16 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyIt's not obvious to me what "thinking like a scientist" means. Outside of politics Churchill is best known as an historian. There isn't that much difference between "thinking in history" and "thinking in science". The telling sentence is this one:
Churchill thinking just like a scientist would be probably be the last thing he would be remembered for. And yet, surprisingly;
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-churchill.html
"At a time when a number of today's politicians shun science, I find it moving to recall a leader who engaged with it so profoundly," Livio wrote in Nature.Mr Trump moved Churchill's bust back into its place in the Whitehouse and so Livio is hoping to move Science up the agenda in the Whitehouse. The problem is that Mr Trump's views on Science depend essentially on whether it is climate science or not. Astrophysics is probably something he is perfectly happy with. It's not that they are anti-science per say, they are just anti-particular fields where the results have policy implications.
16 Feb 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTrump also has to avoid science that is unpopular with his party such as evolutionary science or anything else that challenges the idea of a six thousand year old Earth created as described in Genesis. Astrophysics could be problematic for him.
It's not obvious to me what "thinking like a scientist" means. Outside of politics Churchill is best known as an historian. There isn't that much difference between "thinking in history" and "thinking in science". The telling sentence is this one: [quote]"At a time when a number of today's politicians shun science, I find it moving to recall a leader ...[text shortened]... cience per say, they are just anti-particular fields where the results have policy implications.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, so basically biology, astronomy, geology, history and climate science.
Trump also has to avoid science that is unpopular with his party such as evolutionary science or anything else that challenges the idea of a six thousand year old Earth created as described in Genesis. Astrophysics could be problematic for him.
Ultimately it is science itself that comes under attack by creationists because they would like psudoscience taught in the science classroom.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGranted, but they are ideological issues unlikely to affect profits. Climate science on the other hand is. So while Trump might try to introduce teaching of "intelligent design" theories of creation to school science classes he is unlikely to try to cut funding. Whereas with climate science there's an interest in actually interfering in the field.
Trump also has to avoid science that is unpopular with his party such as evolutionary science or anything else that challenges the idea of a six thousand year old Earth created as described in Genesis. Astrophysics could be problematic for him.
17 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughthttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-science-education-and-schools/
Granted, but they are ideological issues unlikely to affect profits. Climate science on the other hand is. So while Trump might try to introduce teaching of "intelligent design" theories of creation to school science classes he is unlikely to try to cut funding. Whereas with climate science there's an interest in actually interfering in the field.
Trumps education secretary would like to channel funds to non public schools that are less constrained by a science curriculum. So yes, he is likely to cut funding.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was thinking of front line research rather than funding for schools. That policy is more to do with education than science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-science-education-and-schools/
Trumps education secretary would like to channel funds to non public schools that are less constrained by a science curriculum. So yes, he is likely to cut funding.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOK.
I was thinking of front line research rather than funding for schools. That policy is more to do with education than science.
I honestly don't know about funding for research, but I suspect that if it is competing with a business somewhere it will be cut, or if it can be moved to where it can benefit somebodies business, it will be cut. Trump really isn't into long term planning.