Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

[quote name='dmaul1114']You're the one who said it was arbitrary---and that's what I was saying not at all too.

There are meaningful differences between disciplines tied both to how much money their type of work requires and how much they deserve (how important the work is).
[/quote] I know I did, but let me clarify because I think we're using different definitions of "arbitrary".

[quote name='American Heritage Dictionary']1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.[/quote]

I'm using #2, and I think you're using #1.

We probably just have different definitions of waste. To me any study that made a meaningful contribution to knowledge on it's topic was not a waste. To me a waste is a flawed study that adds nothing, be it a poor idea, a bad research design or whatever.

I think you think it's wasteful even if it adds knowledge to the discipline if it's not something thats useful to society at large. But maybe you can clarify on what you think is waste.
Click to expand...
I would call it wasteful as long as there were some other research that would be more useful.

You're being obtuse here. A study of Jay Z's big toe would be a terrible proposal, and yes that should be shot down and someone else in that field (humanities in your example) who applied for that pot of money with a good idea for a study with a good research design should get it instead.

Just like a medical researcher with a shitty idea should get rejected while someone with a good idea gets that particular NIH grant.
Click to expand...

There's an obvious problem here with deciding which ideas are shitty and which ones are good. Aren't medical researchers supposed to be qualified? If any of them can have shitty ideas, so can the people deciding who gets funding.


I don't know what all funding agencies out there exist, what disciplines go unfunded. But the way I look at it is that any discipline that is big enough to have departments in universities needs to have some funding available to support research and advance knowledge in their particular field. Be it medicine, law, sociology, criminology, anthropolgy, biology, women's studies, african american studies, astronomy, geology, art or whatever.

Any legit, and established field of study/research should have some amount of funding. Probably don't all need their own funding agencies, but their shouldn't be any established field of study that has NOWHERE to turn to TRY to get grant funding for their research. And maybe some smaller ones should just be reliant on private funding.

I don't think the subdivisions are arbitrary at all. Our areas of study/knowledge are pretty logically defined. And there is some overlap and thus research that is interdisciplinary. So they're not perfect, but they're not arbitrary either. There aren't really departments or colleges with in a university that you could say are redundant with another department. There may be some overlap, but not enough to call it arbitrary. Will everything always fit in these current disciplines? No that's why no disciplines emerge over time as new areas of study develop and mature.
Click to expand...

Again, they're definitely arbitrary by the definition I'm using, in that they're completely subject to human preferences - in this case, the preferences of those in the "college-industrial complex". ;)

So your wish for funding all areas of human knowledge was far too vague, then - what you actually mean is that you want funding for at least one study in each of the fields considered important by the college system, but no others.
 
May his Noodlyness continue my ability to get healthier by the defeat of the miniature ones of poopyness. May he always watch over our ability to use dead babies/aborted fetuses/meh, fuck it, as ways to cure the healthy, mostly-wanted, living ones. R'amen.

Oh, and pre-emptire fuck you to the next person who claims religion should take priority over the Government to overthrow this heathenous research that is against some false prophets will. Seriously. Consider this a pre-emptive "No, your belief isn't the right answer, yes, get over it, I don't agree, fuck off, and seperation of Government and Religion" lecture.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You obviously know shit about research.

Scientists bust their asses working on this stuff and when they get a big grant very little of it percentage wise (if any depending on size of grant) goes to their pockets beyond helping the institution pay their normal salary. It's paying for equipment, hiring assistants etc. etc.

With private and non-profit research firms, they also need the grants to pay the bills--rent for the facility, electricity etc. At universities the schools take a big chunk for the same things (overhead at my current university is 50%--they get 50% for every dollar your spend). At universities faculty can "see" some of the money in the form of buying out teaching courses so they have time to do the research or giving themselves salary in the summer when otherwise they're working unpaid as they're on 9 month contracts.

But in any case, people aren't sitting on their asses. Science is just expensive. People are busting their asses doing work they enjoy and think is very important. Having more funding means more people and more research firms can be doing research and/or doing bigger studies which speeds breakthroughs.

The negativity people have toward science and education sickens me.[/quote]

No, I understand what it is they hope to achieve. But the thought that by reversing some policy will make things better overnight is completely assanine (and yes, a lot of people think that for some reason). As for busting their asses to get results, the only results they seem to come up with nowadays is how much product A will kill me and why taking product C will save my life despite making me shallow emotionally.

As far as our education system goes, why does our public education system continue to fail despite the massive amounts of money we put into it? And yes, I know No Child Left Behind was underfunded, but guess what? It was still getting a lot of money before that bill was passed. Money is not the end all, be all answer to everyone's problems, despite what the Government makes you think it is.
 
this isn't really a policy change as much as a "this is where my morals are" statement by supreme lord obama, as it was with bush. it really won't change anything in the near future.
 
[quote name='rickonker']
Again, they're definitely arbitrary by the definition I'm using, in that they're completely subject to human preferences - in this case, the preferences of those in the "college-industrial complex". ;)[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree as I don't think it's arbitrary at all. Biology is a distinct field. Psychology is a distinct field. Sociology is a distinct field. Criminology and Criminal Justice is a distinct field. Education is a distinct field. Humanities is a distinct field. And on and on and.

There's some overlap in interests which is why you have interdisciplinary collaboration, but fields aren't arbitrary they all study very specific and unique things.

So your wish for funding all areas of human knowledge was far too vague, then - what you actually mean is that you want funding for at least one study in each of the fields considered important by the college system, but no others.
Click to expand...

Sure, pretty much any facet of human knowledge that is gained through research and study currently can be fit into a field that's in the college system somewhere (doesn't have to be in all or most colleges). New fields emerge--usually starting with an an existing one and then branching out and getting their own departments and giving their own degrees. So it's not a permanent system--it can evolve.

So I think it's a useful system for subdividing human knowledge. Plus in most fields the vast majority of the reasearch is done (and thus the majority of new knowledge generated) from research within Universities. Exceptions being medicince and some of the hard sciences which have lots of private and governmental research firms/agencies. But even those things are still done in Universities--so yes I think a survey of all fields in the broad university system that are important enough to grant degrees up to the Ph D (or that fields equivalent) is the best broad index of categories of study/knowledge that we have.

Sure you could be obtuse and talk about knowledge like how use power tools, or how to drive and other technical knowledge--but that stuff is just learned skills more than it is knowledge and doesn't need research funding. :D
 
[quote name='KingBroly']No, I understand what it is they hope to achieve. But the thought that by reversing some policy will make things better overnight is completely assanine (and yes, a lot of people think that for some reason).
[/quote]

No one says it will help overnight. But it will speed things both by more freely being able to use embryonic cells which have shown more promise thus far and being able to fund more people to work on more studies than before.

As for busting their asses to get results, the only results they seem to come up with nowadays is how much product A will kill me and why taking product C will save my life despite making me shallow emotionally.
Click to expand...

That's a very naive and cynical view of research.

1. It only applies to medicine.
2. Even in medicine their are plenty of people busting their ass to cure cancer, parkinson's and other diseases--but like you say results aren't found over night.

As far as our education system goes, why does our public education system continue to fail despite the massive amounts of money we put into it? And yes, I know No Child Left Behind was underfunded, but guess what? It was still getting a lot of money before that bill was passed. Money is not the end all, be all answer to everyone's problems, despite what the Government makes you think it is.
Click to expand...

Totally different thing. The public education system needs reform, just throwing money at it won't fix anything.

To cure diseases, or generate any kind of knowledge through research, it's done through doing lots of research. Research requires money to conduct. Putting more money into it means you can do bigger projects that have more impact. That you can have more researchers working at the same time testing different ideas. The net result being you'll get results (whether positive or negative) quicker.

And besides, Obama's ruling isn't costing any more money. It's just allowing NIH to spend more of its already allotted research budget on Stem cell research if it chooses to do so. Bush banned them from providing any federal funds beyond 60 lines already awarded when he signed the order banning it.

[quote name='perdition(troy']this isn't really a policy change as much as a "this is where my morals are" statement by supreme lord obama, as it was with bush. it really won't change anything in the near future.[/QUOTE]

It's not likely going to cure a disease in the near future as Stem Cell research is still in it's relative infancy. But it will mean more funding for medical researchers doing stem cell research as soon as the next NIH grant solicitation. So it will change that in the near future.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']learned skills? you mean like criminal justice programs outside of the realm of sociology?

;)[/QUOTE]

Piss off. :D

Criminology and Criminal Justice has evolved to be very distinct from sociology.

With your interest in corrections, you'd be well served to go to a CJ department as you'll soon find that especially applied CJ study (what works in corrections, policing etc.) is not taken very seriously at top sociology programs. Criminological theory based research gets a bit less ridicule, but not much.

That's a big part of why scholars broke off from sociology decades ago and formed Criminology and Criminal Justice as it's own discipline.

I think the main difference is sociologist are interested in studying societies. Much of criminology is more focused on looking at causes of crime at smaller units of analysis--neighborhoods (or street blocks in my professor and my research) or in individuals. And then you have the criminal justice side where much research isn't interested in societal factors at all and is just simply program evaluations of whether a particular correctional treatment program reduced recidivism, or a particular type of policing reduced crime relative to another etc. etc.

I'd never work in a sociology department, too much pompous looking down on criminology and I don't give a shit about studying things at the societal level.

And since you started the teasing, mister lofty sociologist, I'll be an asshole too. neener neener I got a job and you didn't!. :D The crim market wasn't as bad off as the sociology market this year as lots of programs are still new and expanding, while soc is old and established.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']:lol: wow. someone's cranky today.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, still getting over a shitty cold and several nights of tossing and turning with a cough.

But it was still good natured ribbing--along with my true thoughts on why Crim is and should be separate from soc. :D
 
You have a funny idea of what a 'good natured-ribbing' looks like.

But you're not alone. Likewise, you have a funny understanding of what "sociology" looks like. Based on your description above, I shouldn't be allowed to use GIS to geocode offenders on a map by census tract. It's too micro, apparently.

Don't tell the department head!

And, for the record, criminal justice scholars don't get to build "Rock Band Lab." For what it's worth. ;)

(no, I'm not kidding.)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd never work in a sociology department, too much pompous looking down on criminology and I don't give a shit about studying things at the societal level.

And since you started the teasing, mister lofty sociologist, I'll be an asshole too. neener neener I got a job and you didn't!. :D The crim market wasn't as bad off as the sociology market this year as lots of programs are still new and expanding, while soc is old and established.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, lots of people look down on sociology too. ;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We'll have to agree to disagree as I don't think it's arbitrary at all. Biology is a distinct field. Psychology is a distinct field. Sociology is a distinct field. Criminology and Criminal Justice is a distinct field. Education is a distinct field. Humanities is a distinct field. And on and on and.[/quote]

Did you read the dictionary entry I posted? Again, going by that second definition, if you still think those divisions aren't arbitrary, there's something wrong.

There's some overlap in interests which is why you have interdisciplinary collaboration, but fields aren't arbitrary they all study very specific and unique things.
Click to expand...

What? If they're so specific and unique, why is there so much overlap? Again, arbitrary.

Sure, pretty much any facet of human knowledge that is gained through research and study currently can be fit into a field that's in the college system somewhere (doesn't have to be in all or most colleges). New fields emerge--usually starting with an an existing one and then branching out and getting their own departments and giving their own degrees. So it's not a permanent system--it can evolve.

So I think it's a useful system for subdividing human knowledge. Plus in most fields the vast majority of the reasearch is done (and thus the majority of new knowledge generated) from research within Universities. Exceptions being medicince and some of the hard sciences which have lots of private and governmental research firms/agencies. But even those things are still done in Universities--so yes I think a survey of all fields in the broad university system that are important enough to grant degrees up to the Ph D (or that fields equivalent) is the best broad index of categories of study/knowledge that we have.

Sure you could be obtuse and talk about knowledge like how use power tools, or how to drive and other technical knowledge--but that stuff is just learned skills more than it is knowledge and doesn't need research funding. :D
Click to expand...

You say the system is useful and can evolve, but the point is you believe that system is the only proper judge of what to research. To put it another way, you've sort of skipped a step here. You think all areas of human knowledge are worth advancing, but you expect everyone to believe the system you support is basically perfect for that task, when in reality it's just one of many possibilities.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Did you read the dictionary entry I posted? Again, going by that second definition, if you still think those divisions aren't arbitrary, there's something wrong.
[/quote]

If you truly think differences between psychology and computer science and women's studies etc. are arbitrary and at that experts in these fields don't have very different skills and bases of knowledge and do very different types of research that has very different applications to society, then I don't know what to say. Fields are objectively, substantively different in what they do--and that doesn't fit any definition of arbitrary IMO.

But I'm not debating this anymore. As it's just semantics, or just you being contrary, and not worth wasting any more time on.

What? If they're so specific and unique, why is there so much overlap? Again, arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Example. Studying mental disorders is very different from studying say the effect of delinquent peers on criminality.

But that doesn't mean a psychologist and criminologist can't partner up and see if mental disorders and delinquent peers interact some how in leading to crime etc. Interdisciplenary collaboration doesn't render differences between fields arbitrary. It just means very different types of research and different ideas/theories can sometimes complement each other.

You say the system is useful and can evolve, but the point is you believe that system is the only proper judge of what to research. To put it another way, you've sort of skipped a step here. You think all areas of human knowledge are worth advancing, but you expect everyone to believe the system you support is basically perfect for that task, when in reality it's just one of many possibilities.
Click to expand...

You're just being argumentative. Can you name one area of study that exists currently that could not be fit within an existing discipline? Probably not because it's all covered by the hundreds of fields we already have and subareas of study with in them.

And the point just is that there can only be so many funding agencies so there HAS to be divisions. Grants need to be reviewed by people knowledgeable on the area of study. You can't just have some giant pool of money with grant proposals for everything under the sun reviewed by idiots who know nothing about most of the topical areas. You need funding agencies for fields so grant reviewers know enough about criminology or medicine or humanities etc. to know what's a good study that has a good design and will make a meaningful impact on knowledge in that area.

So divisions are necessary, regardless of whether you or others think they are arbitrary.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not debating anymore. As it's semantics.
[/quote]

Yes, it is semantics, which is exactly why I posted the dictionary entry for you with two different definitions for "arbitrary".
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Even after seeing both definitions, you apparently cannot understand the usage of any definition other than the first one. That's a little disappointing for someone who keeps telling us he loves to learn, and about how it's okay for people who don't like to learn as much as he does to go to a trade school and not feel ashamed...

So divisions are necessary, regardless of whether you or others think they are arbitrary.

Which I still think is absurd.
Click to expand...

Again, the reason you think it's absurd is that you haven't learned that "arbitrary" can mean something other than what you think it means.

If you still can't understand, maybe we can find a substitute term to get the meaning across.

Edit: I see you edited your post heavily.
If you truly think differences between psychology and computer science and women's studies etc. are arbitrary and at that experts in these fields don't have very different skills and bases of knowledge and do very different types of research that has very different applications to society, then I don't know what to say. Fields are objectively, substantively different in what they do--and that doesn't fit any definition of arbitrary IMO.
Click to expand...

They may not be arbitrary by the first definition, but they are by the second. If you really can't understand this we'll have to find another way to describe it.
 
I don't think it fits either definition. It certainly doesn't fit the 1st, and it doesn't fit the second.

The divisions are natural based on the type of things people study in these fields. They're not random opinions of an individual.

Psychology is objectively and substantively different from computer science. I don't think you'd find any reasonable person who disagrees. It's not individual judgment or preference.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The divisions are natural based on the type of things people study in these fields. They're not random opinions of an individual.[/quote]It's only the first definition that even hints at anything random happening. The second doesn't mention randomness at all. I think we're getting somewhere because that's been my point all along - something doesn't necessarily have to be random to be arbitrary.

Psychology is objectively and substantively different from computer science. I don't think you'd find any reasonable person who disagrees. It's not individual judgment or preference.
Click to expand...

It's not? Psychology and computer science is a bad example, but let's ignore that for now. How do those fields even exist separately? Obviously because people have decided it that way. In other words, human preference!
 
They exist because their are meaningful differences that most everyone would agree upon. So yeah, maybe it's human preference in a broad sense to organize knowledge based on distinct and agreed upon differences between fields. Though I don't even by that. There are real differences, not made up differences.

But even if conceding that that's not "individual judgment or preference" which is what the second definition states. It's a society wide agreement on divisions because they make common sense.

But it's time to agree to disagree as this is beyond pointless. I have no desire to discuss things with people that can't even grasp clear differences between things.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']They exist because their are meaningful differences that most everyone would agree upon. So yeah, maybe it's human preference in a broad sense to organize knowledge based on distinct and agreed upon differences between fields. Though I don't even by that. There are real differences, not made up differences.[/quote]

Of course there are meaningful differences that most everyone would agree upon, but the exact set of fields and the exact way they're organized is not something most everyone would agree upon...even only among professors!

But even if conceding that that's not "individual judgment or preference" which is what the second definition states. It's a society wide agreement on divisions because they make common sense.
Click to expand...
The point is that humans came up with it, not how many of them did.
I have no desire to discuss things with people that can't even grasp clear differences between things.
Click to expand...
Well, I could have said that about you when all this time you didn't understand the differences between the two definitions of "arbitrary"...but now you almost do, so great.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Of course there are meaningful differences that most everyone would agree upon, but the exact set of fields and the exact way they're organized is not something most everyone would agree upon...even only among professors!
[/QUOTE]

Sure and that's why things change and new majors emerge etc. etc. It's not a static set of fields or a static organization (though I think the organization is very logical personally and wouldn't change much of anything). And if humans didn't come up with it, who would? Things like area of study have to be arranged some how, and the University system has done a damn fine job IMO.

But we can agree to disagree yet again. As I have hardly any gripes about the University system. I think it works great obviously, or I wouldn't have spent 11 years as a student and plan to spend pretty much the rest of my life as faculty. :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure and that's why things change and new majors emerge etc. etc. It's not a static set of fields or a static organization (though I think the organization is very logical personally and wouldn't change much of anything). And if humans didn't come up with it, who would? Things like area of study have to be arranged some how,[/quote]

It sure is relatively static. That's how it works. Humans could of course come up with alternatives using different processes.

and the University system has done a damn fine job IMO.
Click to expand...

How would you know? How can you be sure it's done a damn fine job without being aware of any possible alternatives?

But we can agree to disagree yet again. As I have hardly any gripes about the University system. I think it works great obviously, or I wouldn't have spent 11 years as a student and plan to spend pretty much the rest of my life as faculty. :D
Click to expand...

Well I'm not saying nobody likes it. The system benefits you so it makes sense that you like it. But that's not a good reason from my perspective to defend it when it's screwing over a lot of people.
 
I'll do something I rarely do and let you have the last word here. :D

You have issues with the University system and how it's structure and I think it's fantastic and I'm not going to budge on that, so nothing more to discuss.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'll do something I rarely do and let you have the last word here. :D

You have issues with the University system and how it's structure and I think it's fantastic and I'm not going to budge on that, so nothing more to discuss.[/QUOTE]

Spoken like a true conservative. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top