1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    16 Feb '17 08:13
    Churchill thinking just like a scientist would be probably be the last thing he would be remembered for. And yet, surprisingly;

    https://phys.org/news/2017-02-churchill.html
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78940
    16 Feb '17 14:16
    Originally posted by humy
    Churchill thinking just like a scientist would be probably be the last thing he would be remembered for. And yet, surprisingly;

    https://phys.org/news/2017-02-churchill.html
    It's not obvious to me what "thinking like a scientist" means. Outside of politics Churchill is best known as an historian. There isn't that much difference between "thinking in history" and "thinking in science". The telling sentence is this one:
    "At a time when a number of today's politicians shun science, I find it moving to recall a leader who engaged with it so profoundly," Livio wrote in Nature.
    Mr Trump moved Churchill's bust back into its place in the Whitehouse and so Livio is hoping to move Science up the agenda in the Whitehouse. The problem is that Mr Trump's views on Science depend essentially on whether it is climate science or not. Astrophysics is probably something he is perfectly happy with. It's not that they are anti-science per say, they are just anti-particular fields where the results have policy implications.
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Cortez will conquer!
    tinyurl.com/y9ah3cpf
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    16 Feb '17 21:09
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    It's not obvious to me what "thinking like a scientist" means. Outside of politics Churchill is best known as an historian. There isn't that much difference between "thinking in history" and "thinking in science". The telling sentence is this one: [quote]"At a time when a number of today's politicians shun science, I find it moving to recall a leader ...[text shortened]... cience per say, they are just anti-particular fields where the results have policy implications.
    Trump also has to avoid science that is unpopular with his party such as evolutionary science or anything else that challenges the idea of a six thousand year old Earth created as described in Genesis. Astrophysics could be problematic for him.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Feb '17 07:30
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Trump also has to avoid science that is unpopular with his party such as evolutionary science or anything else that challenges the idea of a six thousand year old Earth created as described in Genesis. Astrophysics could be problematic for him.
    Yes, so basically biology, astronomy, geology, history and climate science.
    Ultimately it is science itself that comes under attack by creationists because they would like psudoscience taught in the science classroom.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78940
    17 Feb '17 13:21
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Trump also has to avoid science that is unpopular with his party such as evolutionary science or anything else that challenges the idea of a six thousand year old Earth created as described in Genesis. Astrophysics could be problematic for him.
    Granted, but they are ideological issues unlikely to affect profits. Climate science on the other hand is. So while Trump might try to introduce teaching of "intelligent design" theories of creation to school science classes he is unlikely to try to cut funding. Whereas with climate science there's an interest in actually interfering in the field.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Feb '17 19:421 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Granted, but they are ideological issues unlikely to affect profits. Climate science on the other hand is. So while Trump might try to introduce teaching of "intelligent design" theories of creation to school science classes he is unlikely to try to cut funding. Whereas with climate science there's an interest in actually interfering in the field.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-science-education-and-schools/

    Trumps education secretary would like to channel funds to non public schools that are less constrained by a science curriculum. So yes, he is likely to cut funding.
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78940
    17 Feb '17 20:41
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-science-education-and-schools/

    Trumps education secretary would like to channel funds to non public schools that are less constrained by a science curriculum. So yes, he is likely to cut funding.
    I was thinking of front line research rather than funding for schools. That policy is more to do with education than science.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Feb '17 21:12
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I was thinking of front line research rather than funding for schools. That policy is more to do with education than science.
    OK.
    I honestly don't know about funding for research, but I suspect that if it is competing with a business somewhere it will be cut, or if it can be moved to where it can benefit somebodies business, it will be cut. Trump really isn't into long term planning.
Back to Top