I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.

"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather
then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.


I didn't know "we" are afraid of science/scientists!

Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of the
consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether social,
environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.

sweet sawdust wrote:
Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?

I'm not.

My best guess would boil down to contradictions between some religious
beliefs and science, the fear of the unknown, and the inability or
unwillingness of many to open the mind and ask questions.

Many religions tend to discourage questions and gaining understanding of
the "why" outside of the accepted religious teachings. To ask questions
in such a setting is blasphemous and unfaithful.

Non-religious folks might be truly afraid of things, so they don't want
to know. For instance, extra terrestrial life, or the potential for
large scale natural disaster or disease. It's much more relaxing not
to think about this stuff!

Still others be afraid of looking stupid when they can't immediately
understand a concept. Further pursuit of knowledge, which also requires
effort, is too easy not to do.

I tend to lean towards the Buddhist view of science with religion, which
is we are a delicate part of the big picture. We MUST question "why?"
in order to try and understand it all and move forward.

Then there's the way science has become politicized...

"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather
then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.


Gosh, are Scientists getting that vibe? I guess if they act like a
politically swayed group, tend to be biased like politically swayed groups
they must be a politically swayed groups. Where do they get their funding?

"Leon" wrote:

Where do they get their funding?

Totally immaterial to the process.


--
Lew Hodgett
Box 2302
Whittier, CA, 90610-2302
E-Mail:

*The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. *I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.

I believe that it is ignorance. People just don't know enough about
science
and how scientists work. To them, it's all "too complicated" or
even in many ways their discoveries or technologies are in opposition
of what they WISH to believe. If you're attacking someone's basic
beliefs,
to many that is frightening and dangerous.

In a related way, Michael Shermer, answers this question in
his book "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience,
Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"

I DAGS and found this review of the book that speaks to
your friends question:

--

Even so, Shermer seems to have overlooked or underemphasized some
fundamental reasons why people believe weird things. Ignorance, for
example, seems to be the main reason many people believe weird things.
They simply do not know any better. If they had some knowledge about
physics, chemistry, biology, memory, the brain, the body, etc., they
would not even consider many of the crackpot ideas put forth for their
consideration.

--

More he

http://skepdic.com/refuge/weird.html

--

Science education in the US has dramatically taken a hit in
the last 20 or so years. We now depend so much on foreign nationals
to stock our advanced technology/science courses and
degree programs. Therefore, people have little exposure to
science.

Also, there's been a lot of "bad" science as well. In that, advances
in nuclear technology, biology and such, that on the face of it
are extremely scary. Science gets the blame for opening up
those "Pandora boxes". This, I think also puts people off.

MJM

sweet sawdust wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.



A few things come to mind. They're loosely connected I suppose, but
there could be a myriad of reasons why some people may be threatened by
science or scientists. My interpretation would be "threatened by" rather
than "afraid of". Maybe they're close enough to mean the same.

1. Previous perception of arrogance by "higher intellect"
2. The mystery of science unexplained is unknown, therefore a threat
and/or fear.
3. Science might be at odds with religious beliefs, therefore creating
an unsurpassable paradox. (ie. Evolution vs. strict biblical interpretation)
4. Results of science lead to lifestyle choices and/or changes. (ie
belief global warming and the changes that ensues)

There's a starter list. I'm sure there are many more.

--

Tanus

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather
then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
Talked to another group and got this answer:
Because they lie. They say something and then it turns out to be false, you
can never trust what they say.

On Jul 16, 2:16�pm, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. �The paper she has to
write asks the question:

Sweet Sawdust

First thing that comes to my mind is why is not the other instructor
doing her own work instead of benefitting from yours and ours?

Sort of like someone else doing my homework for me!!

Bob AZ

EXT wrote:
....
Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of
the consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether
social, environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.

Is that somehow restricted to scientists?

--

Curran Copeland wrote:
....
Because they lie. They say something and then it turns out to be false, you
can never trust what they say.

I would contend that particular fault is far more prevalent outside the
scientific community than in.

I would also say if you really believe that publishing the results of
research which are later either modified or maybe even rebutted simply
indicates you don't understand the scientific process.

--

sweet sawdust wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?

That would seem to have prejudged the conclusion, pretty much the
antithesis of the scientific method.

How about she test whether the hypothesis can actually be verified to be
so or not?

Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.

Where do I report where to send my degree having done the work?

--

"Bob AZ" wrote in message
...
On Jul 16, 2:16?pm, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. ?The paper she has to
write asks the question:

Sweet Sawdust

First thing that comes to my mind is why is not the other instructor
doing her own work instead of benefitting from yours and ours?

Sort of like someone else doing my homework for me!!

Bob AZ
I just found the question intriging and thought I would bring it up before
the group and see how it flew. I don't think she has a preconcived answer
to this it is a question and she is just throwing it around to see where it
lands.
Curran Copeland
Sweet Sawdust

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Curran Copeland wrote:
...
Because they lie. They say something and then it turns out to be false,
you can never trust what they say.

I would contend that particular fault is far more prevalent outside the
scientific community than in.

I would also say if you really believe that publishing the results of
research which are later either modified or maybe even rebutted simply
indicates you don't understand the scientific process.

--
I agree but that is the answer I got from one group and thought it was
interesting. Not trying toprove anything myself just and interesting
question no matter what the answer.
Curran Copeland
Sweetsawdust

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:


Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?


I'm not. I don't know anyone who is.

Could it be that the premise is not statistically valid?

Frank

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, sweet sawdust wrote:

{snip}
Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists? Would anyone like to
comment on this?
{snip}

I would comment, but the math is too hard.

Trust me on this: Way too many people equate science with the poor way
they learned Mathematics.

And nobody will ever believe anyone who starts off with:
"If I let one inch equal the time between now and the 1st Gulf war,
then the equivalent in distance between now and the domestication of the
dog is......"

(BTW: Everyone knows the 1st Gulf war was SO-o-o- last century and who
cares about before that! OMG!!)

Phil

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:


Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?


I'm not. I don't know anyone who is.

Could it be that the premise is not statistically valid?
May not be and that may be the answer to the question, who knows? A lot of
books and movies have been made on science from Frankinstien to the Swarm
and all are scary. I think we are scared of "science" until we get used to
the new idea and it proves not to be a boogy man under the bed. It was/is
an interesting question to think on, sort of like how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin.

Frank

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:16:10 -0500, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:

I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.


Howdy,

It seems to be an odd premise...

In fact, science, and scientists, are generally held in high
regard.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

I am not a scientist. I have been around a long time and here are some
of the things people have told me over the years and some of my own
thoughts:


Well, let's see:
-Scientists told us early on that AIDS wouldn't become a big deal.
-In 1979 scientists told us the the earth was cooling off. Now they say
its heating up. Hmmm.
-I suspect it was scientist that recommended introducing the Japanese
beetle (looks like a lady bug) to get rid of aphids or something. Now
they are a major pest all over the part of the midwest where I live.
- I just watched "Young Frankenstien last night. She should watch it
to get the idea.

-In a "publish or perish" academic world, once a scientists project
doesn't pan out, what are they to do? Answer: fudge the data so they
get the degree, credit,______ etc.--- you fill in the blanks.

-As a commoner, I don't feel that all scientists are bad, just as I
don't feel that all MD's are bad but, the "quality" of both scientists
and MD's is probably normally distributed like many other things. This
means that while, let's say, 5% of the "science" is super-duper, the 5%
at the other end of the distribution is absolutely horrible.
Unfortunately for scientists, those "ends" probably both get
publicized with equal qusto, but by different methods.

-Lastly, I think they must teach a course to ALL "scientists" where they
MUST learn to think of themselves as superhuman (better than everone
else) and, by the way, infallible. This is the course where they are
taught how to talk down to the rest of us in 10 syllable words and to
make abstract jokes that only they can understand.

If she doesn't (or you don't) understand the above, it's because you
have already taken the course I mention above.

Pete Stanaitis
-------------------------------------



sweet sawdust wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:lFwfk.395$kf4.265@trnddc03...

"Leon" wrote:

Where do they get their funding?

Totally immaterial to the process.


You think, LOL. They too can be bought.

"Leon" wrote:


You think, LOL. They too can be bought.

Precisely why funding MUST be totally immaterial to the process.

Perhaps a better choice of words would be "divoriced".


--
Lew Hodgett
Box 2302
Whittier, CA, 90610-2302
E-Mail:

"sweet sawdust" wrote in
:

I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of
the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she
has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give
her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to post
before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a fun
thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst candiate
stuff going around.




Here's a few thoughts, from someone who had to take certain classes
because of the word "Science" in his degree name.

First, math is rarely seperable from science. Science is generally easy
to understand (if you punch a wall, it will hurt), but mathematics get
hard. Most people deal with this by avoiding mathematics, but you can
only do that for so long before the science you want to use requires it.

So why are people afraid of science/scientists? Mathematics. Since most
scientists use it every day, they're not afraid to break out the slide
rule to explain something.

Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is that
scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth the
cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple
letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of K, we
could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit multiplication makes
things harder than they have to be.

Puckdropper
--
If you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

dpb wrote in :

EXT wrote:
...
Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of
the consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether
social, environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.

Is that somehow restricted to scientists?

It isn't berestricted to scientists, but scientists are expected to be
impartial, and to be led only by the facts. Unfortunately, they are only
human, and big pharma, research funding, promotions etc, they all influence
behavior.

I'm of course totally unbiased in my (our) research, but still hope that
CD39 will fulfill its promises as an antithrombotic modality.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:YXzfk.407$kf4.379@trnddc03...

"Leon" wrote:


You think, LOL. They too can be bought.

Precisely why funding MUST be totally immaterial to the process.

Perhaps a better choice of words would be "divoriced".


Agreed, that they should not be paid by the political machine and the
politicians. Gore certainly has a few on board to back up his business plan
of selling snake oil.

Han wrote:
dpb wrote in :

EXT wrote:
...
Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in
their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of
the consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether
social, environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.
Is that somehow restricted to scientists?

It isn't berestricted to scientists, but scientists are expected to be
impartial, and to be led only by the facts. Unfortunately, they are only
human, and big pharma, research funding, promotions etc, they all influence
behavior.
....

That's why (amongst other reasons) there's replication and peer review...

--

spaco wrote:
....
-Scientists told us early on that AIDS wouldn't become a big deal.
....
I have much trouble recollecting that having come from the scientific
and epidemiologic communities.

I do remember, otoh, some very specific political figures that were
totally ignorant of the science who prevented many actions that would
have had a major impact in reducing the spread.

I'd offer a rebuttal to most of the other points as well but simply not
worthy the time/effort...

--

Puckdropper wrote:
....
Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is that
scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth the
cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple
letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of K, we
could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit multiplication makes
things harder than they have to be.
....

I don't know what "implicit multiplication" is by that name, but
certainly writing SPRING_CONSTANT everywhere in an expression is _NOT_
an answer to any problem with "scientific mathematics" (again, whatever
your definition of that phrase is). Concise notation is critical in
boiling down an otherwise excessively "busy" expression.

That things are complicated in some places is mostly a reflection of
reality.

--

Puckdropper wrote:
"sweet sawdust" wrote in
:

I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one
of the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper
she has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will
give
her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to
post before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a
fun thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst
candiate stuff going around.




Here's a few thoughts, from someone who had to take certain classes
because of the word "Science" in his degree name.

First, math is rarely seperable from science. Science is generally
easy to understand (if you punch a wall, it will hurt), but
mathematics get hard. Most people deal with this by avoiding
mathematics, but you can only do that for so long before the science
you want to use requires it.

So why are people afraid of science/scientists? Mathematics. Since
most scientists use it every day, they're not afraid to break out
the
slide rule to explain something.

Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is
that
scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth
the
cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple
letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of
K,
we could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit
multiplication
makes things harder than they have to be.

Using single letter variable names one gets expressions that fill two
boards sometimes. Using "SPRING_CONSTANT" and the like would make
them much much longer and add no real clarity.

If you're having trouble with implicit multiplication wait until you
get to nonlinear differential equations.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Jul 16, 5:16*pm, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. *The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. *I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.

Not afraid but very wary. Too many things are done "in the name of
science" without regard to consequences.

Also the arrogance is unmatched:

Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply
Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work
Plum Island

Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart
enough to keep it under control. That is why we have Frankenstein, I
Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
books/movies about the need to be carfeul.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Limp Arbor wrote:
....
Also the arrogance is unmatched:

Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply

This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
in a usenet thread is pointless so...

Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work

So you would prefer we simply don't bother to try to market curative
agents? How, precisely, would you go about gaining this perfect
knowledge a priori?

Plum Island

And we're supposed to not do research on how to contain and control and
prevent future outbreaks of animal diseases that can also in some cases
be transmitted to humans? These are existing pathogens that have done
tremendous damage elsewhere but are almost completely unknown in the US.
That is _NOT_ by accident but by very diligent effort including such
places as Plum Island.

Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart
enough to keep it under control. That is why we have Frankenstein, I
Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
books/movies about the need to be carfeul.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

That you think "we" shouldn't doesn't mean that you can prevent someone
else (not a personal judgment, simply reality). It's probably better to
have more responsible folks doing the research than trying to drive
abolish it entirely and thereby drive it underground or into clandestine
locations only.

--

Limp Arbor wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:16 pm, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one
of the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper
she has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of
science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will
give
her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to
post before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a
fun thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst
candiate stuff going around.

Not afraid but very wary. Too many things are done "in the name of
science" without regard to consequences.

Also the arrogance is unmatched:

Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply

Which specific "experiments" were these?

Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they
work

So let's see, it treats a specific form of cancer but nobody knows
why, so it should be withheld from dying patients until its mechanism
is understood. Is that what you are saying?

Plum Island

What about "Plum Island"?

Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are
smart
enough to keep it under control. That is why we have Frankenstein,
I
Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
books/movies about the need to be carfeul.

Or about irrational fear of science.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

So when have "we"?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Jul 17, 10:54*am, dpb wrote:
Limp Arbor wrote:

...

Also the arrogance is unmatched:

Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply

This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
in a usenet thread is pointless so...


Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
Patented seeds are cool?

Oh boy.... tear those blinders off your head, man.

Robatoy wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:54 am, dpb wrote:
Limp Arbor wrote:

...

Also the arrogance is unmatched:
Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply
This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
in a usenet thread is pointless so...


Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
Patented seeds are cool?

In many ways, yes, Monsanto and the others developing more productive
and cost-effective ways to produce food to feed the world's growing
population are, indeed, "the good guys".

Patented seeds are a new concept, granted; I never said anything about
"perfect world", did I? OTOH, drugs and other technology is patented
and is at least part of the driving mechanism that continues to fund
research so it's part of "pay the fiddler".

--

dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:54 am, dpb wrote:
Limp Arbor wrote:

...

Also the arrogance is unmatched:
Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply
This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even
begin in a usenet thread is pointless so...


Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
Patented seeds are cool?

In many ways, yes, Monsanto and the others developing more
productive
and cost-effective ways to produce food to feed the world's growing
population are, indeed, "the good guys".

Patented seeds are a new concept, granted; I never said anything
about
"perfect world", did I? OTOH, drugs and other technology is
patented
and is at least part of the driving mechanism that continues to fund
research so it's part of "pay the fiddler".


This "sterile seeds" business is just plain ignorance. If they were
"sterile" then they wouldn't sprout.

As for "patented seeds", patents are a legal issue, not a scientific
one, scientists didn't write the patent laws, politicians did.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Jul 17, 10:54*am, dpb wrote:
Limp Arbor wrote:

...

Also the arrogance is unmatched:

Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply

This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
in a usenet thread is pointless so...

Made up?
"Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
people’s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial insects,
or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
wild populations to extinction."
source:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_envir...c_engineering/


Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work

So you would prefer we simply don't bother to try to market curative
agents? *How, precisely, would you go about gaining this perfect
knowledge a priori?

I would prefer that they understood how & why they work before they
are released.
Ex.
Minoxodil was developed to treat blood pressure problems, a side
effect is hair grwoth.
Viola! Rogaine.


Plum Island

And we're supposed to not do research on how to contain and control and
prevent future outbreaks of animal diseases that can also in some cases
be transmitted to humans? *These are existing pathogens that have done
tremendous damage elsewhere but are almost completely unknown in the US.
* That is _NOT_ by accident but by very diligent effort including such
places as Plum Island.

Agreed that they have good intentions but accidents happen, that is
why some people fear science.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24065416/


Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart
enough to keep it under control. *That is why we have Frankenstein, I
Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
books/movies about the need to be carfeul.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

That you think "we" shouldn't doesn't mean that you can prevent someone
else (not a personal judgment, simply reality). *It's probably better to
have more responsible folks doing the research than trying to drive
abolish it entirely and thereby drive it underground or into clandestine
locations only.

Not all scientists are responsible, 31,000+ 'scientists' disagree with
Al Gore.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
So one side or the other (probably both) is being irresponsible and
they're all scientists. No doubt some believe they are right, some do
it for pilitical or grant$ reasons, and some are just plain stupid.
Point is they're all scientists and they disagree so some of them are
basing their opinions on faulty 'science'.

I'm not against science I just want them to be more careful.

Limp Arbor wrote:
....

Point is they're all scientists and they disagree so some of them are
basing their opinions on faulty 'science'.

No, not all of them are scientists despite news reports that may make
them out to be. OTOH, of the ones who are, they're people, too, and
people make mistakes and are occasionally driven by other motives than
the ones they publicly profess and are, sometimes, simply wrong. Or,
given the type of scientific questions being addressed by the global
warming question, there's certainly no lack of uncertainty in models and
so there's no surprise whatsoever that there can be conflicting
conclusions drawn from competing models of the same phenomena--that's
science.

I'm not against science I just want them to be more careful.

Well, your wanting isn't going to change the actions of either the
majority who are quite careful imo and nor the very small minority who
are exceedingly reckless or the ones in between. Again, people are
people the world 'round. For the most part, things are in reasonable
situations of checks and balances. Like all other areas of human
endeavor, things could undoubtedly be better in some areas; one can be
thankful they're not worse in others.

--

sweet sawdust wrote:
I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the
other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to
write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists?
Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious
answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday
evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then
the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.

What's NOT to be afraid of? I mean - just think of the lab coats! They
have those big pockets in which all manner of things might be hidden.
Anal probes for one - it's not "aliens" - it's scientists drugging and
probing innocent citizens on lonely roads at night. Why?! Because you
can't get the average guy to sit still for that kind of treatment - and
so how else can these scientists get their "DATA"? They're not really
doing it for the data you know, more for their own sick science-y pleasure.

UFOs are no more extraterrestrial than than your average Chevrolet.
Scientists just have these ultra cool advanced vehicles in which they
zip around doing their mischief. The selfish, evil science hogs don't
want to share with us average Joes.

Even their lowly lab assistants get to fly around in spiffy black
helicopters.

Flitting about and rectally violating the unsuspecting is merely a fun
distraction for the science community. Their true evil intent is
apparent in their "creation of new life forms" thing... First it's
cloning individual cells. Next came plants. Then sheep and all manner of
livestock. And now politicians!

Just look at W. He's obviously an early attempt. The limited intellect
and the perpetually blank expression. The very definition of
Zombie-like! And the ears. The all telling deformed ears. They just
haven't been able to get those right in their creations.

Obama is obviously one of their experiments. (remember the ears) If you
look closely you can even see the bolts in his neck. And that blank
stare - as if he sees nothing but the objective of his programming.

Sciences earliest attempts at creating human-like beings were aimed at
creating social leaders and philosophers. They wanted to change the way
people think - to create a society in which science and scientists were
revered. But their created life forms lack the mental capacity for
philosophy and social engineering, so they settled for the next best
thing. Politicians.

American scientists are now creating political leaders in order to
further their evil agendas. To create strife and war to mask their
horrible experiments, and to create need for new weapons and chemicals.
The eras of greatest scientific advance have all been during wars. They
got tired of waiting for new ones.

And it's hard to afford new deeper pocketed lab coats and ultra cool
vehicles if the proletariat isn't taxed stiffly enough to fund them.

Zombie v.1 was to create strife, zombie v.2 is programmed to raise
taxation to the 80% level as proscribed by the science elite.

Heaven help us when the yet to be revealed zombie v.3 is unleashed with
its as of now secret mission.

Who's afraid of scientists? All those who would see beyond the veil of
secrecy into the inner circle of science elite who would rule the world.

Limp Arbor wrote:
Made up?
"Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
people’s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial insects,
or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
wild populations to extinction."
source:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_envir...c_engineering/

Ummm... Then why do they continue to create them? It isn't the
janitorial staff that engineers new organisms.

On Jul 17, 12:39*pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:54 am, dpb wrote:
Limp Arbor wrote:

...

Also the arrogance is unmatched:
Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply
This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
in a usenet thread is pointless so...

Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea?
Patented seeds are cool?

In many ways, yes, Monsanto and the others developing more productive
and cost-effective ways to produce food to feed the world's growing
population are, indeed, "the good guys".

The 'Good Guys' would like nothing more than being the ONLY supplier
of seeds to the planet. The muscle they build into their contracts,
certainly overseas, is nothing short of extortion.
That 'wanting to feed the world' is driven purely by the kind-hearted
members of the Monsanto BoD?

Yea right.

Patented seeds are a new concept, granted; I never said anything about
"perfect world", did I? *OTOH, drugs and other technology is patented
and is at least part of the driving mechanism that continues to fund
research so it's part of "pay the fiddler".

Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And they
care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob can
fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is
THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad
name.
Shareholders first, screw the people.

--

J. Clarke wrote:
....
This "sterile seeds" business is just plain ignorance. If they were
"sterile" then they wouldn't sprout.

Well, no it isn't. It's the ability to introduce a gene modification
that makes the seeds of the plants that are grown from a specific seed
be sterile when _they_ mature. Afaik, they've not yet been released
commercially but the technology does exist. It was developed as a means
to enforce the ban against using seed from patented hybrids as seed for
next year's crop--rather than requiring detective work and legal action
to enforce the patent holders rights, this eliminates the possibility
the end user could use the seed for planting, hence no enforcement expense.

As a farmer, it's a problematic area--I don't much cotton to the
practice of patenting seed that prevents the hold-back of crop for the
next year's crop as a a personal matter. OTOH, many hybrids don't come
back "true", so one has always bought much seed annually anyway, even
before it was actually patented.

Where one could envision problems here would be if this particular trait
could be one that can be transmitted in the wild by
cross-pollination--there are certainly areas in which there are
concerns; nothing I've written before is to meant to say no concerns
only that imo much is overblown on the edible food end; much more is at
stake in some of the possible interactions in the wild, agreed.

It would be good if there were sufficient resources available that all
of this research could be at the land grant universities w/ their own
research budgets and therefore could be released as public domain, but
that simply isn't a viable economic model. So, if there is private
investment, those who have made the investment and taken the risk need
some manner in which to recoup that or it will cease to happen.


--