Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Close, but I think it's simpler and more normal (Score 3, Insightful) 460

than that.

It's not that the public doesn't trust the abilities of scientists.

It's that they don't trust their motives. We have a long literary tradition that meditates on scientists that "only cared about whether they could, not whether they should," and the politicization of sciences makes people wonder not whether scientists are incompetent, but whether they have "an agenda," i.e. whether scientists are basically lying through their teeth and/or pursuing their own political agendas in the interest of their own gain, rather than the public's.

At that point, it's not that the public thinks "If I argue loudly enough, I can change nature," but rather "I don't understand what this scientist does, and I'm sure he/she is smart, but I don't believe they're telling me about nature; rather, they're using their smarts to pull the wool over my eyes about nature and profit/benefit somehow."

So the public isn't trying to bend the laws of nature through discourse, but rather simply doesn't believe the people that are telling them about the laws of nature, because they suspect those people as not acting in good faith.

That's where a kinder, warmer scientific community comes in. R1 academics with million-dollar grants may sneer at someone like Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers, but that sneering is counterproductive; the public won't understand (and doesn't want to) the rigorous, nuanced state of the research on most topics. It will have to be given to them in simplified form; Alan Alda and others in that space did so, and the scientific community needs to support (more of) that, rather than sneer at it.

The sneering just reinforces the public notion that "this guy may be smarter than me, but he also thinks he's better and more deserving than me, so I can't trust that what he's telling me is really what he thinks/knows, rather than what he needs to tell me in order to get my stuff and/or come out on top in society, deserving or not."

Comment Re:Fox News? (Score 1) 460

Yes, American scientists seem to be trained in adsvertising their accomplishments too much. When I graduated we were tought to be modest, talk en write mostly factional. An American guest student had the habit of reporting each small result in a way someone else would only do if he truly believed it would earn him a Nobel prize.

What you are talking about is the very real pressure to "publish or perish". The fact is that those with better connections do get published and sited far more than the rest regardless of merit.

However, when scientists publish garbage, they can lose their credibility. You don't get a Nobel Prize for filling sheets of paper.

Comment Re:Fox News? (Score 2) 460

The fact that a good chunk of scientists are just that corrupt doesn't help either.

And most of those are the ones actively discrediting the 'good' ones because they've been paid off by the fossil fuel industry.

Seriously though, what evidence do you have that 'a good chunk' are corrupt?

A good deal of offal pulled from the nether regions of highly paid media pundits and think tanks.The fact that some people suspect the average scientist MORE than people who MAKE A PROFIT from the exact topic they are disparaging tells me that someone spent their money well to make sure people are ignorant.

That isn't to say I don't process what I'm told from all sources with a healthy dose of skepticism and logic. But I don't swat at butterflies all day just in case they might attack. I think I can depend on butterflies and scientists more than bees and pundits.

Comment Re:Fox News? (Score 4, Interesting) 460

I think that critical thinking skills are something that scientists cannot trust American citizens to have. We are lead to believe that someone would have around 16 years of higher education, and take a job that pays at least a third of what they could make with the math and technical skills if they became stock brokers or media pundits -- and they do all this so they can lie about a passion for seeking truth and knowledge. It shows a complete lack of empathy or understanding of human nature.

If I'm wanting to rip people off, I'll open a pay-day loan or a bank and charge bounce fees to poor people -- I don't need to waste time with difficult science to fudge a climate report in the desperate hope of getting a meager research grant.

The Crooks that own the media and hire think tanks to make every controversy like dealing with the Tobacco industry -- they are to blame. They are a cancer on society. We have to do something about these idle, useless rich people gaming the system to ruin it for everyone else. What, are they not able to afford a prostitute and enough steak to eat? These entitled parasites need to be shut down. We face a few existential crisis right now but we can't deal with Climate Change or the end of cheap labor (replaced by robots) because money owns politics and the media.

Comment Re:I still don't get this. (Score 0) 304

I frankly don't see any difference. Big, fat force, tiny little space. That's not good for a sheet of glass, a sheet of metal—hell, you've seen what happens to a sheet of paper after spending all day in your pockets. People learn that in grade school.

If it really has to be on your waist somewhere, get a holster. Otherwise, just carry the damned thing, or put it in a shirt or coat pocket, briefcase, backpack, etc.

Since the '90s, I've never regularly carried a mobile device in my pants pockets. Obviously, it would break, or at least suffer a significantly reduced lifespan. On the rare occasions when I do pocket a device for a moment, it's just that—for a moment, while standing, to free both hands, and it is removed immediately afterward because I'm nervous the entire time that I'll forget, try to sit down, and crack the damned thing.

Comment I still don't get this. (Score 5, Insightful) 304

Who thinks it's okay to sit on their phone? Why do people think they ought to be able to? It literally makes no sense. It's an electronic device with a glass screen. If I handed someone a sheet of glass and said, "put this in your back pocket and sit on it!" they'd refuse.

But a phone? Oh, absolutely! Shit, wait, no! It broke?!?!

Comment Re:more info on Kiriakou (Score 1) 224

You have to plead guilty or get buried in debt, and then when you are broke, somehow defend against new charges.

Face it; Whistleblowers will be found guilty. And the longer they wait to "sign the papers" the more the Prosecutor will force them to defend expensive and spurious charges.

These Whistleblowers are all national treasures, yet they must sacrifice their futures so that the rest of us can sit on our asses and pretend to have a Democracy for a few more years.

Comment Re:Fine! (Score 1) 365

Awesome start.

We also need to have tariffs such that Taxes on a business are assessed to make up the difference from Gross sales to the region over taxes paid on business operations in that region; E.g., you shift your mail box to Ireland, you pay as if you had all your business in the US and THEN you get profits.

The main revenue shortfall in the US is we have so many end-runs around import fees, then businesses making huge profits on labor and cost disparities whine about global competitiveness.

We've got flat-lined wages, increasing expenses and no money for necessary school programs while of course we have a Trillion $ to blow chasing down the latest "threat to the world" like ISIS. Instead of education, we can just get scared every day about the next existential threat.

Comment Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs (Score 4, Insightful) 200

Another HUGE thing to consider that "Government Waste" is not always government waste.

If it costs $120,000 to keep a top level engineer employed at NASA and they compete with a $20,000 engineer in India -- that isn't $100,000 of waste. That's +$100,000 to our GDP, and someone sending their kids to college.

The true meaning of Waste is a cut to taxes on financial instruments that end up becoming offshore investments. Extra "profits" are things you need to worry about in a free market economy -- not people pulling in a paycheck.

I want to live next to that Engineer at NASA, I want my kids to go to boyscouts with his kids, and I don't want everyone to have families arguing over bills -- THAT is the hidden cost to bean counters trying to micromanage society.

Comment Re:Non-pirateable??? (Score 2) 358

Apple is adding the "bone phone" to their headphone lineup and it's only a slight tweak to convert that fingerprint scanner to detect ear signatures.

So YES -- Apple will use ear authentication and a combination of ultrasonic and sonic frequencies to compile the sound "in ear".

Unless we hack the nervous system -- this music can NEVER be pirated. /s

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...