Science Is What Made America Great Want To ‘Make America Great Again’? Not Without Science, You Won’T.

[Fweethawt]

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/science-is-what-made-america-great-21cfefd859ab#.259uth2sg

 

“Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson hated each other so much. But that hate that they had for each other did not come before the love of their country.” -David Scott

 

There are a lot of stories we tell ourselves about how the United States became the greatest, wealthiest, most powerful country in the world. Stories about the industrialists of the 19th and 20th centuries like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford; stories about how the combination of individual freedom, democracy and capitalism leads to rights and opportunities not found anywhere else in the world; stories about our military and moral superiority, and how they’ve gone hand-in-hand to make America the savior of the free world. But none of those things made America great: the industrialists were merely those who succeeded within the American system, many other countries around the world have the same or greater rights and opportunities than America does, and our military superiority is a result of our becoming the most powerful country in the world, not how we got there. So how did America become great? Through science.

[rjn]

Pretty sure it was Jesus.

[Fweethawt]

"You do realize" there's more to what went into building America than religion, right? Good job sounding like a stereotypical ignorant foreigner.

[rjn]

You're starting to repeat yourself fwee, sure you're alright? Did you remember to take your dementia pills?

[Fweethawt]

You're starting to repeat yourself fwee, sure you're alright? Did you remember to take your dementia pills?

"You do realize" I'm not on any medication, right?

[rjn]

 

You're starting to repeat yourself fwee, sure you're alright? Did you remember to take your dementia pills?

"You do realize" I'm not on any medication, right?

Yes, and we can all see the consequences of that quite clearly.

[Fweethawt]

 

 

You're starting to repeat yourself fwee, sure you're alright? Did you remember to take your dementia pills?

"You do realize" I'm not on any medication, right?

Yes, and we can all see the consequences of that quite clearly

"You do realize" that what seems apparent to you can easily go completely unrecognized by others, don't you? So, no, not "all can see" the precision of the diagnosis I've just received from you.

[rjn]

Hahah, I give up. You win.

[bornagainathiest]

While I commend Siegel for writing this piece, I feel that he's being hopelessly naive.

 

America today isn't the place it was in the first half of the 20th century.

Today there's a very real possibility of a POTUS who's a conspiracy theorist and Global Warming denialist, along with a VP who's a Young Earth Creationist, Intelligent Design supporter and anti-Evolutionist.  America won't be made great again by the use of science, as it was back then.  This is because the implicit trust and confidence that science used to enjoy in the collective American psyche, has been seriously eroded and may never be restored.

 

I have no answers and no solutions, btw.  I'm simply calling it as I see it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

America stopped being great?

[Vigile]

Great power is only good if it keeps one safe. If it's used to exploit others, it just makes one an asshole. Right now, America is the greatest asshole. 

[pantheory]

Ethan Siegal writes great blogs and articles like this. He is a very staunch supporter of mainstream astronomy and related theory/ hypotheses. He is very talented and a true optimist. Like nearly all staunch mainstreamers, he feels certain that mainstream science is nearly always right. An equally talented astronomer IMO who generally has a contrary opinion concerning the present and future of science, is Martín López Corredoira. He is a Spaniard and a pessimist concerning the present and foreseeable future of science. He wrote the book "The Twilight of the Scientific Age."  Since all of his science is related to modern physics, astronomy, cosmology, particle physics, etc. he believes that much of what modern physics is doing today is either theoretically wrong, or is based upon little bang-for-the buck concerning what this science is producing for the well-being of countries, and for mankind in general. I agree with much of what Corredoira believes since I have read his papers and talked to him online, but consider him a pessimist compared to Siegel's general optimism which I more agree with.

 

I think pessimists in general consider themselves realists, while considering optimists as being dreamers. Although I generally agree with Corredoira's "science," and most often disagreeing with Siegel's assertions concerning his field, as to their perspectives of reality concerning the future of science in this country and in the world in general, I tend to agree more with Siegel's optimism. I agree with Corredoira in believing that modern physics has been on the wrong track for more than a century, but science is self correcting and can turn around very quickly, and am not as cynical as Max Plank who said, probably with some jest, "science advances one funeral at a time," or, "truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out."

 

Improved science leads to better understandings of reality, new inventions, new medicine, etc. etc. Better understandings and insights concerning improvements in social sciences, can lead to better understandings between men, and man's better understandings of the meanings of symbiotic living. Sciences collectively have resulted in better living for humanity in general. Progress does not always happen within a century or two, but in recorded history great progress has always resulted from centuries of wrong thinking, concerning both religion and science. Concerning wrong thinking, religion has hampered the progress and happiness of mankind much more than it has assisted humanity IMO. Wrong thinking in science, on the other hand slows down progress, but progress can also advance by improving scientific methods learned from mistaken applications of science.