Seven of the greatest scientific hoaxes
Interesting, I thought.
Then I scrolled down to the discussion, and there was crud about how AGW, relativity and evolution should be listed with the hoaxes.
The trouble with most folks ain’t so much their ignorance as knowing so many things that ain’t so.
Josh Billings
What Shortage of Scientists and Engineers?
So why do we keep hearing complaints about a shortage? One recent reason is that it’s been harder for foreign scientists and engineers to get visas since the Sept. 11 attacks. But the quickest and cheapest way to deal with that problem is to increase the number of visas (as Mr. Obama has promised to do).
Ah, I see. There is no shortage because we “import” scientists and engineers, which we wouldn’t need to do if we had enough scientists and engineers. From what I can tell, you have to have a job offer to get an H-1B, and 65,000 bachelor degree visas were granted last year, along with 20,000 more to those with Master’s or PhDs. There were 133,000 applicants, implying 68,000 more jobs would have been available.
But don’t worry. The quick and easy fix means we don’t have to teach our kids math, science and technology. We’ll just trust conditions never reach the point where foreign workers can get good tech jobs in their home country.
Corruption in textbook selection
A copy of the chapter in Richard Feyman’s Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman in which he serves on a textbook selection committee, and some followup commentary.
The Big To-Do List–Scientific Challenges Facing the Next President
This month marks the 50th anniversary of NASA, which was launched a year after the Soviet Union lofted Sputnik into orbit, a feat that threatened to accelerate the communist rival’s lead over the U.S. in spaceflight technology. It’s probably fair to ask whether any U.S. president might once again be in a position to respond to such a huge scientific and technological challenge.
An idea we were joking about at one of the breaks between talks. You go to science camp, but the time is indefinite. You think it might be a week, and you tell everyone you think you have a week left, but it could end up taking a month. And at any time someone can come along and pull your funding, and you have to go find a new project to work on. Most meals at the dining hall consist of Ramen noodles.
Prediction vs Explanation: A Puzzle
We do ten experiments. A scientist observes the results, constructs a theory consistent with them, and uses it to predict the results of the next ten. We do them and the results fit his predictions. A second scientist now constructs a theory consistent with the results of all twenty experiments.
The two theories give different predictions for the next experiment. Which do we believe? Why?
Why government MUST invest in fundamental research
Basic research is not a place where “the market” tends to show interest.
Problem number one is that it typically takes 20-30 years – in best case scenario to see “returns” on fundamental discoveries. Often discoveries pave the way to other discoveries, and so forth, which eventually trickle down to technological applications – often unintended or unforeseen.
Find me a company that is willing to invest in a project with no hope of return for 20-30 years and I have a bridge in Alaska I want to sell you.
Huge blogroll of women blogging on science and technology at Sciencewoman. Via sciencegeekgirl
Greg Laden has some valid beefs in The Truth Is In There
Yes, the LHC people should have disclosed the faulty transformer immediately. It was an absolute mistake not to do so. No disagreement there.
However,
The hubris. It hurts. That these scientists think that they can and should do this is wrong and, frankly, scary. I for one do not believe that the LHC is going to make little black holes that would eventually suck the earth into themselves. But I’ll tell you this: The reason that I know that this is not going to happen is not because any scientist ever explained this to me. I asked for such explanations, and I got bullshit, I got incomprehensible formulas, I got insults, I got “a we’re very smart and this is what we believe” and I got hubris. Then, I went and looked into the science and figured it out for myself. I had to do that because the science community that is linked to or interested in this project seems often to act with a misguided sense of self importance, and an insulting belief that others cannot possibly comprehend what they are talking about on any level. And now, we see evidence that this same community seems to feel that actual truth about actual complexity about actual complex things is something we should not be allowed to share in.
There’s a different perspective to this, and perhaps there are other scientists who share in my frustration when I hear/read such complaints about the accessibility of science.
You want explanations, you want to be informed. That’s great. I’m all for it. And there are a lot of conduits for information about the LHC out there, as well as other research. And scientists should do even more to make their research accessible.
But (you knew there was a “but” coming. Either that or “Jane, you ignorant slut”)
Nonscientists have to meet scientists partway. I can explain my research to a lot of people — what we do, why it’s useful. Any researcher should be able to do a five-minute summary like this. But this isn’t all that you’re asking for here. You, and others, want to understand what I’m telling you at a level that is simply not possible without all the equations and “incomprehensible formulas.” They aren’t incomprehensible if you’ve spent some time learning the relevant material and the use of that description is very telling. The problem is that the relevant material took me years to learn, and I simply can’t pass along that level of understanding to you in five minutes. And there’s an attitude, possessed by some, that not only should I be able to do this knowledge transfer, but that it should be easy to for them learn.
And that attitude is, frankly, crap. This isn’t easy stuff. The five-minute summary I can give you is just that — a five-minute summary. You won’t be qualified to do much with it. It isn’t enough to give you interactional expertise unless you have already put in the extensive time to learn enough of the underlying science. And if you haven’t, or aren’t willing to do so, don’t blame me. I can’t speak to the hubris to which Greg feels he was exposed, but I’ve had several similar exchanges myself in discussions with nonscientists where I can see how my attitude might be interpreted as hubris, but was really frustration. You want me to explain relativity or quantum mechanics to you, in detail, and you have objections to it because it’s not intuitive, yet you don’t even have a semester of physics under your belt? Sorry, but that’s just not reasonable in a brief exchange. And you think that’s my fault? No, it’s not. I didn’t answer a question to your satisfaction, only it turns out the question was poorly phrased? Again, not my fault. Similarly, a detailed explanation of why the LHC is not going to destroy the earth is complicated, and to get a good answer you have to ask the right question. You go to a website, and you get one layer of explanation, and even that may be discussion by analogy (which has inherent shortcomings), because they are going to assume you don’t have a physics degree.
By asking for extensive detail and demanding accessibility, you have overconstrained the problem. There is no solution that fits all of the requirements. Removing that extra constraint is up to you.
BTW CERN’s has a FAQ on the matter. Was this the hubris? I just don’t see it.
Very succinct. “Arguments Against Research”
Posting a quote would ruin the effectiveness; it’s more of a linear explanation.