Science and Engineering Indicators in America (2014)
From the front matter:
Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) is first and foremost a volume of record comprising the major high-quality quantitative data on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. SEI is factual and policy neutral. It does not offer policy options, and it does not make policy recommendations. SEI employs a variety of presentation styles—tables, figures, narrative text, bulleted text, Web-based links, highlights, introductions, conclusions, reference lists—to make the data accessible to readers with different information needs and different information-processing preferences.
The data are “indicators.” Indicators are quantitative representations that might reasonably be thought to provide summary information bearing on the scope, quality, and vitality of the science and engineering enterprise."
From Chapter 7 about the general public:
"Overall, Americans remain strong believers in the benefits of S&T even while seeing potential risks. Surveys since at least 1979 show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans see the effects of scientific research as more positive than negative for society. In 2012, this included 50% who said they believed the benefits “strongly” outweigh the negatives and 22% who said the benefits slightly outweigh the potential harms (appendix table 7-16). About 7% said science creates more harms than benefits. These numbers are generally consistent with earlier surveys; Americans saying the benefits strongly or slightly outweigh the harmful results have ranged from 68% to 80% since this question was initially asked in the 1970s (figure 7-10).
Americans with more education, income, and scientific knowledge hold a stronger belief in the benefits of science than others. For example, 55% of those who had not completed high school said they believe science does more good than harm, but 89% of those with bachelor’s degrees and 92% of those with graduate degrees expressed this view.
Similarly, 86% of those in the top income quartile saw more benefits than harms from science, whereas 60% of those in the lowest bracket expressed this view. Almost all (87%) of those in the top knowledge quartile said they saw more benefits than harms, but just half (50%) of those in the lowest knowledge quartile gave this response (appendix table 7-16).22
Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) is first and foremost a volume of record comprising the major high-quality quantitative data on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. SEI is factual and policy neutral. It does not offer policy options, and it does not make policy recommendations. SEI employs a variety of presentation styles—tables, figures, narrative text, bulleted text, Web-based links, highlights, introductions, conclusions, reference lists—to make the data accessible to readers with different information needs and different information-processing preferences.
The data are “indicators.” Indicators are quantitative representations that might reasonably be thought to provide summary information bearing on the scope, quality, and vitality of the science and engineering enterprise."
From Chapter 7 about the general public:
"Overall, Americans remain strong believers in the benefits of S&T even while seeing potential risks. Surveys since at least 1979 show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans see the effects of scientific research as more positive than negative for society. In 2012, this included 50% who said they believed the benefits “strongly” outweigh the negatives and 22% who said the benefits slightly outweigh the potential harms (appendix table 7-16). About 7% said science creates more harms than benefits. These numbers are generally consistent with earlier surveys; Americans saying the benefits strongly or slightly outweigh the harmful results have ranged from 68% to 80% since this question was initially asked in the 1970s (figure 7-10).
Americans with more education, income, and scientific knowledge hold a stronger belief in the benefits of science than others. For example, 55% of those who had not completed high school said they believe science does more good than harm, but 89% of those with bachelor’s degrees and 92% of those with graduate degrees expressed this view.
Similarly, 86% of those in the top income quartile saw more benefits than harms from science, whereas 60% of those in the lowest bracket expressed this view. Almost all (87%) of those in the top knowledge quartile said they saw more benefits than harms, but just half (50%) of those in the lowest knowledge quartile gave this response (appendix table 7-16).22
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
However an old scifi collection in one book had a robot whose job was to wear things out. The machine would put on clothes and pick up golf clubs and use them into rags and bent metal scraps then start on the next one. Everyone with humans responsible had a quota to meet in using stuff. things. the punishment for failing was an extra truck load each week ...something like that. The robot factories need the old stuff to melt down and make new stuff.
So where was the programmer who invented a quality control robot whose job was delivering xyz amount of production from factor to the smelters? Well and I may be combining more than one story the programming robot started to fall behind and shortened the distance and standards so the factory became a self perpetuating loop. the wear and tear robot had nothing to do and joined the loop and the humans soon had no clothes!
In the end one little kid just unplugged the machines.
Still out there somewhere in the universe.....No stuff it really didn't happen that way.
I am not really worried about the immediacy of sentient AI when I cannot get an automated vacuum to work for 2 years before it does a circle dance and you have a caps key that sticks. By the time we have sentient AI, I will have a 3D printer than can print weaponized bubonic plague at the push of a button.
I think that man-man interactions, and eventually man-alien interactions will be more perilous than AI.
Jan, likes dogs
Jan
I do not think the nature of humans will change in the post-affluence world. People will still want some type of differentiation as a result of their achievements. I suspect that 'status' or 'renown' will be the coin of exchange when material goods are moot.
Jan
I agree - it does enhance my life. Sorry for being unclear.
Jan
The places where computers can least compete with humans is Innovation and Art. Ayn Rand did not say 'you have to work' she said 'you have to be productive'. When robots take over the work force, humans will either become clients of entertainment (passive or active) or artists or qualitative innovators. Robots will be able to do incremental improvements, but I think it will be a while before they can do innovation.
Example: Robots will be able to do dentistry. They will replace humans in being able to effect all of the common dental practices. But we have just read of experiments (in mice) of getting tooth-buds to germinate new teeth from scratch. That is something New: Would a computer have thought of trying that? Probably not (at least for a Long Time). Humans will do that sort of thinking/experimenting.
Robots eliminate humans? Why would they 'want' to? They have no desires. Does you computer get angry because you misspell the same word every time you type it? Robots have as much desire to eliminate humans as a toaster does.
Jan
So what does it mean to say "humans are obsolete"? I contend that the sentence really means that "human labor is obsolete as a means of producing the goods and services that humans need". Put that way, it doesn't sound so bad. We get goods and services without having to labor to create them.
Some of us like our jobs. I'm taking a break from programming this morning to write this. Other jobs are not so much fun. My youngest brother spent his Christmas Eve roofing a commercial building in the Illinois cold. He didn't find it particularly fulfilling.
We have long lived in a world where you have to work to eat. Or if the liberals get in charge SOMEONE has to work for you to eat. But what if that is no longer true? What if work is no longer a requirement for life but an option for personal fulfillment instead?
It does leave us with some awkward issues with respect to how this computer cornucopia gets distributed, but I think they can be solved.
And while the computers might or might not value art, we always will.
The scientific method is supposed to be formal objectivism (small-o): rational-empiricism, an integration of fact and idea.
I forget who I read, but in science, we no longer have the Journal of Lemarckism, but in philosophy, they do still have the Journal of Platonism, Aristotleanism, etc. One reason that the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is a member of the American Philosophical Society is that they sanction several other Journals of the Dead Philosopher. There is no such thing as the Journal of Einsteinian Relativity or Journal of Darwinian Evolution.
"Self-aware" is the sine qua non, of course. Like "free will" it is impossible to ignore from the inside and difficult to prove to an outsider.
As I said, we have electronic filing of all kinds of legal forms. For all we know, some program already has incorporated herself. Moreover, for security reasons, it is not necessary any more for a prisoner to be physically present in court. Now, we allow televised images of people to be processed by a judge. A computer program could present herself in court.
However, yes, even in my day - and certainly my mother's - high school demanded much more. Realize, however, that even my day - born 1949; HS 1967 - you could drop out after the 9th grade or age 16, whichever came first.
And there were three broad tracks for high school: general, business, and college prep. As in Europe, not everyone was guaranteed the same high school education - or any high school education at all. You hear many, many stories from old times who quit school to support their family when Dad died or otherwise left.
The High School Movement was a result of progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Before that, the best education without college ended at the eighth grade: the one-room schoolhouse. People (men) who went to college did so at 16 back then.
All of that being as it may, of course, government-controlled education is like anything and everything not in and of a free market: Soviet agriculture.
Some inmate won a federal lawsuit that that mandated all states to provide all the legal books an inmate needed to file appeals.
It was located along the east side approach to the shift office.
The same inmates were usually in there. These "writ writers" worked on the behalf of other inmates and were paid with any mix of cigarettes (the standard prison currency), canteen goodies, illegal tattoos and maybe even sex.
Whoa!
While writing the above, recollection of a very small school library creaked out of old dino's memory banks. But it was only restricted to inmates without high school diplomas earning their GED.
Surely those inmates were taught some basic astronomy.
.
.
OK chew that one up. It's just a thought at present but seems to fit the puzzle of why Johnny can't make change when the electricity goes off. Or when it's on.
I got it from a mentor although it had a weak definition. But because I instantly connected with the concept, I gave it a proper definition in my writings.
So rather than you buying my book just to read page 10...I've pasted it below.
Wide- Infinity in all directions
Scope- To extend our mental range and sight to include all vantage points
Accountability- To honestly consider all possibilities and accept responsibility for
all outcomes.
Ok… Now let us define it
To See and Think without Limits, Utilizing all Knowledge; Past, Present and most Probable Future, with Profound Honesty, to consider and Analyze all Possible; Explanations, Outcomes or Solutions, without any preconceived expectations.
A shorter version might be easier to remember, now that you have been exposed to the full meaning: Diligently considering all Possibilities, with Profound Honesty and Objectivity in Dealing with Reality, to solve any Problem or to create any Value.
Without any preconceived expectation is a very important point we will explore further.
Let us examine two concepts presented in the definition.
Accountability: We are all accountable no matter what actions we may choose to take
or not. It is Inherent. LIKE IT OR NOT.
Responsibility: Acceptance of the possibility that you might have to respond
Differently given an Unfavorable or otherwise not as expected
Outcome. You must respond differently given new knowledge
In order to stay in alignment with your intentions.
To effectively use this tool we need:
Dedication to Honesty and Reality: You MUST be honest with yourself therefore you
WILL be Honest with others and deal with Reality,
. Not some Illusion, falsehood or deception .
To fully understand, being profoundly honest with yourself: read; “As a Man Thinketh” by James Allen and “Suppose We Let Civilization Begin” by Richard W. Wetherill
Integrated thought: Using both the right mind and the left mind at the same time.
You know… When the light bulb over your head comes on.
The right Photographic creative mind is that voice in your head,
It speaks for the Subconscious that records everything.
The left logical mind brings order and logic to our thoughts,
Through Speech, our actions and Pen to paper.
I will say the same thing about retirees. We have a lot of time. Many of us use it to 'catch up' in studies and and thinking. No need for Cliff Notes or COS crutches we may go back and re-read assignments in depth - especially thanks to Kindle and Amazon. The working and child rearing years do not allow the time for introspection which is a shame. The answers were needed then. Now I'm thinking of a grave stone engraved with 'He learned....too late.'
Abandoned theories is that another way of saying failed objective testing - which never stops as new information is obtained - therefore are not abandoned but set aside until they can be proven useful? Although some failed theories seem to have a life of their own. Our next governing political system, a continuation of the present one begs the question 'what of the unabandoned failed theories?"
My apologies for the dyslectic fingers. .
The difference is still objectivists may start with an idea and turn into something useful and then something pleasing to the senses. Subjectivists depend on objectivists of which the primary example is nature. Everything in nature meets the 'is it useful' test. The arrogant pathway however is when subjectivist claim ownership of creativity. having never developed it beyond and 'idea' without objectivists who see the need for paint, a brush, a palette, an easel and a medium or perhaps a language. Lacking those 'useful' tools subjectivists are left with no means of expression thus are dominated by nature and objectivism and so it goes for all forms of thought which includes creativity. The next difference is inability to recognize dead ends and brick walls. Without objectivists to act as guides subjectivists are 'thinking switch off'' lemmings and 'serve no useful purpose.'
Where did I get that from? Azimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Pohl, Kornbluth, especially the great writers who were also scientists or mathematicians. Those who could express the idea of 'self awareness for computers' and ignite the chain of research into AI. But the best answer so far is 'natural law.' Computers are forms of rocks, minerals or plastics crafted into something useful and powered by electricity one of the gifts of Prometheus. If rocks could become self aware they would morph into flowers that bloom year round. But they haven't. But they make great flower pots.
(My degrees are in criminology. The only reason you never discussed astronomy with an inmate is that the prison library lacked the books. If you put "Prison debate team defeats Harvard" in a search engine, you can find a story. We also discussed it here in the Gulch. My point was that prisoners have a lot of time available for studying...
I have an essay on my blog, "Is Physics a Science?" In sociology, we actually study the scientific method. Moreover, we are acutely aware of the evolution of our field, of the paradigm shifts, the abandoned theories. You do not find that in a physics textbook. They present it whole and complete as if it always were what it is at this moment.
I am not sure about the validity of academic economics, though it does use a lot of mathematics. Bookkeeping certainly is mathematics. It is also literacy. Writing was invented as a bookkeeping tool. Literature came thousands of years later. The works of Denise Schmandt-Besserat explain how writing was invented.
I am not sure what you mean by "extapolation": you dropped the R from extrapolate twice. So, was that just two typos, or a word I do not know?
The deeper philosophical questions involve "vitalism" and "intrinsicism." In other words, something ineffable and irreducible is the essence of being human. You can find hints of that all through the works of Ayn Rand. She was not a materialist. She just never tackled the question. Perhaps that was specifically because "life" is irreducible.
Thanks for the quote: "Science is a mindset, not a degree."
Load more comments...