What is Big Science?

On that point about if the American founding fathers had separated state and science. These people were the backbone of the British state in North America. It's certain that the lack of representation of the colonial state, was of primary interest to american civil society, it was less so to the founding fathers. More important to them was the weakness of the British state. A strong reasonable state would protect against political caprice. The separation of church and "reasonable" state was a must. The separation of state and science would have been a disaster. For one thing they were all men of reason. Note though that they were talking about the apparatus of state in that policing, and therefore politically neutral aspect. The state's role in protecting civil society from vested interests of any sort. if for example, catholics wanted their own political party, the state would defend that right but the state itself could never become Catholic even if the executive arm was ran by them.

I don't think we should play the "what if" game at all. it's a definite no no in the field of history, for very good reasons. The secondary point is that it could give political ammunition to the likes of the tea-party groupings. The State is as complex as society is. Those people who want to dismantle it in accord with some simplistic political world view are positively dangerous.

<b>[Stoat] "Those people who want to dismantle it in accord with some simplistic political world view are positively dangerous."</b>

On the other forums we have the rule that you can attack the message but not the messenger. Although this forum is a little different from the others (in that the subject matter will most often be indirectly related to science in general, and to astronomy and cosmlogy in particular) it seems to me that we need to have a similar rule here.

The quoted statement above attacks a messenger, rather than a message from that messenger. In this case the messenger is a third party, rather than someone posting here. But the principle is the same.

And besides, you have made your attack without attempting to offer any evidence. If we are even going to pretend that this is a scientific discussion, that should be a no-no. (Another rule, perhaps?)

It seems to me that politically active groups and individuals deliver plenty of specific messages. If you were to pick one from this messenger, do you think you could still make your point? Source and context will be important because the audience will use them to judge your credibility.

Switching from an attack on a messenger to an attack on his message is work. If you shoot from the hip you most often just end up looking foolish. Or sliding back into the ad-hominem. This is why I advised us in an earliier post to think before posting.

===

Never the less, it is an interesting point. If you can fix it up according to the general rule it might well be the source of some good discussions.

LB

Stoat,

We are blazing a new trail here, so don't worry about getting things perfect. Take your best shot and we will talk about it. This is going to be a learning process for me as well.

LB

First of all, thanks for giving me the opportunity to contribute a topic and ideas in your good website. every message that we read in any topic can gives us possitive or negative effect in our life. we are the boss of our self, so we can choose the possitive one. but the important is that the intension and effort to provide the best from us and contributes the present and futuristic research for the sake of mankind. while,

Calling TVF and the members of MetaResearch "kooks" is an ad hominem attack even if 1 includes oneself in it.[V][:0] The kooks are the reactionary, abusive, orthodox skeptics. Obviously, Mr. Burford and the members of MetaResearch are not in that number. Also, an attack against a group is not ad hominem.

I think in this question we should keep in mind the secret society factor. Secret societies, after all, founded Canada and the US and control government, so they control science.

I'm not sure the Tea Party movement wants to dismantle government, but it is the government that is dangerous because it is run by secret societies.

<b>[Solar Patroller] "Calling TVF and the members of MetaResearch "kooks" is an ad hominem attack even if 1 includes oneself in it" </b>

I suppose you have a point. I've been using the k-word on us for a while now. Tom never objected, but then he is one of the most tolerant persons I've ever known.

On the one hand, blacks who use the n-word on each other are not considered racist. We (people in general) seem to make exceptions of this sort, in at least some cases.

But on the other hand, as I reflect on these things, I see that I have less respect for blacks that take advantage of such exception-granting. I know of others (not all white) that respond similarly.

So, by analogy, I suspect that others will have less respect for me if I do the same in relation to our group.

Thanks for opening my eyes on this issue. I believe I am the only one among us that has referred to us as kooks. I hope it stays that way, and I plan to stop.

Regards,
LB