Are only Environmentalists scientists?

Post Reply New Topic

Seems like most scientific studies in the mainstream media are overwhelmingly health related in our unending pursuit for longevity. If your looking for stuff related to Space, the internet is a great resource for it, that I'm sure you peruse.

Most everyone has an interest in weather, so the idea of global warming or climate change is another "exciting" weather phenomenon that gets an equal amount of attention for those that agree that it is a threat and those that don't.

I think health is the number one public interest, regarding science, weather in general second, and climate change is probably third. Everyone can relate to it, so it a sure way of raising advertising dollars.

Also, regarding TV, we have the discovery channel, national geographic, NASA, and a host of other avenues that we didn't have before. For the person that is exclusively interested Science this is the most exciting time imaginable. When I was young, the library was it; I dreamed about a machine that could answer all my questions. I probably would have been on google 24-7 if it had been available then. I probably would have worn by brain and eyes out by the time I was 20. All I had was plastic dinosaurs and imagination.

Uhm coming from a creationist, I don't think this critique of science holds much water. Seriously, dude, I mean damn. I.. , just yea, damn.

Sorry pal, but if science doesn't agree with the right-wing pseudo-science and paraphernalia you grew up with it doesn't mean the science is an elaborate conspiracy, it just means the science is against you.

I would put it differently. If you are a young earth creationist, I would say REALITY is against you, because all science does is describe reality as accurately as our senses and instruments and reason currently allow. If you don't like the fact that the earth is ancient and life evolves, take it up with your Creator. Or ask Him why He made it LOOK so much like it happened that way if it really didn't.

I've heard it said (in the 1984 book Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu) that the conflict between evolution and creationism is not really between science and religion. The conflict is actually between the science of 2000 A.D. compared to the science of 2000 B.C. The Hebrews inherited and used the science (such as it was back then) of earlier cultures of the ancient Middle East when they wrote the books of the Old Testament.

I for one tend to think humanity has learned a bit more about the physical universe and how it works than what we knew about it four thousand years ago, but obviously many people disagree!

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 15 Jun 2011, 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

The only thin I would disagree with there is the use of the word 'science' to describe a mere body of knowledge (that of 2000 BCE). But yea pretty much. I haven't noticed controversial scientists getting shot down, more like the opposite. Let's face it, who doesn't dream of spearheading a scientific controversy, Imagine what that would do for your h-index, and what journal wouldn't want to publish you for their own impact factor? Hell, if somebody could actually (..make a science of and..) prove I.D. they'd go down as one of the most famous scientists in history.

But of course, I'm sure the evil-leftist-atheistic-Darwinistic-eviloution conspiracy really prevents this. I mean hey, why not, right?

Thanks for the recommendations. It really stinks that science wasn't considered "popular enough" by the mainstream media outlets. ....They got rid of science, but kept global warming, right-wing caricaturization, and sports....

True. The pursuit for longevity isn't a terrible one in my opinion. It may be the only way some of us may ever see or be a part of any future in space that isn't kept on life support from the ground. The internet does have plenty of material on space, although the necessitated wading through crap to find diamonds is another issue of the over abundance of worthless websites online.



I suppose so, although with all so much interest in global warming other issues about the environment, such as the pollution of the oceans, are thus ignored while a more hyped issue is given so much attention as to detract from others.



I wish space travel were in the top three. Weather in general is certainly something everyone deals with, but usually by complaining.



Actually, I think most people are becoming lazier with more availability of information today. When I was a kid there were still card catalogs being phased out at the libraries, but even so I learned how to search and cross reference, to dig for information essentially. Nowadays, with people only having to type in keywords and either get matches or not, I think they are becoming a lazier lot and not using it to the best of its ability. Perhaps it's somewhat a matter of supply and demand, in a sense, that now knowledge is in higher supply it has reduced in demand.

The rudimentary scientific method under which most discoveries in science were made has been around since the time of Francis Bacon in the 1500's. The Aristotelian method is only good for pure subjects such as mathematics, not for subjects such as the real world which exist and do not change form along with the changing of our perception or understanding of them.

Except for porn.......

What does that qualify him for?

ruveyn

Unemployment? If you don't know about the reporter referred to:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1Twkef6rk[/youtube]

There is a lot of reporting about environmental science because the government wants you to recycle, use less energy, etc. Basically because they're trying to motivate people.

I find archaeology and astronomy much more interesting, but many important finds in those fields barely get a mention in the news.

The cost of everything will also encourage everyone in that manner, but how much of the media is controlled by the federal or state governments?



That is what I find to be an injustice to the work of other scientists whose work is practically ignored by the general public.

At least scientists can generally make a living doing their thing.

Interest in all cultural pursuits seems to be in decline in the states. Visual and performing art, literature, history, philosophy, etc. don't seem to garner any attention or support from the public. Religion (if you can call that a cultural pursuit) seems to be the only thing thriving, and that in increasingly extreme forms.
Everywhere, there are signs of a society in decay.

Well, we haven't started cutting people's hearts out as an offering to The Giant Black Mirror That Smokes like the Aztecs yet.

I'm assuming he makes a pretty good living as on-air talent. He works for PBS news hour now.

He was also in training to fly on the shuttle before the Columbia disaster. He would have been the first journalist flying on the space shuttle.

Maybe I don't understand your question or why you asked it.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-06-16-black-hole_n.htm

Space makes the front page of USAToday. But, it took a Black hole to swallow a Sun and send a gamma ray burst our way, to become noteworthy. I posted a topic in the News and Current Events section regarding this and am interested, if space special interest guy, iamnotaparakeet, knows how much gamma ray radiation the earth received from this once in a million year event. I couldn't find information at this level of detail.