Thread: Decline of Science in the US

Originally Posted by Alundil

I agree that there is a glorification of the entrepreneur and businessman. Though I don't know if I see more emphasis on that over all other things now than I did several years ago. I think that, given the "American Dream" and "....land of opportunity" cliches that our country's cultural conscience maintains I'd say that the love of business(wo)men has always been there.

I do think that mediocrity has been made acceptable over the years through constant "education" that winning is not everything or is secondary to participating. Thus creating a generational gap between people who grew up striving to excel and people who grew up simply participating. The bad thing for the US, in that regard, is that there no other countries who do not push their children to excel and exceed at all costs (with the exceptions of perhaps some smaller EU countries (some bailout poster children come to mind) - but certainly not any among of our major allies/competitors). They take our "softer, more tolerant" slide as an opening in a bloodsport fencing match. They are using that opening to score gains at our expense long term and we are bleeding profusely because of it.

We, the US, now host millions of people young and old who have no idea that the world is competitive until it is too late to change the outcome. So stuck on congratulating "Little Johnny" for playing the game instead of winning the game. No more do (the general) we push our kids to win because that might hurt the feelings or self-esteem of the kids that lost. Instead there is an overwhelming emphasis on just playing the game for the sake of the game. In fact, the kids/parents/coaches can be (and have been) penalized for keeping score or announcing scores (admittedly at young age groups but this sets a bad pattern for other facets of life).

And this continues in the classrooms as well. Entire classes being slowed down (retarded in the technical sense - though the pun is quite apropos here too) because there are a few students learning at a slower rate. Instead of pulling those students from all other classes in that grade an addressing them in a uniform fashion, the majority of the students that were capable of keeping the planned pace are penalized. To what purpose? To ensure that the slower students don't "feel bad?" It is generate a larger pool of deficient students over the long haul.

I agree with the bulk of what you said aside from one point. We still push harder then about half of the industrialised nations. I believe last time i looked we were almost dead center for the top 50. Not good enough imo.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

We still push harder then about half of the industrialised nations. I believe last time i looked we were almost dead center for the top 50.

I disagree. With the sheer number of resources that are, imo, thrown away on fluff I don't think that we push harder at all. I think that we push less hard every year.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Not good enough imo.

Agreed. We ought to be in the top 5, if not leading in multiple key sub-categories. Our current position, and trending slide is disgraceful.

Originally Posted by Alundil

I disagree. With the sheer number of resources that are, imo, thrown away on fluff I don't think that we push harder at all. I think that we push less hard every year.


Agreed. We ought to be in the top 5, if not leading in multiple key sub-categories. Our current position, and trending slide is disgraceful.

I agree we should and your allowed to disagree. However i would have to disagree with you.
World education rankings: which country does best at reading, maths and science? | News | guardian.co.uk

According to the article we're 14th in reading, 25th in math, and 17th in science. Not numbers to truely brag about but pretty far from the bottom when you consider its out of 65 countries.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I blame these so called "scientists".

Yeah, it's their fault.

Cheers,


AetheLove

p.s. i didn't know brushes that wide even existed.

Good post Soy.

climate dig notwithstanding (and not attempting to derail - but I truly think that both sides of the CC/AGW/ACC/GW/ABCDEFG discussion are misrepresented more often than not - but details being what they are most people aren't interested in attempting to keep them all straight).

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Yeah man, because me and all the scientists I know studying this worthless crap that is being shoved down your throat are getting paid so well. My second job is in food service because being an academic research scientist does not pay well (or at all in the case of most I know as we are VOLUNTEERS).

You have no clue what is important simply because you don't understand most of it; frankly. But you will retort with all kinds of nonsense because you think you do.

Lets start with pretty waitresses: The more data that confirms attractive people get more respect for no good reason than their looks leads to understanding how to combat that behavior in the workplace, on juries, etc. Attractive people get better sentences for lesser crimes than ugly people too. This is just more data to confirm it; it also costs very little to do these sorts of social psychology experiments (having been involved in many I can say a lot of it is free outside of publishing in cases like this).

More people go online: who goes online, what is the SES of those with access now compared to ten years ago? Is the internet access in our country "fair"? etc... again, a lot of important things to understand here connected to studies like that (which again are pretty cheap studies).

Roach farts? Can't think of much unless you are a roach expert, but bugs have yielded shit loads of technology (dye, material, physics models, worker models, metabolic models, etc).

Most of the studies you freak out about are super cheap, and actually useful even if you can't understand why. Further, the really expensive studies are usually related to high technology development, and a lot are riding on DoD money. Yep, making guns and the things you seem to classify as "important" are the most expensive, and in the case of weapons don't yield much byproduct-knowledge.

Also: climate change is a fact.

First off pull your panties out of your ass and read what i said. I didnt say all scientists are garbage. I said the so called ones racking in money doing stupid ass studies. Then i also said those that try to force feed everyone. Pretty sure that still leaves room for those scientists that dont partake in either event.

The waitress situation your trying give excuses for has exsisted since man kind has. You imply it leads to understanding how to combat that behavior in the workplace, on juries, etc. Yet here we are with the exact same issue. So how does it fit that bill?

The internet one i can agree with to a point but i do not think a study is needed in this country to figure out common sense. If people are buying phones because they have internet access then odds are more people are on the internet. However you can enlighten me as to what else can be learned from a study done specifically to find out if more people are going on line then ten years ago.

Yes i know bugs and animals alike have yeilded many things. However how does that change people got paid to figure out a roach farts on average every 15 minutes? What magical reason could there be for that study?

You seriously trying to imply that research for weapon systems yeild very much byproduct knowledge? I cant believe you would even try to imply that from your end of the internet on a computer. Think about it before you reply.

Also i never said climate change isnt fact. Now pull your panties out of the wad they are in and reread my post again.