1895 school exam, are we dumb?
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
I thought it might have had something to do with a dog lifting his leg against that round rock after it arrived at the bottom of the hill. A visionary caveman - with no university degree - noticed that, put two and two together, and created the concept of not just a wheel, but an entire automobile. Science eventually caught up (being the Johnny-Come-Latelys that they sometimes are) by developing the bits and pieces necessary to make a car.
Mind you, this is pure theory but I could likely build a computer model to prove it, if I was a scientific type. Which I'm apparently not. :lol:
I thought I was quite clear in my original post, coutnryboy. I said that a scientist studies a scientific concept (like Carnot cycle) and based upon that an engineer develops the heat engine, or internal combustion engine. I did not say anything about corporations, on the contrary, when I mention science and basic research, it is implied that I was talking of the universities (corporations do very little in the way of basic research, scientific concepts are studied mostly in the universities).
Anyway, we had a good discussion, at least I enjoyed it.
No. The imagination, creativity, and needs of people are at those roots...science is one of the tools they use to make things happen.
Your understanding of history is plainly from a manufactured popular perspective, of the kind commonly understood to be a necessary illusion of social order. The enlightenment wasn't very enlightening and there have been so many industrial revolutions that they are beyond counting. Humans on this planet have been up and down on the progress charts for perhaps millions of years. Todays science officials don't support that but the science itself sure as hell does. Never is a time that did not exist, enlightenment is transitory and industry is perpetual none of that is in the least revolutionary. An industrial magnate today a subsistence farmer tomorrow. Incorporate that idea or perish in the lake of fire. I'm borrowing that last bit from Herald.:lol:
I was referring to the original post, countryboy, the one that started all the discussion (where I mentioned the Carnot cycle). I did not mention the word 'project' in there.
If you want to call that accountability, OK. But it is not accountability in the sense that scientist in a corporate setting would be accountable. In the corporate setting, he is judged strictly by what he contributes to the bottom line.
With a research grant at the university, there is no such accountability. The only accountability is that the research is judged by the colleagues of the scientist, usually after the project. If his papers are well received, the project was a success, if his papers are not well received, it was not. That is the only accountability there is.
Well, the good news is, his thinking is obviously not encumbered by a Science degree. The term "Messiah" is a fairly strong compliment...that implies leadership skills, and we all know that is one of his many strengths. The fact that he carries the Conservative label means that he possesses a high degree of common sense. That of course rules out the possibility of him being an elitist, over-educated snob, which means he can relate quite effectively to the "average Canadian."
Put it all together and you have the ideal skill set for a strong leader of our great country.
We have only his utterances (and utterances of his colleagues) to go by, JLM. This is the same man who talked of erecting a firewall around Alberta to keep gay marriage out. OK, he did not do anything about it, but who knows if he was serious about it? He has said many other unflattering things about gay marriage (until he eventually saw the light and promised that he wont use the NW Clause to stop gay marriage).
It is difficult to say if he himself belongs to the far right or he just tries to pander to the religious right faction in his party. But if he does get the majority, his true colors will be revealed.
...and your remark only tells me that you have a high degree of intolerance for any opinion that might conflict with your long-held beliefs - as unrealistic as they might be - on the definition of perfection. Is there a name for that condition?
Sorry countryboy, but anybody who claims that he can reduce a three year research project to say, one year by taking a more focused approach (that is in effect what you implied) doesn’t know what he is talking about, at least in my opinion.
So what you're saying is that measuring the value (to society) of scientific research is impossible? In the context of this thread, I think you might be arguing against yourself. In fact, you're starting to sound like a Christian Fundamentalist, replacing facts with faith.
It may indeed be debatable if this is a better world because of science and technology, Cliffy. 'Better' is a very subjective term. However, because of science and technology, people are healthier, wealthier and live longer. That is good enough for me.
No, you gave him that title. Just for the record, he is the Prime Minister.
You are right - that is your opinion. I was taking a more scientific approach to the subject by questioning what the possibilities for shortening that time cycle might be if things were focused a bit more clearly at the outset. Isn't "exploring the possiblities" allowed in the scientific world? (I always thought it was encouraged, actually)
Science is not a tool, a scientist does not worry about whether what he is studying will benefit people. Thus when he studies Carnot cycle, he couldn’t care less about internal combustion engine. To him it is just an exercise in thermodynamics.
Science involves studying the various underlying principles, the underlying variables. A scientist is a seeker after knowledge, he is not in the business of bettering the lives of the people.
That is the job of an engineer or a technologist. He may study the concepts developed by the scientist about Carnot cycle and from that may come up with internal combustion engine. There he asks the question, how can it benefit the mankind?
But a scientist is not hindered by such a question, he is only after knowledge. I already mentioned that when a scientist writes a proposal to do basic research, he doesn’t justify as to its practical application.
As to imagination and creativity, you are right (about needs of the people you are wrong, science does not concern itself about needs of the people. What need of the people is satisfied by studying the String Theory?). Many times imagination and creativity spark a scientific idea, or a technological concept which eventually leads to the betterment of humanity.
By George, you have got it, countryboy. There is no way one can measure value to society of scientific research. Scientific research is like groping in the dark. Many times you don’t achieve your objective, you may end up somewhere totally different. Sometimes you don’t get anywhere, the research may end in a dead end.
It has happened on occasion that a scientific concept lies gathering dust on a shelf for a long time before somebody sees the value in it, the practical application to it.
But think about it, what value is Big Bang Theory to the society? How is the society better because of Big Bang Theory, except in an abstract sense? It may be 10 years before somebody comes up with a practical application of it to benefit humanity, it may be 100 years, it may never happen.
Yet we have spend substantial amount of money to study the Big Bang Theory. Scientists study with the purpose of acquiring knowledge, benefiting humanity is not one of the aims of science. Technology achieves that, and there can be no technology without science. So you could say that indirectly science has benefited humanity tremendously. But science does not aim for that. Science is pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
It's one thing to multi-quote. Sometimes, in the process of the multi-quote, it's quoting more than you want. In that case, it's just easier to use another method to get one's point across. I have not read back to see what you are referring to. I just know that sometimes I have used the multi-quote only to find it's more than I want with deleting being more of a job than to just use something like bold print to emphasize what I want to say.
Don't you think this is a silly thread at times? Lots of nit picking going on. I received an email today. It said these words: I believe that two people can look at the exact same thing and see something different. That is very obvious here in this thread.