Some rambling thoughts.
Pure science is science done simply to improve understanding of a subject. This can be any of what I like to call hard sciences. Hard sciences can be verified and demonstrated in real world terms. Physics is a hard science. Much of medical research can be hard science. Astronomy is mostly a hard science. There are other examples but I don’t want to expand on a personal list that will certainly offend someone whose science I see as soft.
Any scientist who is on the payroll of a for-profit company and is working on any project that is approved or funded by any segment of that company’s management is not working on hard science. (My writing; my definition). Privately funded research is a very good thing and most of the advances that benefit mankind come from private research. The research that will make the breakthroughs required for humans to reach the stars will not be privately funded.
I have spent a small amount of time following the LHC project in Europe. This project has the potential to produce breakthroughs that can revolutionize particle physics. Understanding particle physics is the next step toward mankind’s destiny. The amount of international cooperation and international (not-for-profit) funding make The Large Hadron Collider the best example of current hard science. There is almost no way for any corporation to profit from the research.
Now to my point, why would the United States citizens even consider abandoning the space program? Sure there is no expected payback but that has not strangled the LHC project. Pure science is much more important than payback. The potential benefits of continued space exploration exceed any concept of profit or rapid ROI.
There may be disagreements about what killed the dinosaurs but the possibility of our little marble being struck by a high-speed rock is real. We need to be out there learning to survive and work in space so we can save ourselves when the need arises. If our civilization collapses, mankind’s true destiny in this universe evaporates.
Geology has some real benefits for profit-seeking companies. Precious minerals and energy sources are valid reasons for private research. On a more pure level though learning about the potential destruction of civilization from super-volcanoes is very important. Money spent to learn how to predict super-destructive eruptions will give us the time to save our technology and maybe millions of lives.
We need to restrict the resources accessible by the more animalistic members of our world society. As long as people are concentrating on killing each other our ability to survive as a civilized society remains in question. Look at the real reasons for any of the ongoing conflicts on the planet. In the end every conflict is some person or group trying to force their will on some other group. We should spend as much time and resources to learn to respect individual rights. Then we could cooperate for the good of humanity as a whole.
Of course someone has to be willing to pound anyone who is not working for the good of mankind into protein meal to feed the hungry. (Soylent Green?)
Intelligent human beings are in short supply.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Another health care proposal
OK, I realize health care reform has become a tired subject but I must address it again. I still believe the root cause of all opposition to reform is money. The insurance industry is afraid of loosing profits. People who have health insurance are afraid they will have to pay more. Legislators are being pressured by money to support the opposition. Rich people (compared to me) are too greedy to pay more taxes. Doctors are afraid the Government will set prices for services. Drug companies are afraid of loosing research subsidies. All in all it is just money and greed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposal. I realize no one asked for it but you’re getting it for free so don't complain.
The current health care system has the following failures:
The costs are steadily increasing and each price increase eliminates some people from access.
Even employer-provided insurance plans are increasing in cost; both for the employers and the employees.
As plan costs continue to increase increasing numbers of employers are forced to stop providing health care for employees.
Millions of people with chronic conditions are denied coverage even from employer-provided plans.
Disguised costs such as increased co-pays, higher deductibles, and coverage limits are being used to keep front end premiums down by adding the costs to the insured’s back end.
If you are happy with your current plan it is going to cost increasing more to keep your current setup. Sooner or later the cost will exceed your ability to pay or the plan will change in ways you can’t tolerate.
The problem of someone choosing your doctor instead of you is already part of your life. How many of you have to pay more to see a doctor “out of your network”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government alone has the power to fix this. There is no possible fix from the private sector.
We need a health care tax. This can take several forms but the purpose is to finance a public option.
The public option will cover people who for whatever reason are not and cannot be covered by private insurance – either by employers or privately funded. This means all the high cost patients can be eliminated from private insurance coverage. Private insurance premiums can be drastically reduced. Employers whose insurance plans deny coverage for certain employees will have to pay the equivalent premium into the public option fund. What this does is reduce the premium costs to businesses while keeping everyone covered. Private insurance providers will be able to tailor coverage to their clients’ needs. A standard will be developed for plan coverage where highly restrictive plans will be taxed at a higher rate than more inclusive plans. This tax will also be part of the funding of the private option.
Drug companies can and should do without any government subsidies.
Agreements between coverage providers and service providers for reducing costs will be encouraged.
This is just the basics of my proposal and there is nothing here I have not said before. I just have to say it again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposal. I realize no one asked for it but you’re getting it for free so don't complain.
The current health care system has the following failures:
The costs are steadily increasing and each price increase eliminates some people from access.
Even employer-provided insurance plans are increasing in cost; both for the employers and the employees.
As plan costs continue to increase increasing numbers of employers are forced to stop providing health care for employees.
Millions of people with chronic conditions are denied coverage even from employer-provided plans.
Disguised costs such as increased co-pays, higher deductibles, and coverage limits are being used to keep front end premiums down by adding the costs to the insured’s back end.
If you are happy with your current plan it is going to cost increasing more to keep your current setup. Sooner or later the cost will exceed your ability to pay or the plan will change in ways you can’t tolerate.
The problem of someone choosing your doctor instead of you is already part of your life. How many of you have to pay more to see a doctor “out of your network”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government alone has the power to fix this. There is no possible fix from the private sector.
We need a health care tax. This can take several forms but the purpose is to finance a public option.
The public option will cover people who for whatever reason are not and cannot be covered by private insurance – either by employers or privately funded. This means all the high cost patients can be eliminated from private insurance coverage. Private insurance premiums can be drastically reduced. Employers whose insurance plans deny coverage for certain employees will have to pay the equivalent premium into the public option fund. What this does is reduce the premium costs to businesses while keeping everyone covered. Private insurance providers will be able to tailor coverage to their clients’ needs. A standard will be developed for plan coverage where highly restrictive plans will be taxed at a higher rate than more inclusive plans. This tax will also be part of the funding of the private option.
Drug companies can and should do without any government subsidies.
Agreements between coverage providers and service providers for reducing costs will be encouraged.
This is just the basics of my proposal and there is nothing here I have not said before. I just have to say it again.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The failures of creationism
The failures of hard line creationism
I recently had to rewrite a review of a book by Richard Dawkins. The book under review was written in support of Darwin’s revelations about evolution and although I have not read the book, the review inspired me to share my opinions on the subject. Far too many otherwise intelligent people keep quiet about controversial subjects to avoid conflicts with their friends and associates. Since I have only a half dozen friends and they already know how I feel I have no fear of reprisal. I will say what I believe.
Evolution is a proven fact that has been demonstrated scientifically, both with natural history evidence and with recent scientific experiments. I say again: Evolution is a proven fact. In the opening paragraph I did not say “Darwin’s theory of evolution” I said “Darwin’s revelations” because evolution is not a theory. The argument that evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. If a scientific fact can be dismissed by labeling it a theory the people using the argument should climb a high structure, declare gravity a theory, and take flight.
Faith in God means faith in the gift of existence in an afterlife. This wonderful gift from God can only be realized by mortals as faith. We keep our faith in the face of uncertainty and in spite of the impossibility of getting any tangible, hard proof. This is faith. It is part of the message all religions try to pass on to us.
Hard line Creationism is not faith. It is a corruption of the faith concept. The origins of creationism are in the bible – a work of man even if it was inspired by a real God. We have to look deep inside ourselves to find our personal connection to our creator. We cannot rely on someone else’s overt connection no matter how divinely inspired. The preaching that the path to heaven is through individual acceptance is important. The message is not “follow your church elder or your pastor and he will lead you to heaven”. Blind faith in the strict interpretation of another person’s written work prevents the personal search for the inner connection we all have. In effect being too lazy to put forth the individual effort toward understanding puts us under the control of others. We can become slaves to someone else’s visions and plans.
Stepping back from established and proven facts in favor of blind faith in another person’s interpretation takes us further away from our own understanding. When we categorically deny our own intelligence and reasoning ability and allow ourselves to be led by well meaning but misguided opinion we also deny one of our Creator’s greatest gifts to us – our ability to seek personal understanding. Hard line Creationists have denied the most important thing that makes us human – advanced reasoning. Denying that which makes us human, in effect takes us a giant step backwards toward the very unreasoning animal ancestor we want so badly to prune from our family tree.
In the creation versus evolution argument, refusing to recognize established facts actually demonstrates the scientific proof of the one thing we try to disprove.
How’s that for circular reasoning?
I recently had to rewrite a review of a book by Richard Dawkins. The book under review was written in support of Darwin’s revelations about evolution and although I have not read the book, the review inspired me to share my opinions on the subject. Far too many otherwise intelligent people keep quiet about controversial subjects to avoid conflicts with their friends and associates. Since I have only a half dozen friends and they already know how I feel I have no fear of reprisal. I will say what I believe.
Evolution is a proven fact that has been demonstrated scientifically, both with natural history evidence and with recent scientific experiments. I say again: Evolution is a proven fact. In the opening paragraph I did not say “Darwin’s theory of evolution” I said “Darwin’s revelations” because evolution is not a theory. The argument that evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. If a scientific fact can be dismissed by labeling it a theory the people using the argument should climb a high structure, declare gravity a theory, and take flight.
Faith in God means faith in the gift of existence in an afterlife. This wonderful gift from God can only be realized by mortals as faith. We keep our faith in the face of uncertainty and in spite of the impossibility of getting any tangible, hard proof. This is faith. It is part of the message all religions try to pass on to us.
Hard line Creationism is not faith. It is a corruption of the faith concept. The origins of creationism are in the bible – a work of man even if it was inspired by a real God. We have to look deep inside ourselves to find our personal connection to our creator. We cannot rely on someone else’s overt connection no matter how divinely inspired. The preaching that the path to heaven is through individual acceptance is important. The message is not “follow your church elder or your pastor and he will lead you to heaven”. Blind faith in the strict interpretation of another person’s written work prevents the personal search for the inner connection we all have. In effect being too lazy to put forth the individual effort toward understanding puts us under the control of others. We can become slaves to someone else’s visions and plans.
Stepping back from established and proven facts in favor of blind faith in another person’s interpretation takes us further away from our own understanding. When we categorically deny our own intelligence and reasoning ability and allow ourselves to be led by well meaning but misguided opinion we also deny one of our Creator’s greatest gifts to us – our ability to seek personal understanding. Hard line Creationists have denied the most important thing that makes us human – advanced reasoning. Denying that which makes us human, in effect takes us a giant step backwards toward the very unreasoning animal ancestor we want so badly to prune from our family tree.
In the creation versus evolution argument, refusing to recognize established facts actually demonstrates the scientific proof of the one thing we try to disprove.
How’s that for circular reasoning?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
