21–30 of 103 posts
In today's atheistic science culture I'm not even sure who is offended by this.
It should always be okay to have faith in something and believe that other people are wrong. Not to belittle the one you see as wrong BUT sadly this is always lost in us all.
On the other hand, there's scientific history as captured by news and popular culture, which focuses on personalities, personal stories, struggles, and development. In that version of history, it shouldn't be at all surprising that people prefer to hide the crazy people and focus on those that can successfully serve as visible PR figures. That doesn't denigrate their contributions, but it avoids making them visible figureheads when they're not appropriate for a figurehead role.
You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science, such as in interviews and discussions; sweeping people under the rug doesn't just happen because of embarassment about past actions, but for fear of future embarassment. And that future embarassment can then cause problems when trying to get popular support and funding, which makes it entirely rational to focus on the scientists who can safely talk to other people.
If you skip some bits of mystical mumbo-jumbo, there is a serious and very original take on liberal philosophy and politics in there!
I wonder why Wired magazine has been wading into "deep politics" more and more recently. I mean the German and Occult underpinnings of NASA is a significant can of worms for a publication with a mainstream readership to be opening.
In fairness, Parsons's occult history isn't particularly new, shocking, or politically dangerous ground in 2014. It's not mainstream knowledge, by any means. And I'm sure a lot of folks are reading about it in Wired for the first time. But Parsons's backstory has been covered pretty extensively -- most recently as a significant side chapter (or two) in "Going Clear," the NYT-bestselling book about L Ron Hubbard and S…
Jeez, speak for yourself.
Am I the only one who's annoyed by the author's inappropriate use of the plural possessive apostrophe? s/Parsons'/Parsons's/g
A highly recommended "Ignition!" (http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf) - a history of liquid propellant research by John Clark briefly describes genesis of JPL, mentioning Malina and Theodor von Karman. According to that, GALCIT was "Malina's group" (if I remember correctly).
I wonder why Wired magazine has been wading into "deep politics" more and more recently. I mean the German and Occult underpinnings of NASA is a significant can of worms for a publication with a mainstream readership to be opening.
I wonder why Wired magazine has been wading into "deep politics" more and more recently. I mean the German and Occult underpinnings of NASA is a significant can of worms for a publication with a mainstream readership to be opening.
In fairness, Parsons's occult history isn't particularly new, shocking, or politically dangerous ground in 2014. It's not mainstream knowledge, by any means. And I'm sure a lot of folks are reading about it in Wired for the first time. But Parsons's backstory has been covered pretty extensively -- most recently as a significant side chapter (or two) in "Going Clear," the NYT-bestselling book about L Ron Hubbard and S…
Prejudice takes many forms, and those who forget their own personal responsibility for the destructive effects of judgement, incur the final injustice. The people we choose to 'hate' and 'despise' - for religious, political, industrial, or .. other .. reasons - end up being a part of the universe that we isolate ourselves from. The universe is bigger than you. Get over it. Make friends. Prejudice against the lives of…