Forums Index >> General >> More Bu$h co. hijinks exposed!
Page : <1> :
Deutschy, you're doing a heck of job,
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 5:53:10 PM
You may be living in an increasingly fascist country if...
Lol the legacy of your president is growing! You guys are funny - and proactive! - at denouncing daily the blunders of your administration. Must be weird feeling to live in the US in such polarized times...
Here in Canada religion never has been a political issue, or an active force in our government. The new Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a believer, but he's always been discreet about that. Thing is, the political gain to invoke 'religion' is pretty weak up here, while in your country when one says 'God' in the good way it means millions of votes. Real Politik aye.
Not so much "weird" as unbelievably disheartening. Living under such an stupid, ideological zealot in "the land of the free" sucks monkey butts. What's worse is that other american citizens have abdicated their civic duty to demand that their government serve their needs. Mostly, I think because the are all so goddam scared all the time. Bunch of nelly cowards. This is definitely the weakest, most servile generation of americans that ever lived. Get a punch in the nose and then start shedding themselves of their civil liberties as quickly as they can...liberties bought and paid for in our forefather's blood.
And that's just the tip o the iceberg...
And the substitution of "faith" for "reason", not to mention the servility of the corporate media...make all of this even easier for petty tyrants.
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 7:14:59 PM
I'm amazed at the way the Big Bang and theories of Evolution are presented by science. If the quote you provided is accurate, Stink, then I think Deutsch was making some pretty valid points. The truth is, Evolution is opinion. It is an opinion substantiated by research (although much of what is quoted as "evidence" hardly stands up to objective scrutiny), but it is still an opinion, and to present it as any kind of fact is pure arrogance.
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 7:55:56 PM
Here we go again...blinders on yet?
Deutsch was a 24 year old high school grad put in charge of telling NASA PhDs what they could and couldn't write in the realm of science.
I can't even get around to your point, because that absurdity just screams in my damn ear. And you think the basic premise is acceptable...?
BTW: evolution and the big bang are not "opinions." They are scientific theory. There is a very big difference. We beat this issue -- the difference between theory and opinion -- to death some time back. You say they don't stand up to objective scrutiny...and yet, they have been scrutinized objectively by the scientific community, and yet, they stand. But that isn't really my point. Reread my second sentence...
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 8:20:30 PM
I'm just saying we should at least present both sides of the story...being that they're both just theories and neither is fact. And besides, you don't really think all this came about by random chance, do you? Just look at the complexity of the eyeball.
(stokes fire...sits back, crosses arms, smiles and grabs another beer)
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 8:26:23 PM
@ Stink
I think it would be a good idea to actually read what I said. I never actually commented on "the basic premise." My comments were directed at his suggestions, which I think were good ones. Whether or not he was in a position to make them, I did not say. I don't yet have enough information about the situation to know that, although I am looking into it. I think its good to be informed before making decisions, don't you Stink? It would be too bad if some of us started jumping to conclusions. ;)
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 8:26:26 PM
Well, its the basic premise that is absurd. You seem to have drifted right by it rather quickly in defense of his actions. Your mistake of equating opinion and theory mirrors his mistake. Clearly, his inability to understand that distinction underscores his incompetence in his position.
Yes, you can get more information, and that is a good idea.
But you see, I did read what you wrote. I also noticed what you didn't write. I noticed that you wasted no time making the same mistake he made, while missing the point altogether.
Accepting the presentation as truthful, in what situation is a 24 year old high school grad in a good position to censor government scientists?
In what situation should a 24 year old high school grad who worked for the Bush/Cheney campaign be put in a position to censor scientists?
What special credentials does he bring to the task?
Shit begins to hit the fan...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/3644847.html
And for those of you who are no longer capable of firing two synapses at once; who are used to having the news digested for you, let me clarify: the crime isn't that he lied on his application and resume, or that he is an incompetent crony whoes job it was to censor information the Bush administration doesn't want you to worry your pretty little head over...
The real crime is that this is likely happening all over (remember FEMA anyone?)...and that fully 1/2 of you (the faith-based half I'm guessing) don't even care. Maybe worse, you don't even understand that you should care (no persival, I don't mean you..this last bit was meant for our many fox news fans...i'm on a crusade, you know).
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 9:38:02 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah
Look at the eyeball. How did it evolve?
You look at the eyeball, monkey boy.
LOL.
How do you spell kroneeism?
There's a conflict between religion and the big bang theory?
Stink, you're still not listening.
You seem to have drifted right by it rather quickly in defense of his actions.
I did NOT defend his actions; I defended the position he promoted. I do not know enough about his actions to comment, and excuse me for not immediately accepting every link you post. Listen carefully, now - you'll like this next part: you very well may be right. However, it is WRONG for the scientific community to peddle their ideas about the origin of life as fact. So, let's review my position:
1. Government censorship is a dangerous thing, and if the Bush administration is pushing their agenda in this way, it is wrong. Did you catch the conditional Stink? You with me so far?
2. It is unacceptable to intentionally misrepresent information on a resume.
3. It is just as wrong to pretend that the Big Bang has been proven, or is even close to proven, or that the theory is even viable enough to be called likely. Science should be able to censor that for themselves.
And by the way, regardless of his right to do so, Deutsch apparently did bring one important credential to his job that NASA seems to lack: objectivity. You should try it some time. It works wonders for intelligent conversation. :)
Objectivity! Classic! Smiley or no smiley, that's a hoot!
1. Yes, with you.
2. Yes, agreed
3. Um...again...google "opinion" and then, "theory." you are not even close on that issue. I suspect that you don't even have enough information to really even speak on the subject. And yet, you speak...not really understanding the issue, you invent one of your own...
4. Um, where the hell is four? Oh, here it is:
In what situation is a 24 year old high school grad in a good position to censor government scientists?
In what situation should a 24 year old high school grad who worked for the Bush/Cheney campaign be put in a position to censor scientists?
What special credentials does he bring to the task
And here's:
5. When is it ok to politicize scientific findings? Regardless of qualifications, should the president appoint minders to censor government scientists?
6. When is it ok to appoint non-qualified cronies to government positions?
7. To foster "objectivity", should one have to work two Bush/Cheney Campaigns, or will one suffice?
7a. A sign of "objectivity" is not comprehending the distinction between "opinion" and "theory?"
7b. A sign of "objectivity" is having a compatible theological grounding?
8. When confronted with information that implicates Bush (and/or your "savior in the flesh) in politicizing government positions with the purpose of forwarding a specific ideology, should one obfuscate in a "logical" fashion, or "just in anyway at all possible?"
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 10:31:11 PM
4. Um, where the hell is four...and here's
5. When is it ok to politicize scientific findings? Regardless of qualifications, should the president appoint minders to censor government scientists?
6. When is it ok to appoint non-qualified cronies to government positions?
See, there you go changing the subject again. Granted, you are changing it back to the original emphasis of this thread, but stop attacking me like I'm disagreeing with you when I'm not even talking about the same thing. My contribution to this thread regards the audacity of science to present the Big Bang THEORY as reliable fact. You suggest I google the words "opinion" and "theory." I've got a better idea; since any 8 year-old with too much time on his hands can post his own webpage, let's refer to a more reliable relic of past generations: a dictionary. Here's what the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary had to say about both words.
Opinion - "a view, judgement, or apraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter" or "a generally held view."
Theory - "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."
Thus, a theory is a type of opinion. Which is all I ever said about Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Besides all this, in order to progress from a hypothesis to a theory, an idea is supposed to undergo substantial experimentation. How in the world do you test the origin of life? I personally think it should still be called the Big Bang hypothesis.
Ok, now I'm done with this post. Feel free to nitpick, warp, and criticize your way through one of your own. I hardly see any kind of resolution on its way, but I certainly wish this could be done in a more friendly fashion. That doesn't seem to be your forte.
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 10:55:47 PM
I'm sure for this 24 y old young man it was a blissful moment to be nominated there! Now imagine all the stress he was have endured since under media scrutiny. Lol! I'd be curious to know where that guy will be in say 2016! :P
Ok perseus...
my frustration was from your wanting to talk about something other than what I wanted to talk about, you are right about that. It was also because you didn't seem at all taken aback by the general premise. I should give you the benefit of the doubt...maybe you are waiting for more info.
My hesitation..no, my quick dismissal of the "opinion/hypothesis" issue comes from a long discussion we had on this site some moons ago.
Frankly, I didn't want to revisit that issue, but what came out of the discussion primarily from more scientifically educated humans like fleabiscuit, is that their is a very big difference between "opinion" and "theory."
The webster's may not be the best place to go after all.
"Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies." so I went to wikipedia, which is much more specific:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).
Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after their occurrence is no longer in scientific dispute. For example, "global warming" refers to the observation that worldwide temperatures seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
The term "opinion" is like "hunch" or the like...it isn't substantiated, it doesn't take the form of hypothese or conjecture, and it isn't necessarily logically bound.
Unfortunately, usage of the term theory is muddled by scientists in such examples as string theory and various theories of everything, which are more correctly characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses or a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.
Most troublesome for the scientific community is the fact that, in common speech, theory has almost the opposite meaning from its use in the sciences. This change can be seen in modern dictionaries which now list theory as a "guess or hunch" in preference to the former scientific definition that used to be the dominant one. In everyday English, a theory is (Morrison, 2005, p. 39):
And I think that is what you are doing there, the same thing that deutsche did. It's a common mistake. The scientific definition of theory places it millions of miles away from mere "opinion."
I will not nitpick any further. Sorry, in my fatigue over this issue, I blew right through it. With regard to my being flip, its because I associated you by your reaction with lesser posters, though I have no experience with you to justify this... You seemed to employ the "theory/opinion" vs fact ploy that ID enthusiasts tried to wedge into science so that they could sneek in a their own "science" into science.
Glad to see things have cooled down some. :) I concede your distinctions in the terms "opinion" and "theory." One of the cumbersome aspects of lingual communication is its pesky propensity to alter its nuances over time. It makes defining terms a critical early step of any fruitful debate. And by the way, I don't think there is no evidence for the Big Bang. I simply think that there is evidence for both sides, which is often overlooked by both sides. And, unfortunately, a lot of Christians tend to scream "Jesus," "God," and "the Bible" without any thought beyond elementary Sunday School protocol, which creates a stigma that is very damaging to those of use who consider the "love the Lord your God with...all your mind" part of the greatest commandment. You and I disagree, and I can respect your views (while arguing with you whenever possible XD ), but I would ask that you respect mine as more than a product of mindless conditioning by Bible thumping fanatics. And Fox news. :) (which, btw, I don't even watch, although as highly as you've recommended it, I'm considering giving it a whirl). ;)
Behold, the white flag comes out: let's leave this argument for now - I'm sure there will be more to come. That's what's so great about independent thinking...no one else will ever agree with everything you say. :) So, until next time...peace.
Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 11:33:45 PM
Peace!
That was just a bump. We just got snagged up in semantics. I understand that "theory" isn't fact. I also agree that the big bang is a theory, and therefore not a fact. I don't believe though, that scientists were trying to present it as fact. I believe that this guy was trying to weaken science's hold on being the official source for explaination of events. Bush tries to undermine science when it doesn't suit his purpose. We've seen that over and over again.
By all means: tune into fox, but keep the door to the crapper open! You'll be heading in their quickly!
Btw: we may not disagree as much as you suspect.
Page : <1> :
This snot nosed jack-ass was but in charge of censoring NASA Scientists...
just more insight into the subtle fascism of the bush crew. Incompetent, ideological punk with no degree, telling PhDs what they can and cannot write...unf%@king believable.
But perfectly acceptable to you fox news fans, I'm sure...
George C. Deutsch, the young Bush campaign flack who was telling NASA personnel that they shouldn't discuss the Big Bang without considering the topic from its religious perspective, has been forced to resign. As reported first earlier today by the Scientific Activist blog, Deutsch claimed on his resume on file at NASA that he was a graduate of Texas A&M.
Only he never graduated.
So he lied on his resume, and presumably his job application too. Always a bad move if you're planning to become embroiled in a major media firestorm.
Just to keep the recollection fresh, Deutsch was an intern in the Bush-Cheney 2004 'war room'. That qualified him for his next assignment screening scientific information NASA personnel could communicate to the public.
When reviewing NASA documents Deutsch became concerned at references to the 'Big Bang'.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," he instructed one person working at NASA. "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
Deutsch's directive was that every reference to the 'big bang' be preceded by the words 'theory of'. And a number of you wrote in to say that whatever Deutsch's foolery, it is correct to refer to the Big Bang as a 'theory'. Indeed, the big bang is much closer to being a 'theory' in the colloquial sense of the word (as opposed to the scientific sense) than evolution is.
That is quite true. But Deutsch's comments above show that a narrow scientific reading, absent the political context, misses the point.
Deutsch told the NASA guy that the Big Bang was not a "proven fact", which is certainly true. But in no meaningful sense is it mere "opinion."
It's not just some idea someone thought up which stands on an equal footing with any other idea anyone else could cook up. Among cosmologists today, it's the dominant theory about how the universe began. It is based on various theoretical work (which I won't try to understand or explain) and supported by a lot of astrophysical data.
The theory could turn out to be wrong. And it will almost certainly end up being revised in one or more ways. But it is not 'opinion'.
It's worth taking note of the word choice because it captures the mix of obscurantism and relativism which has characterized all the Bush administration's attitude about science and, really, pretty much all empirically based knowledge -- something we discussed at length here.
The rub here is the failure to see that knowledge which has been subjected to and survived -- indeed been strengthened by -- empirical and theoretical scrutiny stands on a higher footing than information that hasn't. This isn't pedantry. Nor is this some obscure alcove in the science curriculum.
This mindset -- obscurantism and relativism duking it out to be of most use in the pursuit of power -- suffuses the Bush administration: a lack of respect for facts and the set of tools we use to discern factual information from chatter and bombast.
-- Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
This one was broken by bloggers but is beginning to hit the corporate media machine