go into the slippery slope a bit, and you've called me on it, even using using some of the same points I had in my last post.

Can't say I can see everyone turning into drooling morons who can't start a fire! You certainly dispel that idiotic picture.

I have to ask though, where is all this anti-evolution going to lead? Can you blame me for being a bit scared? Doesn't it seem like we are going backwards by teaching ID?

I'm hoping to see some advancement, and I don't see any advancement with ID being taught and favored by so many. It's simply an easy path instead of taking time and energy to understand actual science.

So we may not revert into drooling idiots, but I can see some stagnation happening. Sorry, I can't mount an effective argument that there is nothing to fear from the current momentum of the ID proponents. There is nothing to gain by letting ID and other such nonsense into schools. On the other hand there is plenty to lose. It would seem that we have a point of agreement. Damn. :D

[Eos of the Eons]

:D

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I have to ask though, where is all this anti-evolution going to lead? Can you blame me for being a bit scared? Doesn't it seem like we are going backwards by teaching ID?

I'm hoping to see some advancement, and I don't see any advancement with ID being taught and favored by so many. It's simply an easy path instead of taking time and energy to understand actual science.

So we may not revert into drooling idiots, but I can see some stagnation happening.
I consider there to be a cyclic nature to most natural phenomena. I envision a Three-Steps-Forward-And-Two-Steps-Back behavior in most forms of societal progress. The forward rush engenders fears (of the unknown), which develop into reactoinism, which then matures into acceptance of some aspects of the original thesis.

Someone once remarked that progress in a society can be likened to a drunk mounting a donkey: they struggle to climb up one side, only to fall off on the other. (rinse and repeat. :D )

There is a lizzard (the one with the independently aimable eyes; is it a chameleon?) which, by a constant forward-and-backward motion, approaches it's prey without appearing to move.

This running-away-from-science that some of us perceive may be an ephemeral trend that will, in due time, sort itself out. (We must hope.) :)

Dave

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by CaveDave
This running-away-from-science that some of us perceive may be an ephemeral trend that will, in due time, sort itself out. (We must hope.) :)

Dave
*gets on his haunches and puts his paws together* "Please, Ed, let CaveDave be right."

[ungoliant]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Consumerism. How does that tie into consumerism?

you are talking around my point.

corporations, like say my company, the media, control most of the info people get in the US, including much of the science knowledge your average joe gets.

most people get their info on global warming, organic foods, fetal pain, etc. straight from the tv. this influences their decisions, their voting decisions, their SPENDING decisions.

these news corporations have enormous influence over how people think and over how the masses move society with their collective will and actions.

and these corporations, mine as a prime example, make their decisions on what to say and what to put out there based solely on their bottom line. that's it.

we are told all the time that our responsibility is to our stockholders. not to the truth. not to the greater good. to the stockholders.

and if you think the current administration doesn't influence the media heavily as well, then that's because you don't work where i do and don't see all the politicians coming in and out every day.

and if you think other huge, non-media corporations don't get their own message slipped in then that's because you don't see their CEOs and such coming in here every day as well.

to put it another way, the current administration's well known penchant for dumbing down our state of science isn't purely for religious reasons. it is also about who is greasing their pockets and how much money everyone involved makes.

[Eos of the Eons]

Your post is depressing ungoliant, because I'm sure you're right. I just wish you could give specific examples. It would help shed a light on the whole topic.

I stick to my opinions on the rate of consumption, I think you are talking more about the type of consumption. Like I said though, some examples might help me get a better picture of what you are trying to say.