Science has an image problem

There we go. Nice sensible contribution.

Indeed, Dawkins and Jones do come off as sort of patronising. The others either end up seeming other-wordly or seem quite mad.

The fact is, the less well known scientists are the sort of people you can chat with, have a beer with, befriend. Yet they're too busy doing their work or not interested in being famous personalities.



Cruelty in relation to the other sciences, I suppose. Cruelty to other countires, I think not. The law here is quite strict on the matter, more so than in other countries.

May I point out to you that almost every genetic or biological science requires animal experimentation? I can name muscle development studies as one.



Everything has its potential danger. However, I don't really think that's a major issue here, because many people keep expounding the virtues of things that science has found out like the health benefits of Omega-3 oils and 5-a-day etc. etc.



Not my point and I question your use of those words. It's almost as if you're mocking the average scientist.

Re: Science has an image problem

Do you know how much of this can be explained by competition from new disciplines, such as computer science and genetics?

Re: Science has an image problem


Not entirely sure, but even so, hardly anyone takes genetics so that in itself doesn't contribute much.

spendi As usual, a spendi sophism cleverly disguised as a contribution to this thread.
It appears that the AAUP agrees with me rather than tracing the roots of science"phobia" to a careful analysis on the contributions of poor piano training.
There are now a number of NSF programs wherein they are attempting to make math teachers be able to teach more from a wide experience "applied" basis rather than the present methods.
The political situations that exist in the states are such that teachers are more rewarded by "admin" posts , than by official advocay of tenure teachers. When a teacher is good and has a means ofreaching the students, dont send him or her to"admin school" to become a principal,or herd the good teachers into content-free D Ed programs . We have long eschewed content in our classes, whether its history or math. Many of us can remember teachers who had a positive impact on our educational pursuits, and they were not in the majority.
My latent interest in aplied math was awakened in my freshman year in college where a Christian Brother, who , better versed in the secrets that calculus could unravel, created a bunch of students who were previously mild about math and later became devout believers in dimensional analyses in any science. It was like wed been awarded a universal backdoor key to open doors in chemistry by way of physics and arcitecture. That revelation that we can extract an equation of one problem in terms of an entirely different field was my eureka moment in applied science.

There are alays stories about one or two teachers in Gheto areas where an entire class of kids is converted into a pride of math lions, and they say "its fun"

It can be done, but weve got to change our ed colleges to first stress content over these moronic "teaching methods" courses. The average secondary techer probably has less than 25% of his or her classwork involved with the content materal of their major. The result is a teaching graduate , whose head is filled with the latest teaching "mush" and nothing worthwhile to impart .

fm wrote-



If that's how you took that illustration what can I do about it.

Your description of one aspect of your educational system is entirely congruent with all the known laws of bureaucracy. There is no chance of changing those laws without a change in human nature.

Consider this:

Science has become so complex, specialized, and esoteric that it's nearly impossible to capture the public's attention and admiration, as it did in the "golden age".

Human nature quickly accustoms itself to every new technological advancement, no matter how dazzling the science behind it is.

Religious fundamentalism has met with some success in demonizing science.

IMO, those are three reasons for the malaise we think is permeating the scientific community.

Judgemental tones are quite normal from the god botherers. They believe themselves to be superior human beings.

Wilso, we need a puddle of blood under Kenny.

"You killed Kenny, you bastard"

Re: Science has an image problem

Many people take biology though; genetics is part of the biology curriculum, as are many other sexy biotech disciplines.

Re: Science has an image problem


i once took a class called Biology of Human Reproduction, but it wasn't all that sexy.

seriously, i think Richard Feynman's Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman should be mandatory reading for anyone who thinks scientists are dull. alas, he died, but certainly he showed you can win a Nobel & still have a rollicking time.

fm wrote-



And I have found this-

"Xenocrates was of a dull and sluggish disposition, he supplied the defects of nature by unwearied attention and industry and was eventually accepted into the school of Plato in 339 BC.

He was remarkable as a disciplinarian,and he required that his pupils should be acquainted with mathematics before they came under his care, and he even rejected some who had not the necessary qualification, saying that they had not yet found the key of philosophy.

He was shunned by the dissolute and extravagent and courted by the virtuous and benevolent.

Philip of Macedon and Alexander tried to get him to sell out for cash but he would have none of that and told them to "bog off". I can't do ancient Greek letters on here but that's what it meant.

He was frugal and eschewed ostentation just like Veblen when he wasn't having his portrait done.

The popular courtesan, Lais, during an argument at a piss-up, wagered a very large sum of money, if she could not triumph over his renowned virtue.

She tried every art, which is saying something where popular courtesans are concerned in a hot climate lacking Christian moral values.

She assumed the most captivating looks and postures and the most tempting attitudes, banned these days of course, to win her bet but,alas, she failed.

She attempted to get out of the bet by asserting, in the usual style associated with anti-IDers, that she had not failed because she had placed the wager on the understanding that Xenoctrates was a human being and not a lifeless stone.

Which is fair enough and I think I could easily manage a 139 page judgement to find for the lady.

Many theses
Many roads trod
Circular reasoning
No Conclusion

D (Im being generous only because you tried to present in superb bon ton)

Hofstadter was right then?

The prime symbol of the Faustian culture is extension into infinite space.That there can be no conclusion but only a tragic reaching for the unreachable.That the will to command space is for ever frustrated.

Conclusions are for the classical mind.The mind of limits. The "D" signifies such thinking.
Even a half-wit Faustian would have gone for A+.

The "D" also signifies the subjection of the alien to the "I". In other words it is subjective and thus unscientific. It is just another version of the assertion that relies for its validty on the wisdom of the asserter or the loudness of his voice.

It even expects a conclusion when no such thing was on offer. Twas a mere parable told simply for its own sake and in the hope of amusing my friends and companions and how it arrived on here is a long and fascinating tale which began with a chance remark in the pub about 12 months ago of no significance relating to the use of Xs, Ys and Zs in Acronym games.

The simplistic comments accompanying the grading, and anti-IDers do seem to have a need to grade everything, provide some guidance as to the reason why Biblical parables are also marked down. If an anti-IDer cannot see a hidden meaning it is always because there can't possibly be one to those who know everything.

One of the World Cup matches the other night suffered the blight of a particularly officious Russian referee who handed out "Naughty boy" yellow cards as if they were flyers. The commentators, during a lull in play,speculated on what his occupation was back home.One suggested traffic warden,another schoolmaster and the third "total wallie".

One supposes that "D" is the rough equivalent to a yellow card.

Keep screaming and maybe you can get it raised to a "C".

If all else fails, go to the dean and claim the prof is out to get you since you have a larger vocabulary and assert you have more "wisdom" because of that.

HE uses Joycean phrases alot. In one post spendi had about 3 choice phrases and neolo- words from "Finnegans..." .
I just wish hed get to some cogent point. Even an abstract of hwat hes trying to say would help.

I kept waiting for some "wit" but it was just dull, deadly boring.

It was better that that effort Drew but I understand. You wouldn't know decent writing if it was painted on your eyeballs. I don't plonk the keys for the washerwomen.

Which Joycean phrases fm. Point me to them will you. I'd be chuffed if they were. Or are you making it up as you go along again hoping your audience will just take your word for it as usual. You must have had a lot of cowed audiences to spray it over to get into that state.
The cogent point was to link your style to that of the old Greek maestro as you well know. And it obviously succeeded.

Parados- I never went to the "dean" in my life. I can fight my own battles. I need no help from deans. For you to suggest such a slimeball,underhanded trick more than hints that you have found it useful in the past.

And be very careful- I ONCE said something supportive of a fellow poster and an anti-IDer advised us to get a room together.

You stay on that side if you like.

Considering it was a short submission dashed off in ten minutes which I could easy have flanneled up into a 1000 words I reckon any proper professor would have given it A+ and only sour grapes could think otherwise.

Is that what you think passes for decent writing spendi?
I'm sure your preferred interaction with the washerwoman is to pilfer her soap. Then at the street corner she has to cuff your ears to get it back.
It succeeded Spendi, but not quite the way you intended. By comparing Fm to the maestro it makes you the welcher forced to assert that fm isn't human to get out of your bet.
You missed the irony in your post's "assertion" even when I pointed it out to you. Perhaps you aren't quite as full of "wisdom" as you like to believe. You do your share of inarticulate slavering from your soapbox however.
I try to stay out of my flannels until it is bedtime. If you had flanneled something up I am sure it would have put me to sleep in no time what with the pavlovian drool and all.

Are you asserting that You and Joyce used the terms and phrases independently? Im not going to go back and review all your pellets to find the one where you inserted 3 clear Joyce phrases or words from "Finnegan". Im really not that interested in your education. Im mostly interested in your misapplication of same and that from a purely clinical POV.

If you are certain that I make my stuff up, Ill be happy to go one on one with you on any area of science you feel comfy.
Im sure you could easily stump me with some google search of some piece of rcane inquiry, like that one you did a few months ago about cell wal Ca transmission. You didnt know that there were at least 2 of us that had read that very topic.

parados wrote-



If yoy're referring to the Xenocrates piss take of fm-Yes-it's not bad for something unpolished straight off the bat. I don't see what is wrong with it. You couldn't write anything to come close whilever you have a hole in your bath.
You're just jealous and think you saying it's no good proves it's no good. Explain to us all its faults will you.
I would be happy to see an explanation in the service of improving myself.

.

That's pathetic mate. It means nothing. It's wordy booing.There were no "I'm sure"s in my piece. If I say I'm sure about anything you can bet I'm right. I never use soap for a start so why would I wish to pilfer any?
And I don't pilfer. You should avoid being sure about anything you know nothing about. It's teenage girlie writing is that pal. Bum fluff.



It succeeded exactly the way I intended. It got fm a bit mad and he started swinging wildly.



I'll admit to a bit of that from time to time but I'm not in the position you seem to be in of being unable to manage anything else.

The post was just a bit of fun. A scholarly,dextrous piss take which hit the button smack on. Those anti-IDers can dish it out but they can't take it to well. And they dish it out in like manner to that they were using 40 years ago. Am I not entitled to a bit of my own back?

fm- If I did use bits of Joyce I would have attributed them but if you are not going to go back to prove your point then we are once again relying on your assertions which, as we all know by now, you just make up as you go along. A "clinical POV" would go back otherwise it wouldn't be clinical.

I never said you made stuff up relating to your areas of scientific expertise. I have always been somewhat impressed by those sorts of things. I remember a post you did about oil rigs at the time of Katrina which I directed another threader to. It is the use to which you put some of that knowledge which I have reservations about when you get involved in political agitation. I have provided examples of how social science can properly be called scientific on a few occasions but because I dress them up in ordinary irony I know they are often missed. The nearly out-of-control young lady in the pub was an example and the Footballer's Wives Specials were another. A fair while ago, long enough for the water under the bridge to have washed most of it away, I was involved in making things move fast and colliding with things that were also moving fast and seeing what happened. It had its moments. But these days I'm more interested in human biological response mechanisms and their functions and controls and such a subject doesn't lend itself to appearence on a forum which has only just got around to pressing the fart button. Wink,wink,say no more.

If it is true that I expounded upon-



I am surprised because I haven't much idea about such things. If I read a book like The Physiology of Excitable Cells I'm only seeking the memorable bits. I know I won't remember the mass of technical stuff.
It's no good knowing where the door is unless you have the key.And don't for Fuch's sake you bash the door down because I would make a door nobody could bash down if needed.For the sake of argument.

Assertions are a sub species of might is right. Tempting I know but the culture grinds to a halt with it and if we grind to a halt you are going to see a bigger mess than you can imagine. Knowledge is might and right.So far anyway and I'm hopeful but some fancy footwork is required and valves and pumps are asymptoting with perfect now and only require manufacturing and being fastened together.

It's all about money now. The only reason they don't make the beer free has nothing to do with the price of beer which goes from the rivers to the gents untouched by human hand and if you live above 400ft it goes back into the river further down from the gents. They say something from the Ladies is affecting the sperm count. So people from sea level might be on the wane leaving the mountain people in charge. Like in Deliverance.Only people with doubts about their masculinity would go trekking in the bloody bushes when they could be lozzing on the couch watching the world cup beer in hand with a fag on. (Fag-English for cigarette). And then a nice soak in the bath and down to the pub for a laugh. Oh and having a do on A2K as well. There's science in there somewhere.