NationStates Jolt Archive

NASA is pissed, and rightly so, because some public affairs officers have been altering statements made by NASA scientists, and have been pressuring them to change their statements or make no statements at all. For instance, when scientist James Hansen made some statements about global warming recently, he claimed he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=all)

So, politics trumping science. We've heard this story before, right? About what we've come to expect. Well, take a look at one of these public affairs officers and his qualifications, and most importantly, his actions in his position.

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times....

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "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."

It continued: "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."

The article also notes that the other reason given for the need to make the change was that the AP Stylebook says the word theory should follow the words "Big Bang," which would have been enough reason. So why bring this ID crap into the matter at all? Second question--what is a 24 year old journalism grad with no background in science doing in this job in the first place? Third question--are we well and truly fucked in the US?

Third question--are we well and truly fucked in the US?

You haven't realized that yet?

You haven't realized that yet?
Call me an optimist--I keep thinking we might be able to turn it around, but I'm starting to wonder if the damage goes too deep now.

So NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a multibillion dollar effort whose stated purpose is scientific and whose missions rely 100% on astrophysics is supposed to discount the Big Bang, which is the core of modern day astrophysics and from which many observations on the universe are drawn, just because some PR shits want to go on a religious crusade?

NASA's purpose is scientific, and they represent the scientific view of the universe, not the religious one, so until ID is embraced as a viable theory (which will never happen), it has no place in a scientific institution. As much as Bush wants to make it so, ID is not science, and if he wants to make the US competitive in science he needs to drop this idea once and for all.

NASA is pissed, and rightly so, because some public affairs officers have been altering statements made by NASA scientists, and have been pressuring them to change their statements or make no statements at all.

... are we well and truly fucked in the US?
If we allow this crap to continue, probably. :(

If we allow this crap to continue, probably. :(
See, despite our differences, I knew you'd appreciate this article and the problem we're facing as a result.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote

one would hope that somebody replied with "learn what words mean and what science is you ignorant baboon"

one would hope that somebody replied with "learn what words mean and what science is you ignorant baboon"

I like how a 24 year old journalism bachelor has the scientific expertise and experience to reduce the Big Bang to nothing more than an opinion...and it's even more amusing when the dumbass doesn't realize that the Big Bang is a theory, and that theory has a totally different meaning than it does in nonscientific contexts.

I wonder how he managed to obtain the PhD-level credentials in astrophysics and managed to find a sufficent number of as of yet unknown astronomical observations during his journalism major to sufficently debase the Big Bang to "opinion"...and not only that, but managed to do it in 4 or so years of college.

I like how a 24 year old journalism bachelor has the scientific expertise and experience to reduce the Big Bang to nothing more than an opinion...and it's even more amusing when the dumbass doesn't realize that the Big Bang is a theory, and that theory has a totally different meaning than it does in nonscientific contexts.

I wonder how he managed to obtain the PhD-level credentials in astrophysics and managed to find a sufficent number of as of yet unknown astronomical observations during his journalism major to sufficently debase the Big Bang to "opinion"...and not only that, but managed to do it in 4 or so years of college.
He had the most important credential of all--interned in the war room of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Sigh.

He had the most important credential of all--interned in the war room of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Sigh.

Ah, the Court of the Star Chamber itself...now I see.

This Administration has to fall, and fast. As little as I agree with many of the Democrats in Congress, we need more of them and a Democratic president to reverse the damage Bush's doing with his self-appointed God warriors who have the capacity to debunk advanced scientific theory.

70,000 math and science teachers are meaningless if they aren't teaching real science...

This Administration has to fall, and fast. As little as I agree with many of the Democrats in Congress, we need more of them and a Democratic president to reverse the damage Bush's doing with his self-appointed God warriors who have the capacity to debunk advanced scientific theory.

70,000 math and science teachers are meaningless if they aren't teaching real science...
I hope lots of people are thinking the same way you are in November.

I hope lots of people are thinking the same way you are in November.

When it comes to the technological and economic future of this country (and as much as people want to avoid it, math and science are the future), I'm willing to compromise my other views in favor of anyone who is willing to stand up to people who want to attack that future in order to push their theology on us...and the Democrats are the only ones who are doing that.

what is a 24 year old journalism grad with no background in science doing in this job in the first place?

somebody thought it was time to bring some of the ol' media 'balance' and 'objectivity' into the realm of science?

no more of this nonsense about observing the universe and coming up with testable theories to explain what we see and treating them as if they was better than any fool off the street's opinion. all ideas are equal, no matter how much or little they stand up to reality. except for those ideas favored by the powerful - which are automatically known to be true by virture of the authority from which they are delivered and should never be scrutinized.

no more of this nonsense about observing the universe and coming up with testable theories to explain what we see and treating them as if they was better than any fool off the street's opinion. all ideas are equal, no matter how much or little they stand up to reality. except for those ideas favored by the powerful - which are automatically known to be true by virture of the authority from which they are delivered and should never be scrutinized.

Mr Soviets, are you trying to seduce me?

See, despite our differences, I knew you'd appreciate this article and the problem we're facing as a result.
:p

When it comes to the technological and economic future of this country (and as much as people want to avoid it, math and science are the future), I'm willing to compromise my other views in favor of anyone who is willing to stand up to people who want to attack that future in order to push their theology on us...and the Democrats are the only ones who are doing that.
Agreed. But as partisan as I am, I'd want to put the words "for now" at the end of your last statement, because I imagine if there were enough short term benefits, the Democratic politicians would sell us down the river just as quickly.

Agreed. But as partisan as I am, I'd want to put the words "for now" at the end of your last statement, because I imagine if there were enough short term benefits, the Democratic politicians would sell us down the river just as quickly.
It's the nature of the beast.

Hey! There's a figure of speech for ya: Political Beast! :D

Agreed. But as partisan as I am, I'd want to put the words "for now" at the end of your last statement, because I imagine if there were enough short term benefits, the Democratic politicians would sell us down the river just as quickly.

Yeah, you've got to keep both eyes open for that. It's happened here in Ohio more times than one would think. I guess it's the nature of politics, though...both sides are always jockeying for power.

Second question--what is a 24 year old journalism grad with no background in science doing in this job in the first place?

When is anyone in the US qualified for the position they hold? The fetish for professional credentialism has destroyed the value of a college education anyway and therefore it hardly matters what type of degree the individual holds: they are all basically worthless except for those few accredited by independant non-college bodies.

Third question--are we well and truly fucked in the US?

Once you accept the multicultural notion that all viewpoints have equal merit, or at least should be accorded equal respect, you get exactly this type of shit. It's self inflicted by the left.

Mr Soviets, are you trying to seduce me?

rpp, i'm not trying to seduce you...would you like me to?

When is anyone in the US qualified for the position they hold? The fetish for professional credentialism has destroyed the value of a college education anyway and therefore it hardly matters what type of degree the individual holds: they are all basically worthless except for those few accredited by independant non-college bodies.

Generally, a degree in an astrophysics-related science is required to work in that field. Simply put, a person who doesn't have knowledge in the field isn't qualified to give orders to people with that knowledge as to what is and what isn't legitimate in that field.

Once you accept the multicultural notion that all viewpoints have equal merit, or at least should be accorded equal respect, you get exactly this type of shit. It's self inflicted by the left.

No, they don't. Alchemy isn't on the same level as chemistry, and the concept of the four humors isn't on par with modern medicine...all ideas are not equals.

Intelligent Design is not science, it is religion masquerading as science, and is not comparable to evolutionary theory on any level, and therefore has no place in a scientific institution or science class.

Yeah, you've got to keep both eyes open for that. It's happened here in Ohio more times than one would think. I guess it's the nature of politics, though...both sides are always jockeying for power.It's not the jockeying that causes the problems so much as when one side gets so powerful that they feel unrestrained. I think there's something to the idea that fear keeps us more honest than we would otherwise be. That's part of the reason why, even if the Democrats were to win the presidency in 2008, I'd like one House of Congress to be controlled by Republicans. We've seen firsthand what happens when one party controls all the levers of power--we get this kind of shit. The power to investigate, to subpoena, is imprtant because it makes the other side at least think twice before doing something illegal.

The only reason Bush hasn't been tossed, or damaged beyond repair is because the Democrats can't start Congressional investigations, and even without that power look at what has come out as far as scandals are concerned. Imagine if there was a House or Senate committee chaired by a Democrat investigating some of this stuff.

Divided government--I'm all for it.

Yeah, you've got to keep both eyes open for that. It's happened here in Ohio more times than one would think. I guess it's the nature of politics, though...both sides are always jockeying for power.
There isn't a bit of difference between the actions of a Democrat or a Republican, once they are elected to office. It does seem like the Republican party does a better job of limiting government, on a national scale, while they are the minority party. But both parties have consistently lousy records of pushing stupid and needless agendas when holding the majority.

Even though I have higher hopes for the Libertarian party, I have this cynical streak in me. I fully expect them to buy more power with more government if they ever get a majority.

Once you accept the multicultural notion that all viewpoints have equal merit, or at least should be accorded equal respect, you get exactly this type of shit. It's self inflicted by the left.

What the hell is the matter with you right wing apologists.

"Yes, the right has totally abandoned scientific evidence as a basis of determining reality. It's because the left thinks that our culture is not necessarily any better than another just because we have better technology."

You're a moron. You should probably stop thinking. It appears it might be hazardous to your health (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsbrai024610995feb03,0,4679393.story), and it clearly isn't serving any sensible purpose for you.

for a while now I've been looking at american science (generally not the scientists of today but what is being taught to the future gens of scientists) and they seem to be slipping into lysenkoist thought (for those not in the know Academician T.D. Lysenko managed to convince the soviet scientists (with the help that he was mates with stalin so those that wern't convinced got shot...) that what darwin was trying to say all along was that lamark was right that medelivian genetics was wrong and a product of the corruption in the west, this buggered up soviet agriculture for generations and is one of the major factors as to why the soviet block lost the cold war).

also the higherups in science establishments arn't always scientists (its why scientist often get annoyed (no we do actually need an electron microscope, no we can't just use optical microscopes, it doesn't work like that, its physics, yes I know i'm a biologist but trust me on that.... etc. etc.))

What the hell is the matter with you right wing apologists.

"Yes, the right has totally abandoned scientific evidence as a basis of determining reality. It's because the left thinks that our culture is not necessarily any better than another just because we have better technology."

it's sort of like how allowing gay marriages will make them all want to kiss dudes.

So NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a multibillion dollar effort whose stated purpose is scientific and whose missions rely 100% on astrophysics is supposed to discount the Big Bang, which is the core of modern day astrophysics and from which many observations on the universe are drawn, just because some PR shits want to go on a religious crusade?

NASA's purpose is scientific, and they represent the scientific view of the universe, not the religious one, so until ID is embraced as a viable theory (which will never happen), it has no place in a scientific institution. As much as Bush wants to make it so, ID is not science, and if he wants to make the US competitive in science he needs to drop this idea once and for all.

Amen.

I like how a 24 year old journalism bachelor has the scientific expertise and experience to reduce the Big Bang to nothing more than an opinion...and it's even more amusing when the dumbass doesn't realize that the Big Bang is a theory, and that theory has a totally different meaning than it does in nonscientific contexts.
Someone should point out cosmic background radiation and redshift measurements to him. I'd like to see him dismiss as "theory" a 13.7bn year datestamp and an actual picture of the afterglow of the explosion itself. :rolleyes:

for a while now I've been looking at american science (generally not the scientists of today but what is being taught to the future gens of scientists) and they seem to be slipping into lysenkoist thought (for those not in the know Academician T.D. Lysenko managed to convince the soviet scientists (with the help that he was mates with stalin so those that wern't convinced got shot...) that what darwin was trying to say all along was that lamark was right that medelivian genetics was wrong and a product of the corruption in the west, this buggered up soviet agriculture for generations and is one of the major factors as to why the soviet block lost the cold war).

also the higherups in science establishments arn't always scientists (its why scientist often get annoyed (no we do actually need an electron microscope, no we can't just use optical microscopes, it doesn't work like that, its physics, yes I know i'm a biologist but trust me on that.... etc. etc.))
I'm concerned about the science education that kids in the US receive, as well. But not so much for what is taught in the area of Creationism, or ID, or whatever. Kids are pretty good BS detectors. The smart ones are going to see that F=ma has a lot more value that "In the beginning..." when it comes to their futures.

What does worry me, though, is that not enough teachers in public schools really like science and math. Around here, in the highly rated Georgia public school system, we don't have much experimentation in the elementary and middle school curricula. The teachers read from textbooks and the kids are bored. How can we expect anyone to have any interest in a subject that the teachers, themselves, dislike?

And there will always be bad managers. That's been part and parcel of being in a R&D field for as far back as I can see. "Why do we need to spend so much money on test equipment?" I spend a good part of every planning meeting trying to justify purchases that we need to measure things that volt meters just won't.

Someone should point out cosmic background radiation and redshift measurements to him. I'd like to see him dismiss as "theory" a 13.7bn year datestamp and an actual picture of the afterglow of the explosion itself. :rolleyes:
If he's truly just a journalism major, he doesn't have the brain cells to understand something complex. The best you can hope for is that he'll be able to repeat it correctly. Most journalists I see, can't even do that.

If he's truly just a journalism major, he doesn't have the brain cells to understand something complex. The best you can hope for is that he'll be able to repeat it correctly. Most journalists I see, can't even do that.
http://timeline.aps.org/APS/resources/85_06a.jpg

So much for the "theory". :D

A bit trickier to launch a satellite to go photograph a deity.

http://timeline.aps.org/APS/resources/85_06a.jpg

So much for the "theory". :D

bah, everyone knows that data and evidence are merely unjustly glorified opinions. your pictures mean nothing!

Explains why things keep on falling off the US space shuttles. Wrong priorities.

An update on Mr. Deutsch: the blog World O' Crap (http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2006/02/04.html#a2120) did a little snooping and found some of Deutsch's work when he was a "journalism" student at Texas A&M. After reading their excerpts, it's not hard to see why the Bush administration was so ready to get him into a job. For instance:
2. A Commitment to the Truth

Here's George with "Commission Findings Don't Contradict Bush" (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:mNURnV9ecV8J:cascadingfalls.com/archives.php%3FArticleId%3D37+%22George+Deutsch%22+ties+al-Qaida+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8) (a piece which seems to be missing from the Battalion archives for some reason).

The ties between al-Qaida and Iraq are clear. So clear, in fact, that there is so much circumstantial evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaida that it would be hard for an informed person not to at least suspect Saddam's regime of having a hand in the attacks.

[...]

Cheney went on to mention evidence of a Czech intelligence report, which has yet to be confirmed or denied, that asserts that Sept. 11 hijacker Muhammad Atta met with senior Iraqi officials in Prague just weeks before the attacks.

Well, the report was denied by the CIA, the FBI, and Czech intelligence, but Cheney has never denied it, so I guess it too stands as a viable theory. That's how scienceiness works in a Bushian democracy.
He sounds like a perfect fit for NASA under the Bush regime.

*sigh* When even the scientific branch of the government is being run by cavemen, one wonders how the government even manages to pay it's employees.

Am I the only person who can't stop giggling whenever I read this guy's name?

I'm starting to think people have a "Homer Simpson" notion of theory. "In 'theory,' Marge-In 'theory,' Communism works." Like a theory is something someone just came up with in the shower that sounded good. "You know what I was thinking, fellas? What if it was a bigass explosion?"

This makes sense to them becuase that's how their beliefs work. Even if you believe in one religion you have to think that there was a point with the religions that you don't believe in just made some shit up one day. So it makes total sense that science is just some thing that was just made up one day to them. It's just a different mindset, like trying to explain over the phone to someone how to drive a manual transmission when they're in a car with an automatic...

head, meet wall.
:headbang: :headbang:

Anyone who voted for Bush ever has no right to bitch about the fallouts of electing or re-electing an incompetent fratboy theocrat.

:p

What about those souls who voted against him twice?

What about those souls who voted against him twice?Unfortunately, just about all they can do is bitch, these days.

Unfortunately, just about all they can do is bitch, these days.
and bitch we shall!

I'm starting to think people have a "Homer Simpson" notion of theory. "In 'theory,' Marge-In 'theory,' Communism works." Like a theory is something someone just came up with in the shower that sounded good. "You know what I was thinking, fellas? What if it was a bigass explosion?"

This makes sense to them becuase that's how their beliefs work. Even if you believe in one religion you have to think that there was a point with the religions that you don't believe in just made some shit up one day. So it makes total sense that science is just some thing that was just made up one day to them. It's just a different mindset, like trying to explain over the phone to someone how to drive a manual transmission when they're in a car with an automatic...
That's precisely the problem. Individually, we don't help by being sloppy with the way we use language--we use "theoretically" when we really mean "hypothetically," but how many people know there's a substantive difference between the two? In fact, how many people even know that "hypothetically" is a world away from "just pulled this out of my ass?"

That's precisely the problem. Individually, we don't help by being sloppy with the way we use language--we use "theoretically" when we really mean "hypothetically," but how many people know there's a substantive difference between the two? In fact, how many people even know that "hypothetically" is a world away from "just pulled this out of my ass?"


well, the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't help in that regard... (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothetically)

hy·po·thet·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hp-tht-kl) also hy·po·thet·ic (-thtk)
adj.
1) Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation. See Synonyms at theoretical.

2 a) Suppositional; uncertain. See Synonyms at supposed.
b) Conditional; contingent.

n.
A hypothetical circumstance, condition, scenario, or situation: OK, let's consider this possibility thenjust as a hypothetical.

I'm starting to think people have a "Homer Simpson" notion of theory. "In 'theory,' Marge-In 'theory,' Communism works." Like a theory is something someone just came up with in the shower that sounded good. "You know what I was thinking, fellas? What if it was a bigass explosion?"

This makes sense to them becuase that's how their beliefs work. Even if you believe in one religion you have to think that there was a point with the religions that you don't believe in just made some shit up one day. So it makes total sense that science is just some thing that was just made up one day to them. It's just a different mindset, like trying to explain over the phone to someone how to drive a manual transmission when they're in a car with an automatic...
There's considerable truth to what you say ... this time. :D

Most mistrust of science comes from not understanding the Scientific Method. If you've not been exposed to it at a young age, and someone you trust ( like, say, your Pastor ) tells you that "it's only a theory," chances are you'll wind up mistrusting it in favor of your own, religiously based "theory."

*snip*
As an American scientist, I am growing more horrified with each passing day at the anti-knowledge sentiments in my country. The word "intellectual" is now an insult, and an "expert" must be a person who has no actual qualifications other than having written a faith-based book on a given subject. Doctors, scientists, and educated individuals are portrayed as diabolical elites who are bent on destroying the planet.

The average American is urged to reject all expert information, and instead to rely on their own "common sense" or "gut feelings," even when their "sense" is flat out wrong according to all known fact. We are ordered to "respect others' opinions," even when those opinions are so blatantly wrong that it makes me want to cry. We are supposed to "allow for a debate" even when the facts are even remotely in question.

Not only is this a disgustingly ignorant and cowardly attitude, it also is completely and utterly disrespectful. Researchers who spend their lives performing thorough, clear, careful, precise investigations find themselves matched up against any random wacko who thinks his opinion is better than fact. The media insists on presenting "both sides" of what are really non-debates, making it look as though all the testimony of educated experts is only barely equal to the random imaginings of non-expert pundits.

According to the new rules of the land, we are expected to coddle the mistaken assumptions of every blithering idiot around us. The tender egos of the uninformed and uneducated are to be nurtured and protected against the nasty, vicious, unfriendly facts that might bruise their delicate feelings.

Boo freaking hoo.

Scientists are about 800 times more vicious to one another than we are to any lay person. We subject each other to extremely harsh criticism, and we pound each other's theories without mercy. And then a layperson starts whining about how the facts simply don't agree with their gut feelings, and how mean scientists are for explaining that the universe does not always opperate the way our guts might want it to opperate. Boo hoo hoo, the facts are biased against me!!! Grow a freaking brain, nimrods. If you don't think the science is telling the whole story, EDUCATE YOURSELF. Become a scientist and do the research. But please, for the love of your nonexistent God, please stop insisting that your feelings, your ignorance, or your lack of understanding should be respected and valued as much as the lifetimes of hard work that are being put in by people who are strong enough to face reality.

... how many people even know that "hypothetically" is a world away from "just pulled this out of my ass?"
Not many. :(

If I worked for NASA, I'd be pronoucing George Deutsch's last name as 'Douche'.

So why bring this ID crap into the matter at all?Call it an all-too-oftentime rewarded sense of entitlement.Second question--what is a 24 year old journalism grad with no background in science doing in this job in the first place? Muddying the water.Third question--are we well and truly fucked in the US?From the moment you were conceived you've been well and truly fucked, Nazz.

As an American scientist, I am growing more horrified with each passing day at the anti-knowledge sentiments in my country. The word "intellectual" is now an insult, and an "expert" must be a person who has no actual qualifications other than having written a faith-based book on a given subject. Doctors, scientists, and educated individuals are portrayed as diabolical elites who are bent on destroying the planet.

and the same people at the same time hold that the words spoken by certain authority figures should not only be assumed true, but believed in despite clear evidence that they are false.

scares the fuck out of me, what with the family resemblence it has to one of the central aspects of the emergence of fascism and all.

Scientists are about 800 times more vicious to one another than we are to any lay person.


:D How accurate is this figure? What are the errors involved?



I'm very glad that this isn't an issue here in Australia. Yet. I think mostly because the media here dosen't show much interest. There are a few politicians that would love to push this particular barrow; thankfully they are heavily countered within thier own party, for now. But, if this "intelligent" design rubbish gets a serious foothold in the US rather than just in the wacko religious areas, then this might change.




Pfffft! "Intelligent" design??? Why the hell do our spines curve through 90 degrees in our lower back?!?!? SD, Stupid Design, is about more like it.