Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#71

Post by s1artibartfast »

mindslight wrote: post #70
s1artibartfast wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im still not interested in discussing the administration, but the actual state of funded research in absence of the administration, its motives, and actions. It seems you only want to talk about trump and their goal. If you see it as impossible to separate the topic from politics, even after sufficient disclaimers, then there isnt anything to discuss.

I don't see the point of criticizing our research institutions at a time when such criticism is just being used as justification for attacking them to make them worse. Spend time and energy teasing out extremely nuanced points just so the nuance can be ignored and add to the destructive rallying cries? What do you see as the point?

I don't think our conversation is being used as justification by the trump administration to inform their policy decisions. I think nuanced points are the interesting ones to think, discuss, and clarify, so that is what I want to do.

I dont see some obscure and transient conversation in a forum backwater as meaningful political action. There are no stakes.

To the extent there are policy implications, I would like to define a preferred policy position on a specific issue. I already know my position on $5T of additional debt. What is the point of talking about it?

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#72

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

pastage wrote: post #50
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your research is funded by taxpayer dollars, you're a public servant and you should welcome public accountability. You should accept that explaining the public benefit of what you do is part of your job, and accept the possibility that the public won't see eye-to-eye with regard to that benefit. The fundamental problem is that scientists stopped thinking of themselves as public servants, and started thinking of th…

You are not automatically a public servant if you are funded by taxes. In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. E.g. handle who gets a tax cut, go to jail, or other things that we need to out source to people that serve our interests in powerful ways. It is important to differentiate them from people that just do a thing for money. Further more saying things like "It…

>In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people.

Not a hard line. Scientific papers often comment on the best public policies. It matters a lot to taxpayers if institutional characteristics mean that these papers will inevitably recommend left-wing policies.

Why would right-wingers want their tax dollars going to institutes that will just recommend left-wing policies and call it "science", without the sort of rigorous debate that true science requires?

>Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.

If scholars are following the evidence where it leads, it should be easy to give examples of them recommending right-wing policies. How many recent examples can you give of this?

Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."

He talks about the need for utter honesty, leaning over backwards.

"For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9377486-that-is-the-idea-th...

When people call themselves "scientists", yet neglect these principles, they aren't doing science. They're cloaking their ideology in the guise of science.

See this article for an in-depth investigation of how this happens in modern academia: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/woke-academics-are-riggi...

Just because it happens in a university building, and calls itself "science", doesn't make it true science. Any more than the fact that Scientology has "science" in the name makes it true science.

"Trust the Science" and "Nullius in verba" (motto of the Royal Society) have practically opposite meanings. One of them is actual science; the other is a cargo cult which grants itself unearned credibility through use of the term "science".

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#74

Post by mindslight »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #71
mindslight wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the point of criticizing our research institutions at a time when such criticism is just being used as justification for attacking them to make them worse. Spend time and energy teasing out extremely nuanced points just so the nuance can be ignored and add to the destructive rallying cries? What do you see as the point?

I don't think our conversation is being used as justification by the trump administration to inform their policy decisions. I think nuanced points are the interesting ones to think, discuss, and clarify, so that is what I want to do. I dont see some obscure and transient conversation in a forum backwater as meaningful political action. There are no stakes. To the extent there are policy implications, I would like to…

It's not a matter of the administration itself reading message board comments to feel justified. That's a straw man.

Rather it's about people reading each others' opinions and continuing to placate themselves with thoughts that these actions are anything resembling reform or serving the general interests of our country.

Policy positions don't exist in isolation - their actual effects depend on other policies. Even if everything you yourself advocate for would work well together, this does not mean all of your desired policies will be taken up as a whole (similar dynamic of my comment two back). Furthermore the specifics of a big-name policy depend on the people implementing those policies, which is why I keep coming back to the motivations of the current gang.

Cut funding to scientific research by half, with the goal that private industry will take up topics adjacent to it (semiconductors, computing, drug research, etc), while significantly shrinking the tax/inflation burden by generally downsizing the government? Maybe plausible. Cut funding to scientific research by half indiscriminately while stifling domestic industry with hefty import taxes and raising taxflation? Once again, it doesn't seem like the goal is reform to further our national interests - regardless of one's political framework.

But even modulo other policies, what do you see as the point of say coming up with the perfect nuanced plan how to reform the public system of scientific funding? The system of last year no longer exists. Today's system won't exist in a few months. Maybe we can talk about how best to pick up the pieces and rebuild when the butchers are gone, but even just thinking we know where the bottom will be is hopeful.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#75

Post by pastage »

llbbdd wrote: post #67
pastage wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not automatically a public servant if you are funded by taxes. In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. E.g. handle who gets a tax cut, go to jail, or other things that we need to out source to people that serve our interests in powerful ways. It is important to differentiate them from people that just do a thing for money. Further more saying things like "It…

If my tax dollars fund you in any way, you are a public servant. Someone who doesn't meet that definition should not be definition be receiving public funds.

I do not expect people who reiceve my money to be my servants. I pay for services and if they are bad I see to it that they become better, or just shut up. I am sure every weapons manufacturer should be counted as a public servant, but it really makes no sense because the work they do has not meaning for me.

Now if they try to assert power over me. That is a different. That is why you need to make lobbying laws more effective.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#76

Post by HocusLocus »

Who owns it? (an LLC) contracts 'not public knowledge'

How expensive is it to operate?

How many icebreakers does NSF operate?

Is there a US Coast guard icebreaker under construction?

Lots of generic "they're sabotaging science! We're doomed!" around here.

Sorry, just asking all the other missing questions. Carry on with the hysteria.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#77

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #72
pastage wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not automatically a public servant if you are funded by taxes. In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. E.g. handle who gets a tax cut, go to jail, or other things that we need to out source to people that serve our interests in powerful ways. It is important to differentiate them from people that just do a thing for money. Further more saying things like "It…

>In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. Not a hard line. Scientific papers often comment on the best public policies. It matters a lot to taxpayers if institutional characteristics mean that these papers will inevitably recommend left-wing policies. Why would right-wingers want their tax dollars going to institutes that will just recommend left-wing policies and ca…

https://xcancel.com/tracewoodgrains/status/19490731929429852...

https://xcancel.com/MattLutzPhi/status/1948726254456185312#m

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#78

Post by runsWphotons »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55
runsWphotons wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until somewhat recently America had an advantage in commercialising the basic research. But now increasingly we fund some basic research to the tune of tens of millions of dollars only to see it commercialised overseas (often by China but by others too), often when technical know how is exfiltrated and patents ignored. This reduces the expected benefit of funding the research. Science has been a big part of the US do…

> it is better case that America ascended through industrial and commercial might We ascended remarkably similarly to how China is. Stealing IP from the old powers, giving it room and state support to scale and then staying out of nonsense wars.

It wasn't much like China at all in my opinion. China heavily directs its economy, subsidising industries and players it thinks are critical to compete. Their companies aren't simply "given room". The US had protectionist tariffs and gave land to railroads and stuff, but nothing like the kind of industrial policy in modern China. Nor did the US really stay out of wars, although Civil War aside it mostly avoided bad entanglements where it couldn't win or winning cost a lot.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#79

Post by pastage »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #72
pastage wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not automatically a public servant if you are funded by taxes. In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. E.g. handle who gets a tax cut, go to jail, or other things that we need to out source to people that serve our interests in powerful ways. It is important to differentiate them from people that just do a thing for money. Further more saying things like "It…

>In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. Not a hard line. Scientific papers often comment on the best public policies. It matters a lot to taxpayers if institutional characteristics mean that these papers will inevitably recommend left-wing policies. Why would right-wingers want their tax dollars going to institutes that will just recommend left-wing policies and ca…

You have to put what you are saying into context. Science is by definition conservative. It does not mean all of science is conservative or even just politicaly so.

The point is antiscience, and the right wingers need an enemy and they are turning to antiscience to do it. It is funny since you are citing FIRE I am pretty sure they will say similar stuff, I am guessing with words like "chilling effect" to describe parts the politics.

My view on the whole "it is woke" is that it is first of all an attempt of trying to construct a boogey man instead of having am honest debate. Most of what is called woke is actually just opinions. I have always seen the "it is woke" crowd as an attack on all of academia, that discussion can never be diverse enough to be anything that an out right attack.

Now we are slashing vital science projects that has nothing to do with woke, and people are arguing "science" should be blamed because someone was woke.

I am sure we think the same on many of these issues, but "Trust the science" is more or less what the Royal society said. In the end it does not matter if you are a scientist we as a people trust stories and legends more, creating monsters from thin air is a powerfull tool if you want people to trust you.

Post reply on HN