what do you think of astronomy?

[Mozza444]

It's the only chance for long-term human survival, so... go for it. And be quick about it.

It's honestly this simple.
There's no real point in debating over other factors, if we as a species wish to survive for as long as possible we must become spacefaring.

There is a really good Carl Sagan quote somewhere that says what I did... but better.

Edit:

Spoiler: Found it...

 

[Ieyke]

Well?

Okay, so I'll preface that. What has it done for mankind? Personally as a person with libertarian type views, I think it's done remarkably well to be as successful as it is, considering all the public funding it receives, but that's hardly a commendation. Also to be fair, astronomy is NOT a completely government based science only used to attract the eye of the public, as many on my side have tried to say. Not at all, in fact many private industries rely on the discoveries of NASA just as much and the government relies on them to distract us in America... which let?s be honest NASA isn't a good tool for that anymore... and I'm sure the conspiracy theories write themselves on that, considering that they're having funding issues right now...

Anyway, yes I?m aware of cell phones and that the connection I have right now is? well a cable connection, but DSL was a big deal for a while so there?s that. I?m more talking about the exploration of Jupiter and constantly trying to figure out the age of the universe by looking at the stars and spending so much on mega telescopes (yes, I know that?s not what they?re called) to find new stars. What do you think it does for us? Or do you kind of doubt its necessity, or maybe even wonder if we should be leaving well enough alone in many cases (like on black hole experiments)?

Astronomy is one of the most important things mankind does. /end

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Its necessary for our survival as a species. Earth will not last forever... hell Earth might not last 2 Billion more years ( http://www.kurzweilai.net/earths-habitable-lifetime-at-least-1-75-billion-years-say-astrobiologists )

We can move to Mars, which will be in the habitable zone by then, then we'll need colony ships. Astronomy is very important. Even without doomsday spacial effects can change our weather patterns or even knock out power. Its just a good idea to keep up with astronomy.

Then you have me, who is one of the many individuals who constantly asks "Why?". I believe the answer to some of life's deepest secrets lie in Astronomy and space science in general. Its like... lets say you had a puzzle, with no box. You have no idea what the picture is suppose to be. Astronomy is kind of the picture on the box, if we look hard enough.

 

[Torkuda]

...So you're saying to shorten our horizons. Good to know you don't like progress.

I also like how you go "What has astronomy done for me other than goddamn telecommunication sattilies, GPS and other such technological wonders." That alone should be enough. You never know what crap comes out of researching something, no matter how trivial it seems. Astroglide was made by a NASA engineer after failing to make a coolant for the shuttle or some such thing. Shit's weird yo.

I'm glad you have no say in the matter. You'd hold us down for the short term gain.

I love how I made no allusions to wanting to shut anything down at all anywhere anytime, but because I dared to ask AT ALL about it's usefulness, and even admitted to being aware of some usefullness, I'm ignorant, holding back mankind and because I dare to doubt that we know what we say we do, questions about me being a religious zealot need to be brought up (by others). Yea, whether or not it is, folks wonder why people like me are starting to wonder about science becoming another religion.

 

[McMullen]

We haven't even managed to leave the solar system and we have folks convinced that we know precisely what happened during the first ten seconds of the universe six trillion years ago, and declaring you uneducated when you say "yea... no.". I'm sorry, but can we NOT make scientists the new gods?

While there's nothing wrong with questioning scientific discoveries/ideas/knowledge of your day (this is how science gets done after all), doing so while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of what they actually are is kind of silly. Not only do you not seem to know or care what the actual ideas of our time are, you can't even be bothered to look up the bottom line of what they say (for example, a simple, easily-found number like the age of the universe), while suggesting that people who make this sort of thing their life's work have no better an idea than you, or anyone with similar disinterest in doing actual work instead making stuff up.

I imagine your response to that might be that scientists make stuff up too. That's certainly the case in the movies. But movies aren't a reliable source of information on how things actually work. Actual scientists know that making stuff up is a good way to end your career, or get denied your degree. The whole point of a thesis defense in grad school is for you to demonstrate that you can do sound research that does not rely on assumptions or oversimplifications. If you make stuff up or base your work on assumptions without doing any actual research on what current thinking actually is, you won't even make it to the defense before people find out and ask you to leave. That's actually how and why most non-mainstream ideas get dismissed; people didn't do their research. Same goes for ideas from outside academia that try to compete with those from within. Those that survive close scrutiny become the new mainstream, as long as politics don't get in the way. Even then, given enough time, people eventually come around.

More on-topic, for one thing, NASA's budget is a tiny part of the federal budget, and astronomy is a tiny part of that. You may want to refer to this chart: http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-9329&y=-2031&z=6

I know that on the surface (pun actually not intended), space might seem like a long way from here and of little importance, but that's because you haven't taken the time to learn much about it, or what there is to study, or what there is to use there. I work with people who use satellite-based remote sensing data to predict whether there will be enough water to feed people both domestically and abroad, or enough shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico to keep the coastal economy going. I use it to improve warning information on natural hazards. Some of these people are worried about what's going to start happening to our ability to track hurricanes when our current satellites go offline, which they will soon, without any firm plans to replace them.

A more dramatic example of what use astronomy is is also the most ridiculous. It's 2013 now, 19 years after Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter (wow, I feel old now) and we've known about the threat of impacts for all this time, yet we still have no realistic plan to set up an adequate early-warning and mitigation system for asteroid impacts. Most discoveries of dangerous objects sound like this: "Oh, good thing that asteroid we discovered as it passed by didn't hit us". We had one of those a couple weeks ago. Earlier this year the Russians got a "Good thing that asteroid that we discovered as it exploded above our heads wasn't bigger". This state of affairs is shameful, and part of the reason we find ourselves in it is because astronomy and space science are at the mercy of people who don't know what it is or what it's good for.

 

[Torkuda]

We haven't even managed to leave the solar system and we have folks convinced that we know precisely what happened during the first ten seconds of the universe six trillion years ago, and declaring you uneducated when you say "yea... no.". I'm sorry, but can we NOT make scientists the new gods?

While there's nothing wrong with questioning scientific discoveries/ideas/knowledge of your day (this is how science gets done after all), doing so while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of what they actually are is kind of silly. Not only do you not seem to know or care what the actual ideas of our time are, you can't even be bothered to look up the bottom line of what they say (for example, a simple, easily-found number like the age of the universe), while suggesting that people who make this sort of thing their life's work have no better an idea than you, or anyone with similar disinterest in doing actual work instead making stuff up.

I imagine your response to that might be that scientists make stuff up too. That's certainly the case in the movies. But movies aren't a reliable source of information on how things actually work. Actual scientists know that making stuff up is a good way to end your career, or get denied your degree. The whole point of a thesis defense in grad school is for you to demonstrate that you can do sound research that does not rely on assumptions or oversimplifications. If you make stuff up or base your work on assumptions without doing any actual research on what current thinking actually is, you won't even make it to the defense before people find out and ask you to leave. That's actually how and why most non-mainstream ideas get dismissed; people didn't do their research. Same goes for ideas from outside academia that try to compete with those from within. Those that survive close scrutiny become the new mainstream, as long as politics don't get in the way. Even then, given enough time, people eventually come around.

More on-topic, for one thing, NASA's budget is a tiny part of the federal budget, and astronomy is a tiny part of that. You may want to refer to this chart: http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-9329&y=-2031&z=6

I know that on the surface (pun actually not intended), space might seem like a long way from here and of little importance, but that's because you frankly don't know that much about it, or what there is to study, or what there is to use there. I work with people who use satellite-based remote sensing data to predict whether there will be enough water to feed people both domestically and abroad, or enough shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico to keep the coastal economy going. I use it to improve warning information on natural hazards. Some of these people are worried about what's going to start happening to our ability to track hurricanes when our current satellites go offline, which they will soon, without any firm plans to replace them.

A more dramatic example of what use astronomy is is also the most ridiculous. It's 2013 now, 19 years after Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter (wow, I feel old now) and we've known about the threat of impacts for all this time, yet we still have no realistic plan to set up an adequate early-warning and mitigation system for asteroid impacts. Most discoveries of dangerous objects sound like this: "Oh, good thing that asteroid we discovered as it passed by didn't hit us". We had one of those a couple weeks ago. Earlier this year the Russians got a "Good thing that asteroid that we discovered as it exploded above our heads wasn't bigger". This state of affairs is shameful, and part of the reason we find ourselves in it is because astronomy and space science are at the mercy of people who don't know what it is or what it's good for.

And here is my actual response.

"Holy shit! I never realized how ignorant I was being by saying everything you said I said... oh wait, I said almost nothing you said I said so... the crap am I supposed to get from this?"

AGAIN, and let me caplock this (can't bold it for some reason) for the next guy to not read: I NEVER SAID I WANTED ANYTHING SHUTDOWN, I JUST BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT IN A TONGUE AND CHEEK MANNER. Honestly I thought I was being mean to the guys who don't support the space program by calling them conspiracy theorists, and even down on myself as listing myself as moving in their circles.

I also never said what I do or don't know or even believe to much of an extent. You want to actually look up the theory about what happened during the first ten seconds of the universe? I read the theory in my college astronomy book, understood it, got basically how it was arrived at and... yea, religious folks spend their whole lives making theologies and philosophies too, doesn't mean I gotta believe them either. They might know more about their craft in general, but sorry, being smart doesn't make you right and it certainly doesn't mean you can't over reach.

Aside from the accusations of heresy, actually I already acknowledged the general usefulness of satellites and NASA's budget is not the subject of this thread, good reading there! I'm not even writing in that complex of a manner.

I really need to stop trying to get scientific or political discussions here. Everyone is too eager for a straw man fight.

 

[Torkuda]

Oh I know what everyone is getting pissy about! Six Trillion is not the current believed age is it? My text book from a few years ago said that (though maybe it said billion, as it seems unlikely that the theories would have changed that much in such a short time) which is not the current theory. I'm sorry, for all you who got butt hurt over me not saying it right, fifteen billion. Happy now?

 

[o_O]

Usually when people ask about somethings usefulness, they tend to want to axe it. They see it as a waste. So I don't find the conclusions people are jumping to to be strange. Also, maybe it's just the tone, but you seemed dismissive of astronomy and other such space related sciences; that might be firing people up too.

Also, who gives a shit if some of the crap is wrong, or disproven, or goes out of date. We go nowhere if we stand still. We must move forward. The half life of facts is a thing we know about, you know. That doesn't stop us from continuing on.

And as for science being another religion... It does not rely on stagnation and dogma. You are never told to believe anything really. Questioning is welcome; you just need a basis for it. I know of no religion that works like that. Seriously, if you know one, do tell.

 

[McMullen]

snip

And here is my actual response.

"Holy shit! I never realized how ignorant I was being by saying everything you said I said... oh wait, I said almost nothing you said I said so... the crap am I supposed to get from this?"

AGAIN, and let me caplock this (can't bold it for some reason) for the next guy to not read: I NEVER SAID I WANTED ANYTHING SHUTDOWN, I JUST BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT IN A TONGUE AND CHEEK MANNER. Honestly I thought I was being mean to the guys who don't support the space program by calling them conspiracy theorists, and even down on myself as listing myself as moving in their circles.

I also never said what I do or don't know or even believe to much of an extent. You want to actually look up the theory about what happened during the first ten seconds of the universe? I read the theory in my college astronomy book, understood it, got basically how it was arrived at and... yea, religious folks spend their whole lives making theologies and philosophies too, doesn't mean I gotta believe them either. They might know more about their craft in general, but sorry, being smart doesn't make you right and it certainly doesn't mean you can't over reach.

Aside from the accusations of heresy, actually I already acknowledged the general usefulness of satellites and NASA's budget is not the subject of this thread, good reading there! I'm not even writing in that complex of a manner.

I really need to stop trying to get scientific or political discussions here. Everyone is too eager for a straw man fight.

I did read the part where you talked about satellites. Thing is, they're tied pretty heavily to astronomy. Aside from the prerequisite knowledge for getting into space, the same instruments used to monitor the Earth are often based off of efforts to monitor other planets. What you're calling astronomy and the space-based technologies we use in our everyday lives are pretty closely linked; I'm pretty sure the continued health of one depends to a large extent on the health of the other.

I actually was not really interested in getting into a religion vs. science debate. I mentioned it because you did, and because you claimed they were equally viable. But since you bring it up again... It's not a matter of being smart, it's a matter of whether you check your results against the real world. I believe that science and religion are not equally viable methods for offering explanations of the universe because one checks their results and one does not. If you claim that the problem with science and religion is smug people proclaiming they know things they actually don't, then science is actually likely to suffer less from this problem than religion because it has a mechanism to deal specifically with that problem. The success rate is far from perfect, but the mechanism at least exists.

Are you saying I accused you of heresy? Where? The 6 trillion as opposed to 13-14 billion thing? 6 trillion is such a large difference from a few billions that it seemed chosen at random for having an "illion" at the end. If you got that figure from your education, then I apologize for accusing you of talking about things you didn't know about. However, I don't accuse anyone of heresy. There are well-supported ideas and poorly-supported ideas. To call an idea heresy is to abandon the scientific method. It has happened, of course, and it has caused some of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of science, which is why I don't do it. If you would like people to respond to the things you say, and not to the things you don't say, then please do the same.

As for writing in a tongue-and-cheek way, we have the pink font for that specifically because sarcasm does not get conveyed through text, and nothing is too nonsensical to be someone's actual opinion. You shouldn't be surprised or angry if people misinterpret your intent. It sounded like you were questioning whether we should be researching astronomy and spending so much on telescopes. People don't usually say that about something unless they're unhappy that it's getting funding.

 

[Torkuda]

I actually was not really interested in getting into a religion vs. science debate. I mentioned it because you did, and because you claimed they were equally viable. But since you bring it up again... It's not a matter of being smart, it's a matter of whether you check your results against the real world. I believe that science and religion are not equally viable methods for offering explanations of the universe because one checks their results and one does not. If you claim that the problem with science and religion is smug people proclaiming they know things they actually don't, then science is actually likely to suffer less from this problem than religion because it has a mechanism to deal specifically with that problem. The success rate is far from perfect, but the mechanism at least exists.

Are you saying I accused you of heresy? Where? The 6 trillion as opposed to 13-14 billion thing? 6 trillion is such a large difference from a few billions that it seemed chosen at random for having an "illion" at the end. If you got that figure from your education, then I apologize for accusing you of talking about things you didn't know about. However, I don't accuse anyone of heresy. There are well-supported ideas and poorly-supported ideas. To call an idea heresy is to abandon the scientific method. It has happened, of course, and it has caused some of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of science, which is why I don't do it. If you would like people to respond to the things you say, and not to the things you don't say, then please do the same.

As for writing in a tongue-and-cheek way, we have the pink font for that specifically because sarcasm does not get conveyed through text, and nothing is too nonsensical to be someone's actual opinion. You shouldn't be surprised or angry if people misinterpret your intent. It sounded like you were questioning whether we should be researching astronomy and spending so much on telescopes. People don't usually say that about something unless they're unhappy that it's getting funding.

I was NOT equating religion and science, and I refuse to deliberate my views on that subject. I was saying I don't believe every idea that comes along just because someone has a better education than me in one subject or another.

I said "heresy" because the way I'm being attacked right now is reminiscent of the way I would be attacked if I questioned religious views on a religious forum. Attacked, immediately, without cause, without really knowing what I believe (and frankly not caring), by making things up about me or what I actually said to make me sound bad or to bait me into a discussion folks were more prepared for, (ie, trying to get me to discuss religion on a board that is largely atheist).

The fact is I did not bring up religion, and actually, I refuse to discuss it here as I see very little chance of a mature conversation about it. I was referring to the unquestioning nature of some people to believe scientists, simply because they are scientists. That's why I called them the "new gods". That was a rather atheistic statement to be honest as it wasn't very favorable of current views on gods. But go ahead, discuss creationism and evolutionism, as I'm pretty sure you're chomping at the bit to do. I will NOT participate at that point, but have fun.


Truth is, when you stopped trying to make me out to be the scientist equivalent of a heretic, you actually had some interesting points. Alright, I'll scratch having to throw out satellite based advancements. Let's discuss those as well.

Also I WAS questioning why we should spend so much on telescopes, but ya know what? Just asking does not constitute wanting them shut down. I don't want that to be honest. This is a topic of interest hoping to get some ideas going. I'm not really learning much right now save for why I shouldn't bring up science here.

 

[McMullen]

Truth is, when you stopped trying to make me out to be the scientist equivalent of a heretic

Well, I'm not sure why you continue to say I did that after I explained why I did not and would not. I don't know why you say I'm attacking you; I'm disagreeing with you and telling you why. Attacking you would, I imagine, involve comments about your character or your family rather than what you say, and would likely lead to my getting banned.

I've had people on this forum give me threats against my physical well-being. That is an attack. Disagreeing with someone is not; it's a discussion or an argument, which is the purpose of this forum.

But go ahead, discuss creationism and evolutionism, as I'm pretty sure you're chomping at the bit to do.

I've made no mention of those things in this thread, and have no interest in discussing them now. And while I am interested in discussing other things, we keep going in this absurd circle where, among other things, you accuse me of accusing you of things I explain would be against my principles to accuse someone of. There's no reason to continue putting time into this thread.

 

[MrFalconfly]

You...you...uninformed person. I tried to rationalise this hate for religion but clearly it is irrational. How can you not realise that Astronomy was founded by Islam!

Ehm. Sure Astrometry (the tracking, and categorizing of stars and other celestial objects) was pioneered by Scientists in the Middle East.

But Astrometry is just one branch of Astronomy. The branch we today usually study is Astrophysics which I'm pretty sure was non-existent back then (I'm fairly certain that if you'd told anyone back then that the tiny glowing dots in the sky where colossal nuclear furnaces, creating every element known to us, and occasionally they explode leaving behind a large debris cloud and a fast spinning ball of Neutrons so dense, a teaspoon would weigh the equivalent of a mountain chain, you'd be laughed at back then).

Sure we still do research in Astrometry (that's how we figure out how the sun moves through the Milky way), I mean Gaia is an upcoming ESA sat that'll track stars to an unprecedented degree.

Personally I find Astronomy to be the most fascinating of Natural Sciences because so we don't posses a Lab that can test our theories to such an extreme degree as the Universe itself. Heck even GRB's (Massive explosions in space so energetic they glow in Gamma Rays, meaning really frikkin' hot) put Einsteins Theory of Relativity to the test. So does the colossal masses of Galaxy Clusters. If you want to test your theory in Nuclear Physics you have to either utilize the LHC or if that's too weak your only option is Astronomy.

Besides we don't know when Earth kicks the bucket. Better to spread your proverbial eggs as much as possible.

 

[Yuuki]

I love astronomy in all it's wonder, the entire reason man progressed beyond sitting in caves is because he looked up at the stars and pondered "what am I looking at?". Astronomy existed thousands of years ago (mapping stars), it's all heavily tied with science as we know it.

Asking "why do we spend so much on it?" is a bit of a silly question because that same question can be applied to a million other "wasteful" things we spend money on. It's about progress in the long term, filling holes in our knowledge, the thirst of curiosity, etc. It shouldn't really need explaining.

 

[Nomad]

It's rather pointless to argue the economic benefits of a field of research on a global level, as economics is a social construct. Money has no intrinsic value beyond that which it is assigned by humanity, and hence all arguments about the economic value of global phenomena become tautologies. It is valuable because we decided it is, and it has the exact value we decided it should have because that's the value we gave it. If we shift the argument to utility rather than economic value, it instead becomes a matter of perspective - utility for whom? Utility is a fundamentally subjective concept, and the utility I get from the fuzzy feeling I get watching the stars (or knowing someone else is doing it) is bound to differ from that of others. On a practical level, I guess you could make an educated guess as to the general utility of a phenomenon by judging its place in society. Astronomy seems rather well-positioned in this regard, so I would probably conclude that it's useful. On a personal level, I would consider knowledge to have an intrinsic value of its own. Astronomy gives us knowledge, and knowledge is valuable, so astronomy is valuable.

Of course they are. All works are derivative of something else. Heck, you cannot credit us for the number zero and decimals since they come from India anyway. That's not a bad thing. Science is an important aspect of islam and you cannot discredit our involvement in modern science. Muslims deserve to be involved in scientific discussions without being attacked like this. This is dehumanising.
-Zekilk

Another reason for not crediting you for the number zero and decimals is that you had nothing to do with it. The people who did died hundreds of years ago. Credit where credit is due, and it is not with you. Note also that something being invented in an islamic society does not automatically make it an islamic invention. Nor does being invented by a muslim. It is only an islamic invention if it is actually directly and primarily tied to islamic theory or practise, which is very seldom the case. This also applies to any other supposedly religious inventions, by the way. What you plausibly could credit islam for is providing a social context that helped facilitate scientific discoveries. Note also that this is then being credited to islam, not to muslims. At a stretch, you could give credit to the muslims that were alive at the time (or slightly earlier), located within the relevant geographical, cultural and political context, and were actively or passively aiding scientific efforts.

All work being derivative of something else is also debatable. Science is not cumulative by nature, it is cumulative by social construction. Social constructs are subject to change. It should also be noted that "all work" being derivative of something else is a logical impossibility - something had to be the first at some point. That's more of a nitpick with regards to your initial claim, however - in practise, most knowledge is indeed built on the foundation of previous knowledge.

Asking "why do we spend so much on it?" is a bit of a silly question because that same question can be applied to a million other "wasteful" things we spend money on.

Yep. Not the least of which is the Escapist.