Where to Invest in Science ?

RE  A first for Q&A   ABCTV --a  panel of scientists

Result : a great and stimulating education session - real Q&A
Response : must have more of them !

The short version for the political process
Same as always ;

• PCM ( Physics , Chemistry and Maths )

Finally Q&A have done what they should have done years ago -
Proper respect for authority : Let scientists speak --instead of letting  non-scientists speak for them.
Corollary : Be suspicious of researchers responding to recent problems ,Side products of the above pure sciences ( PCM remain the essential building blocks  -  Doherty !)Accept that the  key to sound investment in science is NOT in picking winners or suddenly answering often intractable problems . Dohery's point about "duty of care" rather than "chasing the hare" must be observed . Real progress is slower than many want to know 

We have lots of shells....... but maybe no wheels

Qualification: Considering that way Q&A commonly confuses , it would have been great if the scientists on the panel got together before the Q&A session so they could make a more unified case for a way forward on what to do to sell science. we scientists can be longwinded when audience should get it SIMPLE.

Surprisingly none of thepanel mentioned  the fact that the amount of research money being dissipated in the name of science is now a huge problem . Its so bad that the anathema of "recent" as adjective to research reports  on media is NOT as as it should be---- a reason to suspect it .

After all ,All on panel KNOW good research is built in/from a big stable building . The results are not to the credit of a bright appendage but the stale old insitution .( even robot classes in high school)
The one thing they agreed on ( Physics, Chemistry Maths and Stable research/teaching  houses )  is he thing that Polys too must insist on .
Environmental research has been dissipated by polys giving them constant name changes and them stupidly trying to pick a better boundary than they do for theory and applied - Its parliaments problem.  
 People doing Stats on the latest theory of disadvantage and social science cause and effect need the discipline of tough maths and a history of study in the organisation .
My questions .
1, Why did we miss opportunity to hit hard and cleanly .Why didn't Chubb call for  a consensus on this before the meeting, he knows the problem but did not insist on the first element of a solution ( as much agreement about it as is human possible) Gong on the decades its taken to get such a productive and stimulating debate by real scientists this could be ( we hope not )  be a preliminary to a good conference of this the  rarest of opportunities in Monday nights entertainment.
2 The opportunity to promote the positives lost,The concept of vision well put by a few . An example : We have had for thirty years the chance to sell sound development and environment policy to the world - but its being eroded by a whole of careless bickering by a whole range of people who only know enough science to be dangerous . If that's YOU take scientists who know their stuff seriously and mind your own business and theirs!
Other questions
These subjects were always hard so what's changed since these people were inspired to do pure science?

1. Science talk has become so popular that people who don't actually practice try to do it . Doherty was very clear and correct on these basic principles which means basic science must be supported at the expense of many of the namers and gamers ( Biology , sports) . The experts were agreed - if we have the choice,  leave the science rewards and winner pickers  to someone else .
2. We should be proud of the narrow and prime  focus given to Physics  Chemistry and Maths in The 1970's and 1980's .(the people on stage were only a few of many AUSSIES  who have built well on PCM base insisted on before we let science go feral
3. No use blaming the polys altogether. IF scientists sang with the same tune today the politicians might follow . The tragedy is--- if the trumpet is not sounded clearly - neither the audience or the polys get the real message . KISS stupid 

What do polys really know about solving another countries problems

Maybe the World Wars mightn't have started or lasted as long  if armies and polys weren't driven  to  jump in with solutions to another countries problems at a moments notice .
What is that moment ? That moment is the moment we hoped would never happen. When governments leave it till its too late to do anything else . Clearly prevention and understanding would help as would early intervention based on that knowledge ,

Does that knowledge exist ? PROBABLY somewhere. 

Do polys know it? . Not according to their inaction before the moment or there lack of logic at the moment .  

lets go to Today.
Iraq intervention crisis     The Code words are bolded but are they magic or what?
 Hon Julie Bishop  (Australia) thinks we can educate young people to not be radicalised , the presumption is that the young people are dumb and easily led . Well maybe a few  but you only have hope for changing their minds if you really understand what is on their minds and don't treat them as dumb . Poly 1 lost the point. 

Secretary of State for the USA( America)  says he looking for best practice as if the only way to solve problems is with some sort of sacred process ( modelled by industrywe presume but definitely as technological fix  ) . People are not machines my friend . Go back and talk to each other and people on the ground or observers before you offend thinking people  with a label -- like Julie's  Poly 2 lost the point

The family at war with itself needs more than anything else--- understanding from outsiders . Their home is being wrecked and they probably really don't know why . Australia and America   at least have some idea of where of home might be in the future because they have people who understand about sheep, cropping and retailing. Never is  a better time for objectivity,,  but who is helping our polys ACT early on this ?

Some say  wars would never trouble the West if the determinists had  there way . I say its them that prevent early intervention , so their simple ideas are more of a problem than they or those hiding in closets like to think.

1. The determinists amongst us hope that if the fight is about too many people trying to live on the one patch,  the problem would go away if they just killed each other .
2. the determinists would have it that if we can stay away , the problem will go away . The Germans nearly had their way because the determinists  nearly got their way in the good old USA in the 1940's 
3. the determinists treat people as expendable . Most countries can be fun to live in if they respect every one in them and use them to do something. Which side are the ideologues of the West on?  

No such blinkered faith is  for us - we have a tradition of trying to talk things through out of respect for people made in the image of God . That works .
OK so if we accept as the USA are NOW saying that its not about military intervention--- what is about ?
The advantage we have for a warring country/ countries is we can be a bit objective about what they are fighting over ; yet the dumb idea of the democrats is to pretend that if we give them elections they will suddenly stop fighting and they will have a wonderful thing called a democracy . Culture control is such a poor substitute for real respect ( which we need to model better)  .
So don't ever run that quick fix crap again.
 Are the fighters who come from Australia being radicalised? 
No it is  not just simply that  ; Julia's false assumption is that religions create a haze ( thats 'easily removed ) when it in reality the framework in a world view is impossible to easily shift - it often creates clarity in confusion ( it still may not work but it is attractive when people are desperate for answers )  The young people on SBS last night  have their minds switched on and until you talk about the realities of arguments in their own country,  they are not going to listen.like the determinists is ignoring the critical role that worldview can and must play .Talk of " values ' just doesn't cut it when war is on - infact why talk at all ? Listening works better .
Our boys went to war when there was nothing better to do back home . They are doing the  same,

 What we can do to help them  is to help  find an economy ( not a political system ) that works . They don't know it but their commitment to the land issue  is not helping them  find new homes. The fact that the West can't see that means both Outsiders and  Insiders are in a fog over what is happening and what to do about it !      The  West has lost its zest for intervention and dumb determinism must share some blame


The problem is as big in the West as it is in the east .
If you are wise you stay out ; If you are really wise,  you watch closely . If you are really really wise you wait ; , If you are really really really really wise you wait and act in the moment you choose - not the one the world chooses for you .

What starts wrong goes wrong quicker  The problem is perspective and the solution is perspective ; Neither side have any but one side SHOULD HAVE it  .



 I have clearly not considered all the matters - hardly one.

An inconvenient moment

The Tony and Clive Show on ABC's Lateline program  25 June 2014
For a change Tony Jones seemed lost,  and like the audience there was this sense that nothing was making sense. Tony ,as usual,  was asking a lot of questions and the one he wanted answered , even though he said it directly , wasn't really answered.
Is Tony dumb or has the value of asking a dumb question diminished?
No , dumb questions are always fine,  though they risk wasting time and making the author look dumb- its fine because,  like democracy we learn by waiting and being interrupted by the inefficiencies of weird interactions of faith, reason and approaching dead ends.  I like taking such risks with Q's which is one reason i doubt like a scientist before I get on my horse and or speculate wildly like those three horse and destiny bound amigos on the screen last night .
So are we the long suffering audience to understand another beating over the head - one so repetitive and dumb,  retorting of "confidence" between the three hot air merchants .( who don't trust each other - why trust them?)
The dummies have forgotten something .They have their own denial problems and typically project them onto others.
The thing they have in common is  that they all see themselves as powerful.
If we are to believe someone who actually knows something , we would have greater certainty about what the show meant last night . Power corrupts and talking about the invisible corrupts easily and most assuredly . They should all shut up and we should all switch them off ( as we are) Where are the scientists and technology experts on the ABC when you really need them?

Another sobering thought comes too from history. "The greatest evil is done in the name of the best intention" . That doesn't worry Tony Jones,  but being in denial about it may mean he is most vulnerable to it - just as all of us are.
So what do make of last night ? An inconvenient moment of truth projection and denial -- nothing superficial like the hot air merchants want us to believe was the issue  ?



Nothing wrong with dumb questions but Q&A control of questions means the ABC must stop running this pretence of feeding the right ( and conservative s and those who are not mere reactionaries) to the lions on Monday night . Its getting more desperate and less watchable  each week

Here 's proof.  Ask this question yourself Tony to whoever comes on .

"If we (ABC and associated wannabes) haven't been able to convince the public about the dangers of CC after 10 years banging on about  it , why would be bother again tonight? "

Beyond a mere god

Heidigger said only a god could change the world . Chesterton said that if you abolish God the government becomes god . If only we listened to one or both of these old blokes we might not have wasted billions trying to fight the unseen enemy CC  .  If only the Roman emperors could see the foolishness of their worries about the people worshipping an unseen God .
Modern progressives are living in a dream and have proven that despite spending billions { of money that was not their own) to try to force the public to lower carbon emissions ; the strategy they chose (carbon tax and market mechanisms)

They should have listened to and studied sociology so they knew how difficult it really is to change behaviour ( at what tax percentage markup do you stop smoking ?) A great student of the subject like Ellul.



The individual who burns with desire for action but does not know what to do is a common type in our society. He wants to act for the sake of justice, peace, progress, but does not know how. If propaganda can show him this 'how' then it has won the game; action will surely follow".<sup>[33]:209

Beyond  a mere god - and god worship 

When ABCTV put a panel together of scientists and let them talk we will ignore their selective editing  and 
restrictive solution exploration: we know they have walked out of church in disgust</sup>