It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Administration Orders Communications Blackout For US Scientists

page: 10
105
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Nobody is going to convince the Trump fascists on these forums of anything... I only hope these Nazi's are eventually dealt with appropriately. Trump belongs at the end of a rope.


What, is this the Mud Pit?

No?

Reel it in some.




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


In my experience government-funded research should be taken with a grain of salt for hidden agendas. Or flat-out waste and politician's pet projects.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


If government wasn't the lapdog of the corporate world, perhaps.

But when i look at the wolves on Wall Street on one side, and the jackals in DC on the other, im not feeling that The People have any allies that won't lie to and manipulate them incessantly.


But you seem to be favoring the "manipulator in Chief" lately. Good luck with that....



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


If government wasn't the lapdog of the corporate world, perhaps.



Public researchers are not lobbyists...they are not elected, they don't look for campaign donations.

Conflating Politicians with publicly funded scientists is utter BS...for lack of a better adjective.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


If government wasn't the lapdog of the corporate world, perhaps.



Public researchers are not lobbyists...they are not elected, they don't look for campaign donations.

Conflating Politicians with publicly funded scientists is utter BS...for lack of a better adjective.


No they look for Govt. funding.
Public funding raises the risk of a loss of objectivity.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


If government wasn't the lapdog of the corporate world, perhaps.



Public researchers are not lobbyists...they are not elected, they don't look for campaign donations.

Conflating Politicians with publicly funded scientists is utter BS...for lack of a better adjective.



So then tell me....who pays for those researchers? How often i research funded by financially intereted parties taken at face value?

Don't take my word for it.....just Google it. "Conflict of interest research science". Its known about, and efforts are being made to reduce its effect. We can't continue letting the tobacco companies be the only ones interested in paying for tobacco research. It kills people.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


If government wasn't the lapdog of the corporate world, perhaps.



Public researchers are not lobbyists...they are not elected, they don't look for campaign donations.

Conflating Politicians with publicly funded scientists is utter BS...for lack of a better adjective.



So then tell me....who pays for those researchers?


Taxpayers via the government. They are handed a question and the results are made public (until Trump apparently)


How often is research funded by financially interested parties taken at face value?



(made a couple typo corrections on your behalf)

In the private sector? OFTEN...That is where you examine private vs. public funding...If Private, then conflict of interest is considered and the study is examined closer...Does the media report trash? Sure...PUBLICLY FUNDED...Until The new admin...results where made known whatever the result...NOW Trump gets to decide what the facts are.



Don't take my word for it.....just Google it. "Conflict of interest research science". Its known about, and efforts are being made to reduce its effect. We can't continue letting the tobacco companies be the only ones interested in paying for tobacco research. It kills people.



YOU ARE CONFUSING ME...

(A) Privately funded research to benefit messaging and sales of products (Tobacco)

(B) Publicly funded research without corporate bias..Ask a question..pay and publish whatever the results.

The Trump Administration is shutting down transparency on (B)...so that (A) is all the public has.

What are you unclear about?
edit on 27-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


In my experience government-funded research should be taken with a grain of salt for hidden agendas. Or flat-out waste and politician's pet projects.


Yes...A singular grain of salt...Mostly around WHAT question was posed, not the results.

Whilst Privately funded research is being paid to give an answer..If they give the right answer...they get more work...give the wrong answer...and the study might not be published or the work shut down..



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I am beginning to think that you think "Publicly funded research" means that companies pay?

The OPPOSITE...

That is Privately funded research.

Publicly Funded Research is where gov decides unbiased answers are important for the public.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Publicly Funded Research is where gov decides unbiased answers are important for the public.



Is that what you believe?

And who do Lobbyists work over in dark corners?

Sure, maybe some of it is unbiased. But that is only the stuff like investigating the impact of arguing on marital sex rates or something inane. That's not a study that anyone would care to censor.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


If government wasn't the lapdog of the corporate world, perhaps.



Public researchers are not lobbyists...they are not elected, they don't look for campaign donations.

Conflating Politicians with publicly funded scientists is utter BS...for lack of a better adjective.


No they look for Govt. funding.



Sometimes and sometimes the gov looks for them.


Either way they get paid regardless of conclusions.




Public funding raises the risk of a loss of objectivity.


That makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


If government wasn't the lapdog of the corporate world, perhaps.



Public researchers are not lobbyists...they are not elected, they don't look for campaign donations.

Conflating Politicians with publicly funded scientists is utter BS...for lack of a better adjective.


No they look for Govt. funding.



Sometimes and sometimes the gov looks for them.


Either way they get paid regardless of conclusions.




Public funding raises the risk of a loss of objectivity.


That makes no sense.


In all walks of life, science included, the person paying the salary has great influence over the product created or the service delivered.

The alarm bells for me are always triggered when science bends itself to a political narrative and we see that far too often.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Publicly Funded Research is where gov decides unbiased answers are important for the public.



Is that what you believe?

And who do Lobbyists work over in dark corners?



Usually guys just like Trump to see if they can get research results squashed before they go public.

It used to be the GOP congressmen on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology...But who needs to do that anymore with complete blackout and control.



Sure, maybe some of it is unbiased. But that is only the stuff like investigating the impact of arguing on marital sex rates or something inane. That's not a study that anyone would care to censor.


I am not convinced you understand what you are discussing...nothing personal..



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I think the feeling is mutual, which indicates that we aren't understanding each other.

Im arguing from the perspective fhat Trumps blackout on science results has as much to do with getting a handle on propaganda coming out of his administration as anything.

Not because I believe that is what is going on, but because I hope that is what is going on. I've read countless reports about how papers filed on behalf of entities both public and private are prone to mistakes like confirmation bias, or throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If i get time this evening Ill try to dig up something to help elucidate.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

If i get time this evening Ill try to dig up something to help elucidate.


"Elucidate"...illuminate, shed light on..

Papers that contain any measure of "confirmation bias" can be examined to "Elucidate" the bias..

Papers and results that are subject to "Black-Out" can not...

And how the hell you managed to say this with a straight face boggles the mind..

"Trumps blackout on science results has as much to do with getting a handle on propaganda"

The man champions Alex Jones!! ...holy #...There is nothing "Illuminating" about a black-out and that is the point.

We are not even afforded the chance to scrutinize research for veracity? WHY...cuz facts are counterproductive to his message.

Good to see you proudly wed to these tactics...I will make note not to confuse you for an honest broker in the exchange of ideas.

YA...Blackout of research!!...Transparency? It's only for liberals!!

Reminds of this new Poll..And no..its not the Onion..

Poll: Trump voters OK with a private email server
thehill.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

If i get time this evening Ill try to dig up something to help elucidate.


"Elucidate"...illuminate, shed light on..

Papers that contain any measure of "confirmation bias" can be examined to "Elucidate" the bias..

Papers and results that are subject to "Black-Out" can not...

And how the hell you managed to say this with a straight face boggles the mind..

"Trumps blackout on science results has as much to do with getting a handle on propaganda"

The man champions Alex Jones!! ...holy #...There is nothing "Illuminating" about a black-out and that is the point.

We are not even afforded the chance to scrutinize research for veracity? WHY...cuz facts are counterproductive to his message.

Good to see you proudly wed to these tactics...I will make note not to confuse you for an honest broker in the exchange of ideas.

YA...Blackout of research!!...Transparency? It's only for liberals!!

Reminds of this new Poll..And no..its not the Onion..

Poll: Trump voters OK with a private email server
thehill.com...



"Trump champions Alex Jones"
What a load of rubbish and what does that even mean?

"facts are counter productive to his message"
What are you talking about? How can you make such a generalised statement with a straight face?

You seem to have launched into a giant conspiracy theory.
You actually sound like Alex Jones on a bad day.

Your argument has descended into farce.




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soficrow

Im not going to comment on the politics or the conspiracy. I will comment, however, on the state of science. I hope that I am recognized as someone who respects the scientific method and common standards of logic (even if i fail from time to time). So I say this with concern and compassion:

What we call "science" has become a bastardized stepchild of science and monetization. There is growing concern over the validity of what we call "accepted science". Sometimes on the most fundamental levels.


Wouldn't that make Public (government funded) research all the more vital in the face of privately funded science tainted by corporate interests?


In my experience government-funded research should be taken with a grain of salt for hidden agendas. Or flat-out waste and politician's pet projects.


Yes...A singular grain of salt...Mostly around WHAT question was posed, not the results.

Whilst Privately funded research is being paid to give an answer..If they give the right answer...they get more work...give the wrong answer...and the study might not be published or the work shut down..


Newsflash: Government is not some utopian benevolence. It has an agenda. If you think that research which is funded by government is not slanted and biased, you are incredibly naive. Your last paragraph epitomizes government agendas quite well.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You lost the right to call any government research bias the moment you cheered for not affording anyone to actually see the research and scrutinize it. You boys are cheering for the worst practices of despots. This country will rise and there is no middle ground with black outs on public scientific research.
Screw Trump and anyone who defends these tactics.

Completely horrifically disgusting..
edit on 27-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Blaine91555



It's just an attempt to get the flow of information under control by routing it through a review process, so they know what is going out to the public under the auspices of the government. It's not an attempt to silence science.


You must be under 30.

I fondly remember my own youthful naivete.

Sweet.





That... was... just... sad...

And cringe worthy.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: soficrow
Scientists need to talk about their work with their peers, and the public has a right to access research funded by tax money.



America isn't the world. Other nations will take up the research and move forward (as our American labs, underfunded, deal with few employees and antiquated equipment) ... and in the end, America will pay much more for new things (like better batteries) than if we used our own scientists to develop these ideas and market them to the world.

And yeah, I know about underfunded labs. Our paleontology lab is pretty underfunded... only recently got a good air system for the scribes but today the head of the lab was going back to argue for a few hundred dollars to buy another airscribe (some of ours are 15-20 years old.)

So we lose our advantage. I'd rather us be the leader in technology than the total consumer that never has any new innovations to sell.


So ,

Design American
Build American
Buy American

I can get on with that!



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join