Comments on: Go Read Phil.

By: Sili

Sili — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:53:29 +0000

NASA has a very effective propaganda machine. Whatever modest little mission it pursues, it frames as if it was of grand importance not merely to the United States but to the human race. The most recent example is the launch of a telescope which costs a ‘mere’ six hundred million dollars, the immodestly labeled ‘Kepler’ mission.

And if they didn’t publicise their missions, he’d likely accuse them of being secretive, out of touch and uninterested in informing the taxpayers what they’ve paid for.

Can’t win.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:41:18 +0000

NASA projects are like financial institutions. The flagship programs are ‘too big to fail’, so the well-run, mid-sized programs get shafted in order to bail out the over-ambitious, billion dollar meltdowns.

Kepler is an on-time, on-budget, mid-sized mission- of all the things NASA does, it seems like a very odd target.

By: SLC

SLC — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:52:24 +0000

Re TDoc

I nominate Bob Park to head up NASA.

By: TDoc

TDoc — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:58:31 +0000

While we’re here arguing which way to go for NASA, there’s one man who really has a final say… and he has yet to even give the agency a leader…

See: http://www.newsy.com/videos/obama_calling_come_in_nasa_3

By: uncle sam

uncle sam — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:29:23 +0000

I wish Amitai was more savvy at sci/tech, but he is an important general commentator. Etzioni’s communitarianism is a useful socio-political philosophy and practice. It wouldn’t be smart to overlook him as a thinker on the basis of just what he says about this subject.

I didn’t read either his article or the critique, so this is my own two cents: Instead of pitting “space” against Earth science per se, how about the advantage of unmanned over manned space study? (c.f. Ando above.) The expense of going back (!) to the Moon and to Mars are staggering. I suggest Obama ditch those big projects (but keep some low-Earth-orbit option) that and concentrate on probes, telescopes etc. We should spend the saved billions on energy, infrastructure, health care, etc.

By: CJA

CJA — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:41:57 +0000

That list of public intellectuals is now hilarious in retrospect. Not only for who is on it, but for the times article which notes that it includes the amount of hits on “Google, a popular internet search engine.” Also, compare the number of hits recorded in the article vs. what you get today (Albert Camus at 32,370 then, vs. 3M today, depending on how you type it).

By: Ian Curtis

Ian Curtis — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:29:17 +0000

Dude. Seriously?

“The question of whether we are alone in the Universe, and even if there are other planets capable of sustaining life”

How much of NASA’s budget is devoted to this question, and how much is devoted to braindead space shuttle space station nonsense that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with bread and circuses? Get a grip.

By: SLC

SLC — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:29:08 +0000

Dr. Etzioni bashes the wrong thing over at NASA. If we really want to improve the science produced by NASA, we should take the advice of Profs. Bob Park and Steven Weinberg and scale back the manned space program which produces very little scientific discovery as a function of the expenditures on it. But of course, according to Dr. Plait, Park and Weinberg don’t know what they are talking about.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:56:35 +0000

Didn’t NASA just launch a climate satellite into the deep southern ocean? What more does this guy want?

By: Giotis

Giotis — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:09:39 +0000

Phil, if you want to be one of the “top intellectuals” the first rule is not to call the other top intellectuals, “Dudes”.

So I guess you missed your chance.

By: Phil Plait

Phil Plait — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:31:33 +0000

Wow, thanks Julianne! This really means a lot to me. Funny, I had no idea he was a”Top Intellectual” when I wrote the piece. I just knew what he said was stupid, damaging, and dangerous.

How does one apply to be a Top Intellectual? Maybe I need to write a screed with lots of hyphenation and post-modernistic solutions to abject-concrete neomorphisms.

By: Peter Coles

Peter Coles — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:48:01 +0000

I never thought America had 100 top intellectuals.

Now I know it’s true.

By: Tod R. Lauer

Tod R. Lauer — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:16:33 +0000

It was hard for me to pay too much attention to Etzioni after he confused Kepler with Copernicus. The rest of his essay reflects a profound incuriosity with space exploration of any kind.

By: Julianne

Julianne — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:20:01 +0000

Giotis — This is not the fight you described. Amitai (who is not a scientist) is the one arguing that oceans > space. Phil’s point (and I agree) is that in the intellectual exploration of new scientific terrain, we can both walk and chew gum at the same time.

Ando — I think doing such analyses are a great idea, both within a field, and from field-to-field. The original editorial, however, rose nowhere to the level of “analysis”.

By: Ando

Ando — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:31:38 +0000

While I don’t agree with Etzioni’s rhetorical strategy, is it not valid to step back and do a cost/benefit analysis on our research priorities from time to time? Further, I’m rather reluctant to prioritize using public science funding for the investigation of “philosophical questions” unless the tangible and practical benefits can also be demonstrated. I understand that mine is not a popular opinion.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:07:09 +0000

Not sure why we need to pit the oceanographers against the astronomers. Both are doing important work. While the US Treasury is hemorraging trillions, why not spare a dime for both astronomy and oceanography? It’s chump change compared to the bailouts.

P.S. How about more money for the xeno-oceanographers! We need to map the methane seas of Titan!

P.P.S Julianne, did you just use an apostrophe to form the plural of “ocean”? Bloggers need copy-editors (and copy-editors need new jobs, RIP Seattle P-I). [Yes Jeff, I did! And I am heartily ashamed of myself! -- fixed. JD]

By: Giotis

Giotis — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:48:46 +0000

These debates on funding between scientists often resemble fights between five-year-old children in a kindergarten.

“Our field is more important than yours.”

“No! our field is more important than yours.”

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:30:34 +0000

Especially my comments!