Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
 248 online now: DrJones*, Percy (Admin), RAZD (3 members, 245 visitors) Newest Member: Mikee Post Volume: Total: 869,835 Year: 1,583/23,288 Month: 1,583/1,851 Week: 223/484 Day: 41/105 Hour: 1/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Is It Science?

# most scientific papers are wrong?

Author Topic:   most scientific papers are wrong?
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005

 Message 91 of 113 (285868) 02-11-2006 5:54 PM Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog02-11-2006 5:04 PM

Re: A quibble -- sorry
 crashfrog writes:Samples of populations, analyzed for certain traits. So long as we're able to conclude that the distribution of the sample has a 5% chance or better of being a random deviation from the "expected" distribution of the population, we conclude that it is.Like, if we have a sample of people and we're looking at their height, and we find that there's a 5% chance or greater that the difference between the distribution in our sample and the distribution in the whole is due to nothing more than chance, then we conclude that the sample we have is truly random, and not the result of some kind of selection for heights.Again, unless I'm way off base, here, we take anything over 5% confidence. Yeah, I was surprised, too.

No, you're way off base - it's just the opposite. We consider it significant if there's less than a 0.05 probability (assuming the experiment was designed with a p<0.05 significance level) that the null hypothesis was rejected when it was in fact true (Type I error). Confidence intervals of 95% or 99% are commonly used.

Edit: I totally misread your posts, please disregard the above. Upon re-reading, if I'm seeing it right this time, you're saying that they do the same thing I described; they consider the difference to be statistically insignificant if there is a probability of 0.05 or more that it is due to random chance. But that means that they're working with a 95% CI.

This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-11-2006 05:54 PM

This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-11-2006 06:50 PM

 This message is a reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2006 5:04 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Belfry
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005

 Message 92 of 113 (285884) 02-11-2006 6:37 PM Reply to: Message 83 by Percy02-09-2006 9:45 AM

Re: A quibble -- sorry
 Percy writes:I used to do this stuff a little a couple decades ago, and without digging out my old equations my vague recollection, give or take a few but this probably isn't too far off, is that a random sample size of around 1700 is sufficient to have a degree of assurance of 95%. Surprisingly, this sample size is not a function of the size of the full population from which the random set is selected. In other words, whether you're sampling a population of a million or a billion, around 1700 is all you need for 95% assurance if your sample is randomly selected.

This is essentially true with regard to the margin of error in survey data characterizing a large population (for example, poll results), which I suspect would apply to the question at hand (error rate of scientific study conclusions). However, Inkorrekt is correct in that with many studies, results can be significant with much smaller sample sizes.

 This message is a reply to: Message 83 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 9:45 AM Percy has not yet responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4471 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006

 Message 93 of 113 (285893) 02-11-2006 7:06 PM Reply to: Message 89 by Lithodid-Man02-11-2006 7:15 AM

Re: How reliable are the Scientific papers?
Finally, i found someone with the same passion as myself. In my previous posts, I mentioned that such things happen which should not. It is a travesty. My research grants were cutoff at a time when President Reagan was in office. In way what he did was right. The mediocre work costs the tax payer a lot. I was hurt by his actions. But, it was good for hte country. I only wish the Scientific community will set up its own standards to regulate. Well, such a regulation will kill the motivation and there will be no more creativity at all. i wish you and your colleagues all success. I have to write a book about all that happens in Science.

You might read the fascinating book by Dr. Candace Pert, "Molecules and Emotions". I could never leave the book after I started it. I even cried twice. I met her in a conference. I went through the same as herself. I am not going to give any more information as you will still not believe me. Only one thing I will say is. I was asked to extrapolate the results of one experiment for a conference. I refused. My grant was cut off.
This is when I was a Post Doc. Yes, I made the biggest mistake in my career of not waiting for the grants at the Max Plank Institute in Germany. Instead, I came to an obscure Medical School here only for additional pain and disappointment.

This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-12-2006 03:11 PM

 This message is a reply to: Message 89 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-11-2006 7:15 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 94 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 8:15 PM inkorrekt has responded

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
Joined: 07-21-2005

 Message 94 of 113 (285900) 02-11-2006 8:15 PM Reply to: Message 93 by inkorrekt02-11-2006 7:06 PM

Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
 My research grants were cutoff at a time when President Reagan was in office. In way what he did was right. The mediocre work costs the tax payer a lot. I was hurt by his actions. But, it was good for hte country.

Reagan began the process of transforming the U.S. from the scientific powerhouse of the world into a second-rate has-been. How was the attack he started--and his neo-con descendants have continued--on funding for basic science good for this country?

Our school children fall further and further behind other nations in their math and science skills every year.

The only thing that made sense about the Reagan years was learning about the brain rot that explained them.

This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-11-2006 08:16 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night

Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

 This message is a reply to: Message 93 by inkorrekt, posted 02-11-2006 7:06 PM inkorrekt has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 95 by lfen, posted 02-11-2006 10:11 PM Omnivorous has responded Message 97 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:01 PM Omnivorous has responded Message 105 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 6:50 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

lfen
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004

 Message 95 of 113 (285913) 02-11-2006 10:11 PM Reply to: Message 94 by Omnivorous02-11-2006 8:15 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
 Reagan began the process of transforming the U.S. from the scientific powerhouse of the world into a second-rate has-been. How was the attack he started--and his neo-con descendants have continued--on funding for basic science good for this country?

Well coupled with the increased spending for maintaining military and economical control of the world this may hasten the fall of the American Empire. The rush of Imperial power can not be denied so we can only hope for a swift return to being an ordinary country that is focused on minding its own business, helping its citizens, and cooperating with its neighbors.

If reduced progress in science helps bring that day closer I should say it's a good thing. Of course it will be a painful readjustment but England seems to be managing with its loss of empire. Hopefully we will do as well as the English.

lfen

 This message is a reply to: Message 94 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 8:15 PM Omnivorous has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 96 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 10:33 PM lfen has responded

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
Joined: 07-21-2005

 Message 96 of 113 (285916) 02-11-2006 10:33 PM Reply to: Message 95 by lfen02-11-2006 10:11 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
I don't care about maintaining the U.S. as an imperial world power. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, Ifen, though I'm not sure how criticsm of the Great Militarist himself could have done that.

I care a great deal about advances in science that cure and enhance our understanding, not those that kill.

The abandonment of basic scientific research will not soon hasten the end of the American Empire. The technology we require to maintain military dominance does not require large investments in basic science, and I am confident the weapons labs have no dearth of budget.

Sadly, I don't think the American Empire will accept its sunset as gracefully as the British Empire has (and even that is arguable, given its current yoking to Bush's ass).

This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-11-2006 10:33 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night

Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

 This message is a reply to: Message 95 by lfen, posted 02-11-2006 10:11 PM lfen has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 99 by lfen, posted 02-12-2006 3:15 PM Omnivorous has responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4471 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006

 Message 97 of 113 (285971) 02-12-2006 3:01 PM Reply to: Message 94 by Omnivorous02-11-2006 8:15 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
Scientific dominance: Yes, it is true that US dominated all the technology. Even today, we still dominate.Our space programs have given lots of newer technologies that we use everyday. There is a new trend happening here. India and China are beginning to dominate our technology. You are attributing the decline of the competitiveness of our students to poor learning of Maths and Science. You are right on. It is argued that there is shortage of money for Schools. In my state, we gave them 1-2% increase in budget every year. This has put our budget in perpetual hole. Still they want more. What we have done is to add more oil in a leaking engine. What we need is not more money. But, real education.

What Reagan did was to reform the upper end of the spectrum. Scchols>>Colleges>>Universities>>Research labs.He did not touch the schools. What Reagan did was to reform the upper end by cutting down the WASTES in the name of Research in Academics and National labs. Yes, he realized that there were too much of JUNK SCIENCE at the expense of the TAX PAYER. You will not like this. But, this is reality.

Why our students fail? Yes we do not EDUCATE them. We give them papers to those who do not qualify. We have converted our Schools into social engineering labortories. We do not promote competition at all as it would diminish Self Esteem. Psychology dominates. Students are taught Multiculturalism, Sexuality, and even witchcraft and much more of non academics. The important subjects like History, English , Maths and Science are at the bottom. Even Science teaching is flawed. Instead of encouraging them to apply CRITICAL THINKING to every aspect of their studies, they are only allowed to accept some theories as FACTS and not even question them. They are not even given other options in the absence of any evidence to prove their FAITH.

If this is how we teach Science, no wonder they are not doing well.Here is another example of our Social engineering Laboratories contribution to the well being of our society. A student cannot even get Aspirin without Parent's approval. However, a Pregnant Teen age girl can get an ABORTION without her parent's knowledge. These can only happen in this most sophisticated and Advanced country Like the USA.

Yes, Time only will tell us where we are headed to. The ancient Romans were proud of their great civilization. They were warned about the consequences of immorality. They ignored. This great civilization became history. Will America go through the same? Yes, time only will tell. Yes, we are paying heavily for the blunders committed by the Nuclear Physicist, Jimmy Carter. He gve the nuclear technology to North Korea and they are threatening us. He also punished our friend, The Shah of Iran. Now, they are going to "NUKE" us. He also gave away the Panama Canal. He is a friend of our enemy Chavez. We have been invaded by Mexico. Our life style is being diminished. We are losing all our manufacturing sector to China, India and Mexico. If this is not transformed, Where will we be in 5-10 years? It is a scary thought.

This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-12-2006 03:06 PM

 This message is a reply to: Message 94 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 8:15 PM Omnivorous has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 02-12-2006 3:04 PM inkorrekt has responded Message 102 by Omnivorous, posted 02-12-2006 4:48 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6856
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.0

 Message 98 of 113 (285972) 02-12-2006 3:04 PM Reply to: Message 97 by inkorrekt02-12-2006 3:01 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
quote:
Will America go through the same?

Of course. Nothing is permanent. All things come to an end. Some day the US will no longer be a superpower; some day the US will no longers exist as a single independent state. That is the nature of all things.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

 This message is a reply to: Message 97 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:01 PM inkorrekt has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 100 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:19 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

lfen
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004

 Message 99 of 113 (285973) 02-12-2006 3:15 PM Reply to: Message 96 by Omnivorous02-11-2006 10:33 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
 I don't care about maintaining the U.S. as an imperial world power. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, Ifen, though I'm not sure how criticsm of the Great Militarist himself could have done that.

Oh, I knew that and wasn't attributing it to you. I was just looking for the silver lining in the dark cloud and pointing out that Reagen's love of imperial power sowed the seeds of its own demise. I wasn't exactly even trying to cheer you up, but was just suggesting a view point that might make the bitter pill easier to swallow. Science remains an international activity and though I agree with you that it's unfortunate that the wealth of this country is being harnassed by imperialist for their own power and enrichment their actions are shortening their window of opportunity as Bush and his cohorts spend this country back to being just another nation. I think being just another nation is a good thing btw. I don't see empire as good.

 Sadly, I don't think the American Empire will accept its sunset as gracefully as the British Empire has (and even that is arguable, given its current yoking to Bush's ass).

Well, Britian was an empire for a quite a spell. America is not yet weary of the burden but it's only been about half a century since it emerge from WWII as the Imperial power in this world. Historical time scales for empire are usually longer than typical human life span.

I suppose I am consoling myself and offering this consolation to you that as obnoxiously shortsighted as these actions are they are to some extent self limiting. Empire has its own momentum and life cycle and the intoxication of wealth and power is so heady that I don't know of any peoples who have successfully resisted it. So all we can do is record it as we watch it run its course and do our best to behave as well as we can.

lfen

 This message is a reply to: Message 96 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 10:33 PM Omnivorous has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 103 by Omnivorous, posted 02-12-2006 4:49 PM lfen has not yet responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4471 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006

 Message 100 of 113 (285974) 02-12-2006 3:19 PM Reply to: Message 98 by Chiroptera02-12-2006 3:04 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
Chiroptera: You have really impressed me though we do not agree with each other. Not too many students will go for Chemistry as it is a not a fun subject. Even my classmates in School could not figure out the structures of Organic compounds. They went to Medical Schools. There too,the Organic Structures became brick walls for them. Yet, you are pursuing. This takes tremendous amout of courage. I wish you all success. You also demonstrated courage to challenge us. Keep this up. You will become a great Scientist, if you will begin to apply CRITICAL THINKING to your understanding of Chemistry. In order to make a small beginning, I would strongly urge you to Criticlly examine Intelligent Design along with Evolution. This has stirred so much of controversy. Both opposing concepts cannot be true. Only one has to be True. which one is this? You decide.

 This message is a reply to: Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 02-12-2006 3:04 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 101 by Belfry, posted 02-12-2006 3:58 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

Belfry
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005

 Message 101 of 113 (285984) 02-12-2006 3:58 PM Reply to: Message 100 by inkorrekt02-12-2006 3:19 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
 inkorrekt writes:Both opposing concepts [evolution and Intelligent Design] cannot be true. Only one has to be True.

This is not only logically false, it actually runs contrary to Intelligent Design as it is conceptualized by Behe et al. "Critical thinking" is only useful if you are well-informed about the issue.

 This message is a reply to: Message 100 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:19 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
Joined: 07-21-2005

 Message 102 of 113 (285990) 02-12-2006 4:48 PM Reply to: Message 97 by inkorrekt02-12-2006 3:01 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
 inkorrekt writes: It is argued that there is shortage of money for Schools. In my state, we gave them 1-2% increase in budget every year. This has put our budget in perpetual hole. Still they want more.

In that case, you have not even kept up with the rate of inflation. With a 1-2% increase every year, your education budget has been steadily declining.

 What Reagan did was to reform the upper end of the spectrum. Scchols>>Colleges>>Universities>>Research labs. He did not touch the schools.

Reagan came to office promising to eliminate the Department of Education. He abandoned that dingbat idea, but he began two trends: a reduction in federal funding for education accompanied by an empty rhetoric of reform, and a combination of increased military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Reagan reached office by pretending to be a champion of the middle class; he initiated a decline in real income for the middle class that continues today. Reagan couldn't even keep his movie roles and life experiences separate in his own mind, let alone administer a large and complex nation.

 Why our students fail? Yes we do not EDUCATE them. We give them papers to those who do not qualify. We have converted our Schools into social engineering labortories. We do not promote competition at all as it would diminish Self Esteem. Psychology dominates. Students are taught Multiculturalism, Sexuality, and even witchcraft and much more of non academics. The important subjects like History, English , Maths and Science are at the bottom. Even Science teaching is flawed. Instead of encouraging them to apply CRITICAL THINKING to every aspect of their studies, they are only allowed to accept some theories as FACTS and not even question them.

Hogwash. Our schools are overcrowded and underfunded, in large part because of the concentration of greater and greater wealth in fewer and fewer hands--hands that do not work in the schools' communities. School systems typically depend almost entirely on local property taxes--taxes paid by working people who struggle to make ends meet on two incomes where one used to suffice. Schools indeed have to spend too much time on social and psychological issues, because the social ills created by a oligarchy turn them into warehouses for the dispossessed.

 They are not even given other options in the absence of any evidence to prove their FAITH.

Everyone is free every minute of every day to prove their faith. Forcing their views on their peers, or forcing the public to house and finance their religious organizing, doesn't prove their faith. If they want to prove their faith, let them go out to tend the ill and feed the poor.

 If this is how we teach Science, no wonder they are not doing well.Here is another example of our Social engineering Laboratories contribution to the well being of our society. A student cannot even get Aspirin without Parent's approval. However, a Pregnant Teen age girl can get an ABORTION without her parent's knowledge. These can only happen in this most sophisticated and Advanced country Like the USA.

Aspirin can be fatal to some children, and dangerous to others; it can induce Reyes' syndrome or provoke internal bleeding. Do you think schools should be free--or compelled--to dispense over-the-counter medications to any student who requests them? That makes no sense to me at all.

As to minors obtaining abortions without parental notification, let me point out that this option is generally only available by a judge's order, often when the minor has shown good reason to fear the consequences of parental notification, and sometimes because a parent or other family member is responsible for the pregnancy. At any rate, what does abortion policy have to do with schools?

 The ancient Romans were proud of their great civilization. They were warned about the consequences of immorality. They ignored. This great civilization became history. Will America go through the same?

The Romans were never moral in any modern sense; they were aggressive thugs. Their empire fell for many reasons, but I don't think their sexual mores had anything to do with it. An increasing reliance on mercenary soldiers, their increasingly abusive and inefficient oligarchy, an increasingly inflexible caste system--even their lead- lined wine vessels--are better causal candidates for collapse than their orgies.

 Yes, we are paying heavily for the blunders committed by the Nuclear Physicist, Jimmy Carter. He gve the nuclear technology to North Korea and they are threatening us.

Nuclear technology is widely available from North Korea's friends, China and Russia among them. Carter attempted to engage North Korea and facilitate peaceful transformation there, including the peaceful use of nuclear power. Bush, on the other hand, used inflammatory rhetoric ("Axis of Evil") and a doctrine of preemptive war to persuade nations that their only safety rests in deterrent nukes of their own. Bush has ignored the North Korean bomb-building efforts in favor of a snipe hunt in Iraq for a nuclear program he knew in advance did not exist.

 He also punished our friend, The Shah of Iran. Now, they are going to "NUKE" us.

The U.S. CIA assassinated the elected President of Iran and reinstalled a hated, dictatorial monarch. I don't know why the Iranians weren't more grateful.

The Shah was guilty, among other things, of greed, incompetence, and a regime of oppression that rose to the level of crimes against humanity. We should have handed him back to the Iranians for trial.

Given that the U.S. has declared its right to preemptively invade any nation it pleases, in their place I think I'd want a nuclear deterrent as well.

 He also gave away the Panama Canal. He is a friend of our enemy Chavez. We have been invaded by Mexico.

The Panama Canal was only "ours" via an inequitable, perpetual lease forced upon a small country via our military might. Chavez is Bush's enemy, perhaps, but not the American people's. Our economy would collapse without Mexican immigrants to do the grueling labor no one else wants to do at scant wages.

 Our life style is being diminished. We are losing all our manufacturing sector to China, India and Mexico.

We cannot compete with these nations in terms of labor-intensive industries. For decades now the U.S. should have been planning to migrate employment to higher-tech, higher value-added manufacturing.

Instead, we give tax breaks to corporations who close their plants here and re-open in other countries, exploiting the workers there, polluting without restraint, and bankrupting the communities they leave behind...the ones who cannot now afford the decent school systems they need to turn the trend around.

I think that brings us full circle.

The U.S. is reaping the disorder sewed by a reactionary, neo-conservatve oligarchy. As Ifen et al. have suggested, the only comfort remaining may well be that the American Empire must, like all things, necessarily run down.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night

Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

 This message is a reply to: Message 97 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:01 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
Joined: 07-21-2005

 Message 103 of 113 (285991) 02-12-2006 4:49 PM Reply to: Message 99 by lfen02-12-2006 3:15 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.
 Ifen writes:I suppose I am consoling myself and offering this consolation to you that as obnoxiously shortsighted as these actions are they are to some extent self limiting. Empire has its own momentum and life cycle and the intoxication of wealth and power is so heady that I don't know of any peoples who have successfully resisted it. So all we can do is record it as we watch it run its course and do our best to behave as well as we can.

Thanks, Ifen. I think we're on the same page.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night

Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

 This message is a reply to: Message 99 by lfen, posted 02-12-2006 3:15 PM lfen has not yet responded

Director
Posts: 3912
Joined: 09-26-2002

 Message 104 of 113 (285995) 02-12-2006 4:58 PM

TOPIC DERAILMENT HAPPENING!
"Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity" related messages may very well be worthy of being posted, but this is not the topic for it.

Please find a suitable existing topic (try searching the Coffee House index) or start a new topic.

Prediction: This message will have no effect on what happens in this topic, and the topic will need to be closed.

 New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen RequestsConsiderations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forumOther useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4471 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006

 Message 105 of 113 (289872) 02-23-2006 6:50 PM Reply to: Message 94 by Omnivorous02-11-2006 8:15 PM

Re: Reagan started our long slide down to mediocrity.

Dominance in science is a very important and a serious issue.Yes, we the americans have been domineering technological inventions. However, we also believe in free market. We gave away crucial technologies even to our enemies (China received the GPS technology from Lorral Aerospace) China also received IBM supercomputer. China does not play a fairgame.So, we are the loosers. Japan killed our electronic industry. They take our technologies, improve upon them and sell them back to us.

This is one aspect. Why do we spend on defence? We do not have gold standard anymore. The dollar's worth is sustained only by what we make and what we export. We hepled the 3rd world countries and they do not buy as much as they did before. The only assets we have are the military hardware. Ours is still the best. We even sell our junk hardware to our enemies. We must do this to sustain our economy. What happens when no one buys our hardware? This is when we need awar. In 1991 economy was in terrible shape. The gulf war boosted it.

I hate wars. But, on 911 we were attacked and we had to respond. We did. So, unless we reestablish gold standards, our economy will only depend on Defence production as well as wars. So, once in 10 years, we need a war??????

I hope this explains why we spend money on defence rather than on science. Spending more money on Science will not accomplish anything. It will be like adding more oil to a leaking engine. Where is the leak? The leak is the School system controlled by the Department of Education. Not only this, but the monopoly of the school system by the Democrat party also. The school system is not fair to the students. The schools deny the opportunity for "CRITICAL THINKING" Without critical thinking, Creativity is lost. This is where the fundamental problem is.

We have also trained foreign graduate students who do not stay here. But, return and develop their technology. Sometimes, even to our detriment. We trained amicrobiologist in our Defence laboratories and she developed a biowrfare agent for Saddam Hussein.

We are highly vulnerable. We can still recover from these losses. HOW? Go back to the basics. Stop politicizing Science. Let there be freedom. Let there be School Choice. Public Schools mass produce illiterates. Our politicians will not allow alternates which have proved to be great success. When we suppress excellence and encourage MEDIOCRICITY, who is to be blamed for declining Science?

This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 02-23-2006 06:06 PM

 This message is a reply to: Message 94 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 8:15 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)