Avatar feed
Responses: 20
MSgt James Mullis
5
5
0
Edited 7 y ago
I like his budget proposal. It fully aligns with the promises he made on the campaign trail. It's almost... as if...he's representing his constituency! *gasp*

Despite the continued gnashing of teeth, medical and science research will continue under Corporate, University and Private funding, Bert and Ernie (Elmo for you young folks) will continue to make millions under their contracts with HBO, and the Smithsonian Institute ran for years on private funding, so they won't be closing their doors anytime soon.
(5)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Jim Ruether
4
4
0
Doesn't mean that research has to stop. It just puts the impetus on private companies and their research departments. Who said this was the responsibility of the Federal Gov't?
(4)
Comment
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
CW4 Guy Butler
7 y
Probably because basic research (and that's what we're talking about here) is probably the most boring money hole you can drop dollars into - right up to the point there's a breakthrough.

That's where private companies jump on board and dump money into applied research, which actually can show a profit.

http://www.sjsu.edu/people/fred.prochaska/courses/ScWk170/s0/Basic-vs.-Applied-Research.pdf
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSgt Danny Hope
4
4
0
anti-intellectuals?
(4)
Comment
(0)
SPC Jesse Davis
SPC Jesse Davis
7 y
CPT (Join to see) -
When the reality of science is 'progressive agenda', then it becomes a problem with your own ideological culture. Science is only political because certain ideologies have problems accepting inconvenient facts. Case in point: Evolution and climate.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSgt Danny Hope
MSgt Danny Hope
7 y
MSgt Kurt Stover - I hereby award 10 points for the word "nitwittery"
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Jesse Davis
SPC Jesse Davis
7 y
PO1 John Crafton -
It becomes 'pseudo' when the science is fallible or otherwise wrong based on it's own merits. When the only objection you have to a finding is on raw ideological/faith/personal grounds, then they are of absolutely 0 relevance to the veracity of said science.

Your opinion does not matter. If you want to address problems with science, you need to address the actual science, not whine about the consequences that findings have for your belief system.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Jesse Davis
SPC Jesse Davis
7 y
You haven't 'addressed the science' if the only thing you have to present is political objection to something that is distinctly apolitical. Fundamental misunderstanding of how this research is conducted and presented is not an argument.

The IPCC is an international community of scientists from across the world, collaborating between rival nations even, near-unanimously attesting to the reality of their observations - with all of said data presented to the public for full transparency. You will need more than raw incredulity, world-spanning conspiracies, or getting offended at your opinion not being valued, to discount that work.

I don't even know where to start on creationism. That is almost flat-earth territory.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close