We Stopped Dreaming (Neil deGrasse Tyson)

[orogenicman]

When NASA put men on the moon it wasn't just seen as a victory for the US. It was seen as a victory for all of humanity.

Remind me, is this a scientific fact or nationalistic hyperbole?

I get the point entirely and I see the damage it can do (and is doing). I personally think this is exactly the kind of egotistical nonsense that will undermine genuine, disinterested scientific discovery.


MM

Except that NASA is no longer simply about "national egos". NASA partners with many international agencies from Europe, Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The ISS would not have happened were it not for those partnerships. Neither would Cassini, Hubble, Curiosity, even the Shuttle, and many other space projects. And we aren't going to get to Mars and elsewhere by ourselves. Those are the facts on the ground. Moreover, NASA isn't just abut outer space anymore. Its outreach to schools all over the world inspires children to get into stem science fields. And there is nothing disingenuous about that.

[ManMachine]

Remind me, is this a scientific fact or nationalistic hyperbole?

I get the point entirely and I see the damage it can do (and is doing). I personally think this is exactly the kind of egotistical nonsense that will undermine genuine, disinterested scientific discovery.

Former Soviet space official on US moon landing:

SAGDEEV: I think, as many other Soviets, we had mixed feelings. There was some sadness to know that we were not anymore space leaders. But I think at the same time I think overwhelming feeling that Armstrong and all the steps down on the moon surface was on behalf of all of us too. On behalf of all the humankind.

http://www.theworld.org/2009/07/former-s...n-landing/

Although I missed the televised landing and it was years before I saw the footage of the actual landing, I was deeply moved by the rejoicing of people around the world who viewed the accomplishment not so much as an American feat but as a giant step for humanity. "They" felt part of the "we" who put the men on the moon and all identified with the astronauts as human beings.July 20, 1996 was a day on which the world took a giant leap toward unity.

http://www.wherewereyou.com/frames/intl.html

The "success of America" is a "success for every living man" asserted the Swahili-language Ngurumo of Dar as Salaam.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/17...2539216923

The flight of Apollo 11 met with an ecstatic reaction around the globe, as everyone shared in the success of the astronauts. The front pages of newspapers everywhere suggested how strong the enthusiasm was. NASA estimated that because of nearly worldwide radio and television coverage, more than half the population of the planet was aware of the events of Apollo 11.

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/history/apollo-1...the-world/

Are you suggesting selective anecdotal commentating is 'scientific fact'?


MM

[Esquilax]

Are you suggesting selective anecdotal commentating is 'scientific fact'?


MM

Are you suggesting that a primarily subjective emotion like pride can ever properly be measured outside of subjective accounts? What we call, in the science biz, self reporting?

[ManMachine]

---

Remind me, is this a scientific fact or nationalistic hyperbole?

I get the point entirely and I see the damage it can do (and is doing). I personally think this is exactly the kind of egotistical nonsense that will undermine genuine, disinterested scientific discovery.


MM

---

Except that NASA is no longer simply about "national egos". NASA partners with many international agencies from Europe, Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The ISS would not have happened were it not for those partnerships. Neither would Cassini, Hubble, Curiosity, even the Shuttle, and many other space projects. And we aren't going to get to Mars and elsewhere by ourselves. Those are the facts on the ground. Moreover, NASA isn't just abut outer space anymore. Its outreach to schools all over the world inspires children to get into stem science fields. And there is nothing disingenuous about that.

I didn't say there was, I said egotistical nonsense undermines disinterested scientific endeavour. It's a point about the limiting effects of anthropocentrism in science.


MM

---

Are you suggesting selective anecdotal commentating is 'scientific fact'?


MM

Are you suggesting that a primarily subjective emotion like pride can ever properly be measured outside of subjective accounts? What we call, in the science biz, self reporting?

No, I'm saying it has no part in disinterested scientific endeavour, how are you not getting this?

MM

[Rahul]

Are you suggesting selective anecdotal commentating is 'scientific fact'?

No, human emotional reactions are never scientific fact. Never. On anything.

It is historical fact how people reacted to the Apollo moon landings.

You do understand the difference, do you not?

[Esquilax]

No, I'm saying it has no part in disinterested scientific endeavour, how are you not getting this?

MM

Maybe because there's no such thing. All of scientific endeavor comes through the same channels as all other human endeavor; the emotions. We're emotional creatures, they're the things that inspire us to reach new heights. In science one tries to rein in those passions so that they don't infect the results of experimentation, but you're here attacking the motives for doing science at all.

They're the same motives as for anything else. You shouldn't want the people developing the ideas and technology of the future to be doing so just for a paycheck.

[orogenicman]

Except that NASA is no longer simply about "national egos". NASA partners with many international agencies from Europe, Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The ISS would not have happened were it not for those partnerships. Neither would Cassini, Hubble, Curiosity, even the Shuttle, and many other space projects. And we aren't going to get to Mars and elsewhere by ourselves. Those are the facts on the ground. Moreover, NASA isn't just abut outer space anymore. Its outreach to schools all over the world inspires children to get into stem science fields. And there is nothing disingenuous about that.

I didn't say there was, I said egotistical nonsense undermines disinterested scientific endeavour. It's a point about the limiting effects of anthropocentrism in science.

I know what you said. But when I look at what NASA has done and is doing, I fail to see any connection whatsoever with your claim. Perhaps you should be more specific in what you mean. Just a suggestion.