10
   

Einstein's General Relativity

 
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 05:31 am
You are promoting mythology in a thread about science. This is one of my pet peeves (which is why I keep responding). Science deals with well defined terms and concepts that are measurable to come up with ideas that are supported by subjective evidence.

Read the terms in you post; "social equity", "forward-thinking", "high-risk", "stable"-- these terms have no scientific definition (except "stable"... but mathematically speaking the global population growth rate has stabilized and world population at present trends will reach a plateau in a few decades)...

... not a single one of your points has any scientific backing. Particularly egregious are your assertions that fewer people will lead to more "progress" (your term, not DrewDads) and "social equity". If you are going to make such bald statements like this in a science thread, you shouldn't be surprised when you are challenged.

You are promoting religion, not science. (and it is a very depressing religion at that)
View Profile fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 06:05 am
There seem to be a number of divergent paths generated by this thread.
Trying to tie these together...IMO
Q1. Has the complexity Einstein's GR affected the take up of physics by students ?
A: Not specifically, but generally it is an example of the required rigour perceived by a student faced with a choice of studying easier subjects.
Q2. Is there evidence of a shift away from physics and the other "hard sciences "?
A: Yes. Here's another report this time from the US.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040316_0601_tc166.htm
Q3. Does it matter to a society that such a shift is taking place ?
A (a) Yes in competitive terms with respect to other groups.
A(b) Yes if we feel that the take up of "softer options" indicates a decline in societal "well being".
(It is the measurement of such "well being" that chumly and ebrown seem to be concerned with.)
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 06:23 am
Quote:
Many experts have resisted the urge to jump on the bleakness bandwagon, however. They say they have seen it circle through their neighborhoods in years past, blaring what turned out to be a false alarm.

In 1986 Erich Bloch, director of the National Science Foundation, warned, "We are not training enough young scientists and engineers." Four years later he wrote, "At the end of the pipeline, too few new Ph.D.'s are being produced, and an increasing fraction -- over 50 percent in engineering and mathematics -- are foreign students." He also noted that "the demand for engineers, scientists, and technicians is growing about twice as fast as supply and will exceed supply by 35 percent in the year 2000."

But it soon became clear that those predictions were about as accurate as long-term weather forecasts. As the 1990s progressed, the lack of science jobs forced increasing numbers of graduate students to continue their training after getting doctorates, sometimes moving from one fellowship to another before landing a more secure position. For example, in 1973 only 27 percent of the people earning biomedical Ph.D.'s went into postdoctoral positions. By 1995 the proportion had jumped to 63 percent.


http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i44/44a01001.htm
View Profile fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 11:24 am
I concede that opinion is divided on "shortages", but there seems to be a general consensus that foreign students have tended to make up shortfalls.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/what-shortage-of-scientists-and-engineers/
If such is the case, there still remain the political issues I outlined in Q3 above.

View Profile Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 12:32 pm
You’re guilty of starting this by your use of the word “progress”……as such you opened the door to cross examination, not me. Further you presuppose certain value-based considerations in your gambit, again you opened the door to cross examination, not me.

Also to the point, you are not the original poster but a contributor as am I; as such I do not feel an inherent obligation to be bound by your arbitrary set of criteria.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 01:02 pm
Fresco,

The US with about 5% of the world population has considerably more than 5% of the advanced technical and scientific jobs (does anyone have any insight as to what percentage of the worlds PhD level posiitons are in the US, my seat of the pants guess would be at least 20%).

As the developing world develops (and part of this development is education), one of two things are going to happen. Either really smart people are going to move to the parts of the world that there are advanced jobs (i.e. the US), or they are going to create jobs in their own countries-- decreasing the need in the US.

That really smart people are moving to the US is no surprise. It is more a factor of the US having more than its share of advanced jobs then of the US having less then its share of educated, smart citizens.

A society can only turn a very small percentage of its citizens into advanced scientists. Few human beings are born with the natural inclination and talent required... and if we are all particle physicists, who is going to fix my car?

This "we don't have enough scientists" hype is largely a myth.


0 Replies
 
View Profile DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 01:25 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_drain
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 02:00 pm
The number of highly educated skilled workers a country has should be proportional the the number of jobs it has requiring high skills.

If one country has too many jobs, and the other too many highly skilled workers-- well, there are two ways to correct this imbalance.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What is a Light Year? - Question by Dorothy Parker
inverted flight - Question by paps
SINGLE CELL FOSSIL - Discussion by hamburger
Does Space Exploration Make Sense? - Question by thegalacticemperor
Blue Brain - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sunset of Darwinism - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.34 seconds on 11/22/2009 at 09:13:23 Top End