4 ms·

Yea and not just that, but as the parent said it's, specific to the person. Once someone told me: >"popcorn is healthy" They read that, and I have, too. It's

Yea and not just that, but as the parent said it's, specific to the person. Once someone told me: >"popcorn is healthy" They read that, and I have, too. It's true. But if your health is sensitive to high-glycemic foods, popcorn is not a good choice. Actually that person became angry with me. "I read it, I think in the NYTimes!" "It said it right in there. You dont know what you're talking about." This person had a prestigious degree. Sometimes I wonder about how critical thinking skills and tolerance of dissent is valued today.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
This person had a prestigious degree. Sometimes I wonder about how critical thinking skills and tolerance of dissent is valued today. I'd argue that it is just as valued as it always has been - not very valued at all except in certain contexts. Folks didn't want their slave or servant to speak up with their good idea, no matter how much critical thinking they used nor how good the idea was. Tolerance of dissent depended: For example, Don't Be Homosexual lest you get shunned. OF course, there are plenty of examples in science (and other places) of folks going against the accepted theories and getting shunned even though they were correct. It is really easy to think this is a modern problem, but i*m pretty sure it isn't.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Yea, I remember as a child having a lego space shuttle kit. That inspired wonder and marvel in me about it so I ended up seeking out reading on it. But decades later I encountered facts which challenged everything I (and I bet most people) knew about it. It is arguably the most dangerous and expensive manned launch vehicle in history. It was not a technological leap forward in really any way. It arguably was guilty of negligent manslaughter. It was probably doomed from the start by the bureaucracies, political incentives, and groupthink which controlled it. Feynman ended up speaking out against it. But so few people are willing to be a Martin Luther or Thomas Paine, even in science and engineering! Crazy.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    Thats a rather slanted view. While the shuttle was more or less dated by the 80s, it was still the most capable launch and recovery craft we have ever produced. Most of yor critisisms are just of the political system inherent in any government venture. Got a link to Feynman speaking against it? I am genuinely curious.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      A lot to say here, but you should try to do a web search for these ideas as they're widely published. I even was given results with famous Youtubers having videos dedicated to exactly this topic. This one[1] opens up with exactly what I said: 'Most dangerous and expensive manned launch system in history.' It would be great if people were inclined to, when presented with evidence or arguments which disagree with their worldviews, to examine the evidence themselves. In this case, it would even be really convenient (and fun) to do that. But I know most people aren't like that, and are more likely to rely on their prejudgments and say, as you did, "that's a rather slanted view." It's very common, even where it should be nowhere to be found, like in science. Reminds me of the famous quote by Planck: >A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. You may be aware of some other more-famous mismanagements in the space industry like the Pioneer Anomaly being difficult to study because no data was retained--same as with most all of the work done in the Apollo program. The problems were of groupthink, and authority/hierarchy. The shuttle was chosen by Nixon over Von Braun's plans because of those reasons. The military industrial complex was involved, as well as the intelligence agencies, and they tranformed the shuttle into something other than what NASA originally designed. And nobody really knows why he chose the side-grouped design, many speculate because Nixon thought it looked cool. Before Challenger killed 7 people, there were engineers that had raised precise concerns of the exact problem, under the exact conditions, which would cause this disaster. Culture and politics had become so bad that detailing the problem was unacceptable. Groupthink and hierarchy developed a culture not tolerant of dissent. That's why Feynman agreed to testify of the problem because he had credence to lend to the engineer's claims. It was negligent manslaughter that killed those astronauts. 1 - https://youtu.be/Ja4ZlswGvpE https://youtu.be/Ja4ZlswGvpE

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

This person had a prestigious degree. Sometimes I wonder about how critical thinking skills and tolerance of dissent is valued today. I'd argue that it is just as valued as it always has been - not very valued at all except in certain contexts. Folks didn't want their slave or servant to speak up with their good idea, no matter how much critical thinking they used nor how good the idea was. Tolerance of dissent depended: For example, Don't Be Homosexual lest you get shunned. OF course, there are plenty of examples in science (and other places) of folks going against the accepted theories and getting shunned even though they were correct. It is really easy to think this is a modern problem, but i*m pretty sure it isn't.

wallace_f 8y ago
Yea, I remember as a child having a lego space shuttle kit. That inspired wonder and marvel in me about it so I ended up seeking out reading on it. But decades later I encountered facts which challenged everything I (and I bet most people) knew about it. It is arguably the most dangerous and expensive manned launch vehicle in history. It was not a technological leap forward in really any way. It arguably was guilty of negligent manslaughter. It was probably doomed from the start by the bureaucracies, political incentives, and groupthink which controlled it. Feynman ended up speaking out against it. But so few people are willing to be a Martin Luther or Thomas Paine, even in science and engineering! Crazy.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Thats a rather slanted view. While the shuttle was more or less dated by the 80s, it was still the most capable launch and recovery craft we have ever produced. Most of yor critisisms are just of the political system inherent in any government venture. Got a link to Feynman speaking against it? I am genuinely curious.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    A lot to say here, but you should try to do a web search for these ideas as they're widely published. I even was given results with famous Youtubers having videos dedicated to exactly this topic. This one[1] opens up with exactly what I said: 'Most dangerous and expensive manned launch system in history.' It would be great if people were inclined to, when presented with evidence or arguments which disagree with their worldviews, to examine the evidence themselves. In this case, it would even be really convenient (and fun) to do that. But I know most people aren't like that, and are more likely to rely on their prejudgments and say, as you did, "that's a rather slanted view." It's very common, even where it should be nowhere to be found, like in science. Reminds me of the famous quote by Planck: >A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. You may be aware of some other more-famous mismanagements in the space industry like the Pioneer Anomaly being difficult to study because no data was retained--same as with most all of the work done in the Apollo program. The problems were of groupthink, and authority/hierarchy. The shuttle was chosen by Nixon over Von Braun's plans because of those reasons. The military industrial complex was involved, as well as the intelligence agencies, and they tranformed the shuttle into something other than what NASA originally designed. And nobody really knows why he chose the side-grouped design, many speculate because Nixon thought it looked cool. Before Challenger killed 7 people, there were engineers that had raised precise concerns of the exact problem, under the exact conditions, which would cause this disaster. Culture and politics had become so bad that detailing the problem was unacceptable. Groupthink and hierarchy developed a culture not tolerant of dissent. That's why Feynman agreed to testify of the problem because he had credence to lend to the engineer's claims. It was negligent manslaughter that killed those astronauts. 1 - https://youtu.be/Ja4ZlswGvpE https://youtu.be/Ja4ZlswGvpE