-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
Friggin Tractor Beams
- Thread starter Yakoo752
- Start date
So in other words, it's all hopeless. Fuck scientists, we can't trust them, let's appoint a bunch of liberal arts majors to "review" their findings and make sure they don't get out of line. Reminds me of the Bush admin, lol.
Where did the liberal arts major thing come from?
Who says liberal arts majors are technical? I always laugh at the people who think they're are mutually exclusive. Some of the greatest scientific minds of all time were people massively versed in ligature, art, and music. Most of the high end scientists of our day, still are.
Who said we can't trust technical people? I don't think I'm reading the same thread you are. That or you're just making shit up
The point is much of what is touted as "progress" isn't really progress at all. It's just sophisticated business. A iPhone isn't progress. A television, isn't progress. Whaternie, and a few othe rpeople are decrying, is the fact that the implementation of results is usually skewed, or geared towards short term money making. Inconvenient results are brushed aside, etc
Don't think they are? Thes a reason the list of mental disorders is growing at a massive rate. It isn't because they are being discovered, it's because they are being created to fit a paradigm from the pharma companies. It's not science that's the issue, it's the humans in charge of implementing the findings. And those people, aren't scientists.
Last edited:
LikeWaah
Active member
As do the number of obese, emphysemic, diabetic heart patients who need 10 pills a day to survive. Currently half the population is obese and the number is growing. Great to have plenty of cheap food, no? And great to make billions for the pharma industry. If I was a cynic ( god forbid) I'd almost say the current developments simply insure a growing and stable pool of people to keep big pharma in business big time. O, and the health care to keep those people alive has gotten so expensive that it is a major life expense now. Imagine what it will be in twenty years.
Yes, lifespan has increased. That surely must be an indicator of how good life is.
Can't say much about the emphysemic people (I suppose they could quit smoking? But usually lung diseases are always not on the patient), but risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease can largely be eliminated by proper dieting and exercise.
How many of those people do you think do both? I would say with the exception of Type 1 diabetes, and some heart conditions that are genetic in nature, most people with obesity, diabetes, or minor heart conditions could help themselves first and foremost by adopting a healthier lifestyle.
Don't blame big pharma for those cases, blame the people who refuse to adopt healthy lifestyles.
I think people are too quick to judge the pharmaceutical industry. It's not that I don't see where you're coming from, but I think it's a very slippery slope to go from "look at these things that were supposed to help us, but it turns out they don't" to "spending resources to develop new scientific knowledge is useless because all it seems to do is harm people".
Source?
With today's educational system being focused on "hot careers" above all else, someone can become a scientist or engineer without taking dick for humanities or liberal arts, compared to decades ago. The "renaissance man" era was what, 200 years ago?
Seems to be the feeling around here. Maybe from afm. He keeps saying scientists put us at risk with all the testing they do, which has a bit of truth to it but is mostly overblown imo.
Of course money and profit are the #1 motivation to advance technology -- that's always been true. What are the alternatives? I can think of only two: 1) war/crisis, and 2) government spending. But everytime the latter is proposed, conservatives claim that it's "socialism", and liberals claim we should save that money for the homeless.
If you are referring to business people, sure, they know how to market a drug, but the vast majority of them don't know how to take lab findings and interpret them into practical applications. The scientists are doing that.
Last edited:
Britny
Bad Daughter
To claim the benefits of modern medicine are null is a fundamentally foolish argument in my eyes, so I will not argue it. I cannot remain objective. My life was saved by complex medications and surgical methods.
Let me ask instead, those of you arguing against scientific research: What do you suggest we change? Do you think all scientific research is a waste of time and money?
Let me ask instead, those of you arguing against scientific research: What do you suggest we change? Do you think all scientific research is a waste of time and money?
Source?
With today's educational system being focused on "hot careers" above all else, someone can become a scientist or engineer without taking dick for humanities or liberal arts, compared to decades ago. The "renaissance man" era was what, 200 years ago?
Seems to be the feeling around here. Maybe from afm. He keeps saying scientists put us at risk with all the testing they do, which has a bit of truth to it but is mostly overblown imo.
Of course money and profit are the #1 motivation to advance technology -- that's always been true. What are the alternatives? I can think of only two: 1) war/crisis, and 2) government spending. But everytime the latter is proposed, conservatives claim that it's "socialism", and liberals claim we should save that money for the homeless.
If you are referring to business people, sure, they know how to market a drug, but the vast majority of them don't know how to take lab findings and interpret them into practical applications. The scientists are doing that.
this post hurts my brain so much I cant even describe it...
you and brit are so utterly unable to see the forest thright the trees, to see beyond blasck and white, its amazing, thast you think in ANY WAY, i am attacking science, is amazing. for gods sake my entire focus in schooling was astonomy and cosmology...
that you can only think of those two alternative, makes me pray to the non existent god that you arent involved in any scientific inquiry, on even the most basic of levels. hell, I hope you arent a janitor ina lab for chrissakes...
Last edited:
Britny
Bad Daughter
I'm sorry, I should have specified. My post was directed toward afm199 (Ernie, is it?)
I won't refute your argument, Kevin, that not every scientific development is beneficial. I will, however, stand by my original argument that we cannot put a ceiling on our ability to advance (which afm199 openly disagreed with, I didn't think you did at all).
Where would modern medicine be without antibiotics and other medications? Not every weapon is wielded wisely, but that is no fault of the weapon.
I don't believe I said anywhere that every scientific development has been beneficial. I also recognize that not every development is an advancement
I just think it's ignorant to say that anything is impossible, when (in the larger scheme of things) we actually know very little about our universe. Modern science has come so far in so little time, I find it difficult to predict what we'll be capable of in another few centuries.
Britny
Bad Daughter
And FYI, I am a science major Which is why I find it so offensive that someone would suggest that modern day scientific theories are no different than any common religion or myth, or that research is in any way, shape, or form a waste of time/money.
Which is why I find it so offensive that someone would suggest that modern day scientific theories are no different than any common religion or myth, or that research is in any way, shape, or form a waste of time/money.
asthmodeus
New member
oh the lolz..
afm199
Well-known member
So was mine, nor did I claim ALL scientific research is pointless. You're the one who believes in Faster Than Light space travel.
Nor did I claim in any way that all research is pointless. More along the lines that some things are best left alone. PS: Define "advance". Is a drug that allows people to keep living unhealthy lives ( statins in most cases) an improvement and advance? Is the fusion bomb an advance? Nerve gas?
Last edited:
JackTheTripper
Shotline For Mod
So I've been listening to the book "Death by Black Hole" by Neil deGrasse Tyson and that basically makes me an expert on all of this so I'm going to chime in.
First I would have to agree that travel faster than the speed of light isn't possible, but that doesn't mean there are not ways around that. Is there not a theory of multiverses? In this theory we live in our universe which is governed by certain laws of physics, one of which states that matter can not travel faster than the speed of light. But there may be other universes which have different laws of physics. And you never know, we may find a way to move from our universe to a different one, travel at faster than light speed in that one then pop back over to ours in a far away place.
Now I know what you're going to say. It's pure fantasy and probably not possible. But right know we only know a few things that are not possible, like faster than light travel. But we don't fully know what is possible.
In the book he quoted a french physicist from the 1800's and I've spent a couple days trying to find that spot to get his name and the exact quote but I can't find it again. He basically said that with all the laws of physics regarding gravity, orbits of planets, etc... hammered out there is nothing else to discover. Of course look what we've done in the 150+ years since he said this.
The truth is we never really know.
First I would have to agree that travel faster than the speed of light isn't possible, but that doesn't mean there are not ways around that. Is there not a theory of multiverses? In this theory we live in our universe which is governed by certain laws of physics, one of which states that matter can not travel faster than the speed of light. But there may be other universes which have different laws of physics. And you never know, we may find a way to move from our universe to a different one, travel at faster than light speed in that one then pop back over to ours in a far away place.
Now I know what you're going to say. It's pure fantasy and probably not possible. But right know we only know a few things that are not possible, like faster than light travel. But we don't fully know what is possible.
In the book he quoted a french physicist from the 1800's and I've spent a couple days trying to find that spot to get his name and the exact quote but I can't find it again. He basically said that with all the laws of physics regarding gravity, orbits of planets, etc... hammered out there is nothing else to discover. Of course look what we've done in the 150+ years since he said this.
The truth is we never really know.
CoorsLight
New member
That's been my observation as well.
You've touched upon the problem. The lion's share of money is directed at research that will enables sustenance of broken systems. For example, more pills to let you sit on the couch, eat frozen pizza, and still live 85 years. Modern agricultural research is almost exclusively directed at increasing the efficiency (in terms of fewer workers and more yield per acre) of a monocropping business paradigm...you think that commercially-worked farmland will be arable in a decade or two? There is no sustainability, we're just hoping that Monsanto will come out with some chemical to get us a couple more years out of overworked, eroding soil.
Most current research is about maximizing the profits from problems, many of which were created by technology in the first place. It's not about solutions. Before I returned to academia, I worked in pharma for over six years, and believe me, the last thing they want is a cure. They want to sell you a treatment.
And FYI, I am a science major
Out of curiosity, what's your major? It seems like you haven't participated in research, or if you have, only at a superficial level. After you graduate, if you get a job in R&D, and if your eyes are open, you will notice the stark difference between the lab and the classroom.
Years ago I was just like you. I had faith in the practice of science, even after having done years of research in academia, I didn't open my eyes. I was naive like that for an embarrassingly long time. And then I got to work.
EDIT: That doesn't mean that major advances aren't possible. There are some scientists who are "doing the right thing." But even amongst conscientious scientists, that number is exceedingly small. On top of that, once you get in the lab, you'll find no tricorders. Instruments aren't black boxes that have a green light for yes and a red light for no. There is work and interpretation involved. The everyday challenges of research, the problem solving, all the minutiae...those are the challenges they don't talk about in the classroom.
Fuckin-A
Last edited:
Asphaultnaut
Own the Mess You've Made!
lol @ vacuum fluctuation energy. I just happened to be sitting on the last night tank reading opening notes written by Robert Forward.
I first heard of it when reading "Childhood's End" by A.C. Clarke in the mid 80's and sadly, nothing seems to have changed or progressed on the state of observations for it.
Last edited: