What he failed to mention was that all the Republican funding for science was for Christian Scientists.

^Unlike real scientists.

I would like to see the increases in science compared to other increases, which would be the real evaluation of how the money was spent. It seems to me that spending in general skyrocketed, so if the science departments gets only a fraction more compared to some other department, that says a lot too.

I like it when he gets riled up.

I'd be interested to know how much of that budget went to scientific projects for the military...(what Eisenhower called the scientific-technological elite)

^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

Its a trick question. The answer is neither.

I value science because it provides me with reliable, practical information. Such information is useful for improving my everyday life; while unreliable or impractical information is at best a waste of time and a worst detrimental or life threatening—so recognizing and avoiding such information is important not only to my happiness but to my health and long term survival.

Science, then, is a way of filtering information. The internal mechanism, of course, is the scientific method. This method is important because it is the actual process which filters out unreliable, impractical information.

Strictly speaking, the scientific method is a list of best known methods (BKM). Over time it has evolved into this:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Each of the above eight steps also have best known methods (BKM). For example, the BKM for #4 (Experiment) include double blind groups and controls, while the BKM for #5 (Analyze) include statistical analysis.

“Science” then, is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through the BKM for obtaining reliable, practical information--steps 1-8, namely, information which has been obtained via the scientific method.

while “Good Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, while also utilizing the BKM for each step – such as double blind groups, controls, and statistical analysis.

and “Poor Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, without utilizing the BKM for each step.

What passes for "science" today is not science at all. Science today emphasizes "peer review" which consists of publishing articles in several journals and counting how many citations they receive. The presentation of experimental results confirming or refuting a hypothesis is only the first step in the #8 Retest, not the last. A lot of modern scientists forget that.

Here is a quote from Courtney et al in a response to "On The Nature of Science"

"At this point, is science really a powerful, objective epistemology for exploring natural law, or have we merely replaced one set of authorities (the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) with another (the scientists of the 21st century)?

We must not replace experimental repeatability with peer-reviewed observations as the ultimate arbiter of scientific validity. Only repeatable experimental results qualify as scientific observations."

The knowledge of the Middle Age Catholic Church was based on divine revelation, and had no predicative power. It was viewed by the populace as authoritative because of the position of church leaders, and made widespread by their consensus. Likewise, scientists of the 21st century, in my mind, have lost their predictive power. They are no longer practicing science as it was or is intended. There is little emphasis on repeatability--all the emphasis has shifted to peer consensus. The only reason the general public believes the scientific consensus over any other is their position – not the predictive power of their models – and not unlike the Catholic Church of the middle ages.

The emphasis is supposed to be on the repeatability of results by independent experimenters, not peer consensus in "scientific" journals.

"Science today emphasizes "peer review" which consists of publishing articles in several journals and counting how many citations they receive."

Peer review is when knowledgeable peers verify that the work is worthy of publication in the journal for which it's being evaluated.

There's limited resources, and opportunity cost to everything, so it can take a while to have other scientists repeat the experiment. The bolder the claim, the less reliability a study's conclusions will be considered to have if they haven't yet been repeated.

Interesting topic. Might want to change the tag to republican.

The emphasis is supposed to be on the repeatability of results by independent experimenters, not peer consensus in "scientific" journals.

Hear, hear! Peer consensus is not at all meaningless, but it is also not at all science.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'neil degrasse tyson, pro science, science, budget, repiblican, democrat' to 'neil degrasse tyson, pro science, science, budget, republican, democrat' - edited by mauz15

This is extremely interesting. He forgot to mention evolution in his little list. Larger scientific budgets are great, but it's hard to reconcile that with idiotic public statements. For example, Bush has publicly said that he believes evolution and creation should be taught side by side in science class.

Also, sometimes real steps have been taken by Republicans to undermine science. In my state, Texas, the head of the Texas Education Agency is a creationist. He was appointed by the Republican Texas Governor, Rick Perry. I guess they all don't draw the relation between undermining science and dying poor.

I guess it's supposed to be encouraging that Republicans only disagree with 3 sections of science and support the rest?

>> ^imstellar28:
Science today emphasizes "peer review" which consists of publishing articles in several journals and counting how many citations they receive

The emphasis is supposed to be on the repeatability of results by independent experimenters, not peer consensus in "scientific" journals.

Don't downplay peer review. While it may not be part of the scientific method, it is an important part of how scientists communicate their results.

I don't understand how publishing results and having them peer reviewed beforehand is a bad thing. I certainly don't think it's replacing independent verification of each other's work. It can only help facilitate it, right?

I've got an idea for de-politicizing science... take out a loan to finance your research.

If scientific progress leads to an expansion of the economy (which should be obvious, albeit slow), then the banks ought to be happy to lend money for research, on some kind of really long term payment plan.

Banks are already pretty good at assessing the risk of lending, in fact that skill is central to their success, and that of the economy.

So they could expand that with some scientific skills, and assert what research is promising, and what isn't.

>> ^Crake:
So they could expand that with some scientific skills, and assert what research is promising, and what isn't.

That's a simplification, Banks want assured investments that pay off. 90% of research ends with no feasible marketable commodity or technology.

Banks have thus more incentive to make investments towards projects that have some end product. Look how the investment trends have changed in the pharmaceutical industry towards products that are more marketable focusing on prolonged treatments.

Publicly funded research is required, I mean it's only created the computers and the internet so far.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Harris's career really took off after Barney Miller

Fair enough, it would probably be hard to get investors to fund primary research, but for the more applicable stuff, the potential ROI is in some cases so massive that it might motivate some long term commitment.

But I really have no idea how the world of research funding works today. Seems to be moving at glacier speed though.

And yeah, military research (i.e. DARPA) has probably been the most successful route to progress so far... although it's a little sad.

90% of albums fail to, that is why the good ones cost an arm and a leg. There is a business model for research science as there is for everything.

>> ^mattsy:
I like it when he gets riled up.
I'd be interested to know how much of that budget went to scientific projects for the military...(what Eisenhower called the scientific-technological elite)


I'll bet you it was most of it, easily.

Greater than two-thirds.

Starting up a biotech company to develop the promises of your research is one of the ways to potentially strike it rich in the biosciences. It's not simple though... getting a product through the FDA can take decades and massive investment capital, and most biotech start ups fail.

The company that holds the patent for the natural tanning drug Melanotan, e.g., has been advancing at a glacial pace, routinely missing self-imposed deadlines, even though their product is easily worth billions.

I have heard it said, and I agree to some extent, that real scientific research is done only to gain a greater understanding of the universe we live in. Any technical applications that may come out of that research is a side effect, and ideally not considered at all. If you are keeping an eye out for marketable products to come out of your research, that will easily sidetrack you from the actual science that needs to be done.

This is why the best scientific advancements come out of schools, using money from paying students and government grants that allow the researchers to focus on their goals and not worry about coming up with something that will make money.

why is science important? because it is the best known method of way filtering information. the scientific method is what takes in all kinds of information and spits out practical, reliable information.

if you can't use information to improve your life, what good is it? what good is the theory of gravity if you can't use it to measure objects you drop? what good is a theory of nutrition if you can't use it to improve your health? what good is any theory which you can't use to better your life?

we don't practice science just for the sake of practicing science...we do it for a very specific purposes: to improve our lives. if the information that comes out isn't practical or reliable its pointless.

peer review is utter nonsense. sitting around a table and coming to a consensus is equivalent to the method utilized by the middle age church. that is not science and it does not result in practical, reliable information.

the only reason anyone cares about science is because the models it results in make predictions which can be replicated by other individuals. if nobody actually replicates the results then what purpose does it serve!

if you think peer review is science, you probably also think its a good idea to go out and have a poll to solve problems...

^ Peer review is not "sitting around a table and coming to a consensus". It is looking at scientific papers and scrutinizing the methods and conclusions of the author. If the paper meets the standards set by the scientific community, it is deemed worthy of publication (or perhaps funding), even if it contradicts earlier published works. It does not guarantee accuracy or homogenize conclusions, it only seeks to minimize the time wasted by other researchers who are looking for solid information on a topic.

And as for usefulness... consider pure science like art. A true artist will follow their passion whether their art sells or not. In fact, we usually deride artists who pander to buyers as "sell-outs". The true scientist seeks to improve our understanding of the universe, whether or not something useful comes from it. Scientists who seek only to find something that sells... well, they have their place, just like graphic artists. But it's not what science is about.

I've seen you make good arguments before, imstellar28. You've even changed my mind about a topic or two. I thought you had a better appreciation for science.

>> ^MaxWilder:
^ Peer review is not "sitting around a table and coming to a consensus". It is looking at scientific papers and scrutinizing the methods and conclusions of the author. If the paper meets the standards set by the scientific community, it is deemed worthy of publication

Realistically, how is that much different than the process in which a group of clergy put out new dogma in the middle ages? Science is different because the predictions it makes can be replicated. I strongly advocate science--real science--science which actually goes through *all* eight steps of the scientific method, not just the first seven.

21st century "scientists" undermine science to a similar extent as creationists. What I want is a return to real science. Models, predictions, reliable information, practical information, and most importantly, reproducible results.

Peer review is susceptible to the ills of man--bias, politics, etc. It may serve some purpose, but it was never meant to be the "end" of the scientific process, as it currently is. When people talk of science, how often do you hear these statements:

"99% of scientists believe..."
"published in a number of peer reviewed journals"
"cited in over 100 papers"

and how often do you hear this:

"results replicated by several independent experimenters"

The top three are not scientific, the latter is.

Imstellar, at any given time there are many fringe scientific ideas, and their supporters tend to rage against the orthodoxy. The problem is that yes, the future mainstream often comes from the fringe, but only a small portion of those fringe ideas are going to pan out, and the rest are junk.

Studies can cost millions or tens of millions of dollars. It would be vastly economically inefficient to use independent replication as a knee-jerk reaction for all of the tens of thousands of studies that are published each year.

Surprising or important findings all get replicated... 100% of them get replicated eventually.

You seem very intelligent, but you seem to tend toward certitude about every fringe position you take. It's not responsible.

And peer review is the first step in disseminating that information so that they can be independently replicated. Anybody who thinks that peer review and publication is the end of the line, making something "true" is a fool.

I think we're actually all agreeing here. The problem is the mainstream press (or whoever) behaving as if peer review makes theory into fact. It's a problem with the people who don't understand peer review, not peer review itself.

I wonder which party (on average) would be more likely to accept scientific research that contradicts their previously-held beliefs.

Funding overall went up during Bush, yes, but funding for basic research in many areas was static or went down. The money went, and in some cases was redirected, to DARPA, to fight bioterror, and to "combat" bird flu. Great for technology, great for national defense, really bad for a public curious about the world around them.

^ Interesting question. Here's an important related question: when was the last time there was a scientific consensus that undermined an established position of one of the existing parties?

Oh, and imstellar, how do you think peer review works? Do you think scientists all vote their unfounded opinions on what science should be before they write the new textbooks each year?

Admittedly, science is susceptible to a certain inertia of belief -- long-held beliefs about the mechanism behind a certain phenomena can be difficult to tear down, but that's a good thing.

I remember a lab in one of the physics courses I took where we were supposed to discern whether a car's tire on the road has static or kinetic friction. The experiment involved doing various tests with a toy car on an inclined plane, and we'd measure the angle at which the car started to slide backwards while stopped, and while moving, and then calculate which coefficient of friction was at work.

My data showed that it was kinetic. I knew it was wrong, but that's what the data and calculations showed. I wrote in my source of error an explanation: our lab proctor had put masking tape on the wheels of the toy cars to reduce the coefficient of friction. When the car was climbing the incline, I'd noticed the wheels were spinning, like a real car that'd lost traction. That's why my results showed kinetic was in force...because it was.

Needless to say I was given a D on the lab (I came to the wrong conclusion, the note said), and had to argue to get it fixed. Eventually it got turned into an A, and made the centerpiece of a class rundown of results, since it was obvious most others just fudged the numbers to make it work right.

My point is, that's the kind of arguments peer review entails. Both sides agree on what the right way to do science is, and get to have meaningful debate in front of the entire scientific community about it. Eventually a consensus develops, but only after experimentation settles it.

Peer review really shines on topics that are difficult to "re-test", like Global Warming. That's why there's no end of new experiments being run to either build up or tear down the case. People are coming up with new experiments to test the hypothesis, and so far no one's come back with a smoking-gun disproving result -- in fact, most go on the pile labeled "supporting evidence".

After a while, scientists give up on retesting things (like static vs. kinetic friction, say), and that's when they generally start being called "Law", but that takes a long, long time, because there's huge benefit to be gained in overturning the reigning paradigm, so they're always challenging the status quo.

You know since it is congress that decides how funding is distributed, not the Pres, I would be interested in seeing who was in control of Congress during the periods of funding increase and decrease.

^yeah, except it's been a while since either party had the power to override a veto. The president can hold the country hostage with that veto.

Uh... NSF going up 40% is not much, when you consider all of the funding from DARPA that went away. Bush could have been worse, but he was no champion of science.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.