John McCain still really hates science

[ILLigitt]

John McCain still really hates science
by Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy)


Oh John McCain, I’m so glad you’re gone. But I wish you would actually leave!

Through Cosmic Variance I found out John McCain has a Twitter feed. That’s pretty amazing for a guy who doesn’t understand computers or even use email, but hey, everyone’s capable of change.

Or maybe not all of us. McCain posted a list to Twitter of the "TOP TEN PORKIEST PROJECTS" in the stimulus Omnibus spending bill.

Now c’mon, guess what number 2 was. Guess!

OK, did you guess that it would be some small amount of money that went to science and public education? Good for you! You win… well, nothing, except the chance to bang your head against a wall. Here is the tweet in question:

#2. $2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii - because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy

Ah, McCain. Maybe you’ve changed enough to learn some new tech, but it’s nice to know some things don’t change, like that you’re an antiscience know-nothing. But then, he helped set that standard with his ridiculous planetarium ravings.

Let’s be clear: astronomy needs to be funded. It’s one of the best public-relations field science has. People love astronomy. And putting that aside, astronomy is important. I don’t think I need go into that here, but you can always read this if you’re fuzzy on the details. Also, it touches the philosophical aspects of our lives, like how we got here and and where we’re headed. Perhaps platitudes about such things satisfy some people, but some of us are pretty well concerned with reality. That’s why we study it.

And then there’s the bottom line: that 2 million dollar investment will keep people employed in a high-tech industry. What is it about Republican leaders that they don’t understand it’s not pork, it’s investment and that equals stimulus. Building a bridge that isn’t needed to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars is pork. Putting money towards science is making sure that we stay on the cutting-edge of technological capability in the world. See the difference?

Geez, this isn’t rocket science.

Speaking of which, let me point out the contrast of McCain still actively unwilling to support science and science education to Obama’s wanting to fund NASA and science in next year’s budget and in the stimulus bill. Interesting, isn’t it?

So, Senator McCain, let me make this clear: you, amateur exorcist and creationist Bobby Jindal, and the rest of your backwards-facing antiscience reality-denying brethren may huff and puff and say ridiculous things — and I’m sure you’ll continue to do so — but a lot of people see right through it, and a majority of the American voting population rejected it last November.

But please, feel free to cling to such notions. Those of us in the reality-based community will make sure we wave as we pass you, but don’t expect us to linger on your reflection in our rear-view mirrors. We’re too busy looking ahead.

[Andrew12g]

Who really cares what he thinks? He's about 80 or something. He'll be dead soon.

[Andrew12g]

I'm convinced that religious people only believe in a higher power to troll atheists.

[Brian]

Actually I'm probably with McCain on this one ... you know, in any bill like this, everything has opponents.

In the same article, the author even goes on to say that building a new bridge is pork. Well - tell that to the 500 construction workers that were laid off but now are being hired back for that project. Tell that to the 2 million motorists that waste an average of 3 hours per week in traffic (and gas, and pollution) in that area that would help be alleviated.

This is another example of an article that the author just contradicts themselves by going on to say the promotion of astronomy is more important than an infrastructure project. That is just silly. It seems the author just wants a "Republican" to say something that can be remotely skewed to be anti-science and then jump on it due to prior bias. Again, this is proven by the author's ridiculous statement that should have been left out about building a bridge being pork and not stimulating. I don't think you can find one person that says a bridge construction project (a) does not create jobs or (b) does not fit in the definition of stimulus. Come on.

Granted I actually do agree on a lot of what is said about the ignorance of science .. That other Republican who made fun of volcano monitoring - well that was just a stupid comment to make. Of course that's important.

But I would agree with McCain that money for "the promotion of astronomy" does not belong in a stimulus bill which is suppose to be for the absolute most important, job creating, economy stimulating projects. NOW - if this were for the construction of a new observatory in Hawaii - then YES! But as it's defined - spending money to increase people's interest in astronomy as a hobby and as learning does not belong in a bill such as this. If that money is strictly for job creation and/or keeping jobs, then I'm all for it. But I can only go on the definition provided. That's NOT saying it's not important - it's simply saying that this is not the appropriate place for it.

I'm all for science, and all for technology. I'm a technology nut. I love astronomy and always wanted to be an astronomer growing up. I have a gazillion original newspaper clippings of the landings on the moon. I've had tons of telescopes. As much as I love it, sometimes you have to make realistic decisions. You can break it down to your own household. If I'm in major debt - is it the right time to go spend money traveling to all the astronomy museums because I like it and/or it may spark my child's interest? No. It's time to save money or invest in things that will save me money. Let me get out of debt, or at least in the right direction, then let's talk about it.

Let's spend all of our resources to get the economy moving and get rid of our debt first. We went to the moon during a time of major economic growth - that's how it should work. When times are tough, perhaps Great Depression tough in the future, let's put some of those projects on hold until we get through it.

Peace.

[ILLigitt]

The author elaborates on it here: Bloggingheads.tv - diavlogs

"For every dollar that's spent on NASA, we get twenty bucks back through technology."

^^That's not a waste of money. It's a waste not to make that investment. Even the promotion of astronomy is crucial... and the most important way anything pays off (not just astronomy) is in the indirect consequences (i.e. the digital camera industry he references, which was an unintended side-effect of the Hubble project). Whatever the "direct" consequences of promoting astronomy aren't even important... what's important is the number of doors you're opening. Astronomy is just about the best investment you can make.

Originally Posted by Brian

If I'm in major debt - is it the right time to go spend money traveling to all the astronomy museums because I like it and/or it may spark my child's interest? No. It's time to save money or invest in things that will save me money. Let me get out of debt, or at least in the right direction, then let's talk about it.

Actually, I would change your analogy a bit:

If you're in major debt - is it the right time to go spend money on an astronomy education (college usually being a NECESSARY CONDITION for long-term success, which is what astronomy and science in general are)? Absolutely. You can't afford not to. If you don't make such an investment, and only think about "getting through the current situation" with a series of "quick fixes," those quick fixes are ultimately going to make things much worse for you. You're going to spend your life working at McDonald's, trying to get the bills paid because you "can't afford" to make the investment that's going to improve your quality of life.

^^"College" = "science funding"
"McDonald's" = "the quick fix"

[Brian]

Originally Posted by ILLigitt

The author elaborates on it here: Bloggingheads.tv - diavlogs

"For every dollar that's spent on NASA, we get twenty bucks back through technology."

^^That's not a waste of money. It's a waste not to make that investment. Even the promotion of astronomy is crucial... and the most important way anything pays off (not just astronomy) is in the indirect consequences (i.e. the digital camera industry he references, which was an unintended side-effect of the Hubble project). Whatever the "direct" consequences of promoting astronomy aren't even important... what's important is the number of doors you're opening. Astronomy is just about the best investment you can make.

Irrelevant - the money is not being spent on NASA. Again, my main point was not arguing that it is not a worthwhile program (double negative)- you seem to be responding and highlighting the reasons why it is worthwhile. There is no argument from me there. I spent a lot of time studying astronomy.

Also I was pointing out the bridge comparison. There's an even easier way to do it. If you had a choice, and needed to make a decision on the best way to spend $1 trillion dollars, with the goal being to stimulate the economy SHORT-TERM (as in 1 year or less) - would you (a) spent $1 trillion on infrastructure and construction projects, creating 20 million jobs or (b) spend $1 trillion on promoting astronomy? I hope to all heck the common sense person would say the obvious answer is (a). Doesn't mean that you are saying astronomy is not important.

Actually, I would change your analogy a bit:

If you're in major debt - is it the right time to go spend money on an astronomy education (college usually being a NECESSARY CONDITION for long-term success, which is what astronomy and science in general are)? Absolutely. You can't afford not to. If you don't make such an investment, and only think about "getting through the current situation" with a series of "quick fixes," those quick fixes are ultimately going to make things much worse for you. You're going to spend your life working at McDonald's, trying to get the bills paid because you "can't afford" to make the investment that's going to improve your quality of life.

^^"College" = "science funding"
"McDonald's" = "the quick fix"

Irrelevant and completely disagree. Because astronomy is one subject in a field of thousands. So are you saying that money spent on astronomy is better than biology? How about marine biology? Physics? Advanced physics? Quantum physics?

It makes sense if you are in debt and you want to make a career as an astronomer. And that is the only condition your statement makes any sense. If you want to be a marine biologist, or a farmer, and you are in debt, it's not the time to go in more debt for an astronomer education is it? That's why this doesn't make sense!

Also, as a restaurateur myself, I completely disagree with your analogy on McDonald's, and probably so does anyone that manages restaurants or above for a living. I started my career as one of those lowly cooks in a fast food restaurant, and ended up running 8 of them and not having to worry about trying to get the bills paid anymore. Education is important, but work ethic and integrity trumps education any day of the week. Of course combine the two and you're even better - I understand that. But I'll take a hard working non-educated 40 year old to run my restaurant way, way, way before a 22 year old business management Master's degree college grad. I know there's lots of room for disagreement there, but that's the way it is.

Again, it is somewhat irrelevant, because you keep changing the definition. Here's the definition as it stands right now - "the promotion of astronomy" .. Not "astronomy education", not "NASA" .. the promotion of astronomy.

Does not belong in a short term stimulus package. It belongs in something else, even a long term stimulus package. But not something that is going to generate returns in 365 days or less. That is my whole point. You can argue all you want about how the long term is more important, about how this will pay dividends years down the road. That is not the point. The point is - if you had to create a package that will have the best short-term effect, this is not it.

Another way to put it .. It's like asking this question, and you must choose an answer and not create your own. If I needed $100 in the absolute shortest time possible and I am a farmer, would it be easier to get this money by (a) going to apply at McDonalds as an hourly employee or (b) go to school to become an astronomer? I know that scenario sounds silly - but again, that's my point. It's about the definition of a short-term stimulus package targeted to stimulate the economy in less than one year. Promotion of astronomy is not going to have a 365 day impact. Building a bridge will have a much bigger impact in under 365 days on the economy than promoting astronomy in Hawaii. It just will. Is that the right way to do things with a short term stimulus to quick fix a problem? That's not the question, and that's not my point.

[ILLigitt]

Originally Posted by Brian

Irrelevant - the money is not being spent on NASA. Again, my main point was not arguing that it is not a worthwhile program (double negative)- you seem to be responding and highlighting the reasons why it is worthwhile. There is no argument from me there. I spent a lot of time studying astronomy.

Also I was pointing out the bridge comparison. There's an even easier way to do it. If you had a choice, and needed to make a decision on the best way to spend $1 trillion dollars, with the goal being to stimulate the economy SHORT-TERM (as in 1 year or less) - would you (a) spent $1 trillion on infrastructure and construction projects, creating 20 million jobs or (b) spend $1 trillion on promoting astronomy? I hope to all heck the common sense person would say the obvious answer is (a). Doesn't mean that you are saying astronomy is not important.

Irrelevant and completely disagree. Because astronomy is one subject in a field of thousands. So are you saying that money spent on astronomy is better than biology? How about marine biology? Physics? Advanced physics? Quantum physics?

It makes sense if you are in debt and you want to make a career as an astronomer. And that is the only condition your statement makes any sense. If you want to be a marine biologist, or a farmer, and you are in debt, it's not the time to go in more debt for an astronomer education is it? That's why this doesn't make sense!

Also, as a restaurateur myself, I completely disagree with your analogy on McDonald's, and probably so does anyone that manages restaurants or above for a living. I started my career as one of those lowly cooks in a fast food restaurant, and ended up running 8 of them and not having to worry about trying to get the bills paid anymore. Education is important, but work ethic and integrity trumps education any day of the week. Of course combine the two and you're even better - I understand that. But I'll take a hard working non-educated 40 year old to run my restaurant way, way, way before a 22 year old business management Master's degree college grad. I know there's lots of room for disagreement there, but that's the way it is.

Again, it is somewhat irrelevant, because you keep changing the definition. Here's the definition as it stands right now - "the promotion of astronomy" .. Not "astronomy education", not "NASA" .. the promotion of astronomy.

Does not belong in a short term stimulus package. It belongs in something else, even a long term stimulus package. But not something that is going to generate returns in 365 days or less. That is my whole point. You can argue all you want about how the long term is more important, about how this will pay dividends years down the road. That is not the point. The point is - if you had to create a package that will have the best short-term effect, this is not it.

Another way to put it .. It's like asking this question, and you must choose an answer and not create your own. If I needed $100 in the absolute shortest time possible and I am a farmer, would it be easier to get this money by (a) going to apply at McDonalds as an hourly employee or (b) go to school to become an astronomer? I know that scenario sounds silly - but again, that's my point. It's about the definition of a short-term stimulus package targeted to stimulate the economy in less than one year. Promotion of astronomy is not going to have a 365 day impact. Building a bridge will have a much bigger impact in under 365 days on the economy than promoting astronomy in Hawaii. It just will. Is that the right way to do things with a short term stimulus to quick fix a problem? That's not the question, and that's not my point.

We're arguing about different things. First, it depends on what you mean by "promotion of astronomy." I'm not talking about what will generate short-term stimulus.

My problem isn't with this particular comment, my problem is with his attitude toward science funding in general. He doesn't understand it well enough to be making ANY decisions about what should be cut and what shouldn't... and he just so happens to understand it poorly enough that he acts as though it's useless in the abstract (and science in the abstract is exponentially more important than the stuff you can apply (like building a bridge)).

Originally Posted by Brian

So are you saying that money spent on astronomy is better than biology? How about marine biology? Physics? Advanced physics? Quantum physics?

Without any doubt whatsoever.

Our planet is dying. Our #1 priority needs to be GETTING OFF and moving elsewhere. If we don't do that, our species is going to go extinct due to lack of resources, and then nothing else matters. Everything else we worry about is not as important as basic survival, which is totally dependent on astronomy. That's not to say it's the only important thing... but it does mean that no serious person should be sneering at it, or thinking about cutting its funding.

The economic crisis is a luxury in comparison.

You also took my analogy too literally. The point was: investing in a college education (of any kind, astronomy, biology, English, 18th century European History... it doesn't matter) is, in almost every sense, a BETTER solution to your own personal economic crisis, than working day to day to pay the bills. Thinking in the short term is only going to hurt you if you're not working even harder on a long-term solution, at the same time. That's especially true when you consider the overall health of the society (because you wind up with morons in charge who "worked hard to get where they are" but don't understand the first thing about what they're making decisions about, and are in no way qualified to make said decisions--i.e. McCain).

Funding astronomy is civilization's equivalent of investing in a college education. Actually, funding astronomy is civilization's equivalent of investing in medical insurance. It's one of the first things any responsible person worries about (and literally the last thing to worry about cutting back on).

[Brian]

Obama believes that vaccinations may cause autism. Blah!

[Brian]

P.S. I am interested in knowing more about why you think our planet itself is dying right now. Can you create another thread on that?

[Brian]

P.S.S.

Also don't forget the balance between abstract and application. The balance needs to be about equal - you can't just do abstract all the time.

Analogy 14.3b: Two potholes are in the road and need to be repaired. The abstract person argues that they need to spend all their time and resources on building a better road that will not develop potholes, rather than keep repairing. Therefore, the potholes are left. One month later there are now 4 potholes. 6 months later there are so many potholes that the road is now not even able to be driven upon and the people that depend on that road are now out of luck - unfortunately the new road hasn't been developed yet.

Point being you can't live in the future 100%. Nor do I believe can you live in it 80%. There has to be a balance between abstract and application. The bridge needs to be built, and astronomy needs to be funded. The original poster completely discounted the bridge as pork, and in my opinion is thinking too abstract. His point would have been better just to leave the bridge out of it - because it flaws his main argument.