How Progressive Are You?

[Oexmelin]

Neil's analysis seems closer to what I could see: there are important fault lines in the ways people consider science, one of which seems to be utilitarian vs humanitarian. In which case, many Conservatives want their science to give out concrete results, to fuel technologies, to «do things», to cure people, etc. Vin's «anti-intellectuals» can also be found here when the only science that matters is the one which leads to technology - and their stance is repercuted on the arts, the social science, etc. It can blend quite well with «anti-elitist». Conservatives who agree on a humanitarian view of science (curiosity for curiosity's sake) seem to tend to have the same outlook on the social sciences: the only difference in this case is that they honor the classical models of «a good education» and scoff at what they percieve to be the newish mumbo-jumbo (hence dps «pseudo-intellectuals»).

In this case, it is especially telling, IMHO that astronomy and related science (including the space technologies) have had to rely on the promises of future, unforseen benefits (indirect utilitarianism) to justify their existence, rather than take a more strictly, «curiosity for curiosity's sake» line of argument.

[vinraith]

There's really nothing in Neil's analysis I disagree with, except perhaps the degree to which said infiltration has already occurred. There honestly seem to be very few technocrats left among Republican politicians at this point.

[vinraith]

So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?

I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.

[The Brain]

hydrogen plasma spectroscopy

??? Ouch.

[vinraith]

hydrogen plasma spectroscopy

??? Ouch.

It glows purple.

[The Brain]

hydrogen plasma spectroscopy

??? Ouch.

It glows purple.

[Syt]

So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?

I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.

i.e.

Though I kinda envy you guys doing that shit for a living (not that I would grasp even the simplest of equations of that).

[vinraith]

i.e.

Well yeah, where've you been?

[Neil]

So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?

I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.

So you're studying how they're built and then modelling how they move, collide and collapse?  That would be interesting work.

[vinraith]

So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?

I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.

So you're studying how they're built and then modelling how they move, collide and collapse?  That would be interesting work.

That's the idea, yeah. The intent (and I'm not that far along in this yet, mind you) is to be able to work backwards from observed physical parameters and break the dynamics of the object down to physical first principles.


And come to think of it, that sentence might easily constitute my research work for the rest of my life.

[Neil]

That's the idea, yeah. The intent (and I'm not that far along in this yet, mind you) is to be able to work backwards from observed physical parameters and break the dynamics of the object down to physical first principles.

Sounds simple enough, although I would imagine that breaking down something that big and old is ferociously complex.

It also helps justify your sensitivity to the science issue.  Your work doesn't jive with a 6,000-year old universe and it's regarding the dynamics and properties of gas and dust in extrasolar space, something with rather limited immediate practical application.  The snake handlers would happily shut you down.  They're not just after a halt on the increase of human knowledge, they're after your ass.

[vinraith]

That's the idea, yeah. The intent (and I'm not that far along in this yet, mind you) is to be able to work backwards from observed physical parameters and break the dynamics of the object down to physical first principles.

Sounds simple enough, although I would imagine that breaking down something that big and old is ferociously complex.

It also helps justify your sensitivity to the science issue.  Your work doesn't jive with a 6,000-year old universe and it's regarding the dynamics and properties of gas and dust in extrasolar space, something with rather limited immediate practical application.  The snake handlers would happily shut you down.  They're not just after a halt on the increase of human knowledge, they're after your ass.

Exactly. And needless to say, it's difficult to explain to them that these far-off gas clouds I'm studying are the origin of (nearly)  all non-hydrogen atoms in the universe, so studying them almost certainly does have some ultimate benefits down the road.

[Berkut]

Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it. 

Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct.  In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.

Granted, but one party panders to it much more strongly than the other. One party encourages it much more than the other.

Are you talking about the party of Kwame?

[MadImmortalMan]

I still think you guys are going overboard and jumping to conclusions. I see no reason why even the vast majority of religious zealots would have an axe to grind about Vinnie studying gas clouds in space.

[derspiess]

I still think you guys are going overboard and jumping to conclusions. I see no reason why even the vast majority of religious zealots would have an axe to grind about Vinnie studying gas clouds in space.

No shit.  I would imagine quite a few would not necessarily want to pay for that, but not out of religious zealoutry.