Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 03:26 pmActually, the agency is always defined by public opinion, ultimately. That heavily influences why we have this problem.What the public has seen in the press over the past couple of years has been mostly science related, since it has dealt with our science missions on Mars, to Pluto, on the ISS, and so on.The only other NASA news has been rocket engine tests and such about the SLS and Orion, but over the past number of years the most news - and public excitement - has been about our science missions in space.
Actually, the agency is always defined by public opinion, ultimately. That heavily influences why we have this problem.
Quote from: chrisking0997 on 11/03/2017 03:01 pmthe problem is you are trying to pigeon-hole the agency into one descriptive word, when in fact it has many missions in varying fields and for varying purposes. But the word "science" encompasses those missions far more than "space" does.No, the problem isn't me. The problem is that society is clumsy with it's language, and thus people broadly pigeon hole items and activities. (This in fact, IMHO, is the real issue when it comes to discussions about whether we are too "politically correct" - people don't understand and accept how clumsy we are with language).
the problem is you are trying to pigeon-hole the agency into one descriptive word, when in fact it has many missions in varying fields and for varying purposes. But the word "science" encompasses those missions far more than "space" does.
And I disagree that science is more encompassing - I would submit space is more encompassing. Science only works if you require everyone to view every activity as fundamentally a science activity. And most people reject that as well.
Quote from: chrisking0997 on 11/03/2017 03:01 pmNow if you are talking about public perception, that is a different thing, but the agency shouldnt be defined by public opinionActually, the agency is always defined by public opinion, ultimately. That heavily influences why we have this problem.
Now if you are talking about public perception, that is a different thing, but the agency shouldnt be defined by public opinion
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:13 pmThe example of planetary protection is ultimately a legal issue,Can you cite the relevant legal statutes?
The example of planetary protection is ultimately a legal issue,
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 03:23 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:12 pmI appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...With regard to your question - I would submit that it is possible to apply the scientific method to almost all activities. The scientific method, in many respects, is a more systematized version of logic and critical thinking. But, as state, most people don't perceive the world that way, and don't think that way. I fully agree that having people have more open minds is a good thing, and to push them that way. The problem is that the world remains messy (including communications)(and if you want to get to a word I REALLY get annoyed at, it's exploration - but that's a different discussion)When it comes to the scientific method, there really is no room for interpretation. The key is reproducibilty in the result no matter who or where the experiment is conducted when all variables are controlled.Because the "world is messy" is not a good reason to lower the bar in our institutions but to ask the populace to rise to the occasion...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:12 pmI appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...With regard to your question - I would submit that it is possible to apply the scientific method to almost all activities. The scientific method, in many respects, is a more systematized version of logic and critical thinking. But, as state, most people don't perceive the world that way, and don't think that way. I fully agree that having people have more open minds is a good thing, and to push them that way. The problem is that the world remains messy (including communications)(and if you want to get to a word I REALLY get annoyed at, it's exploration - but that's a different discussion)
I appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...
I'm at a loss as to why this matters. I read the OP's opener and remain unenlightened.Thanks for moving it to its own thread though, it was clogging up the thread it spawned from.
Do yourself a favor - google "federal science agencies"You will see, right across the top of the screen, several agencies' logos, NASA among them. All of the agencies listed (NOAA, NIH, etc) do other things in addition to science. As I said in the other post, there is only one government agency that ONLY does science and that is the National Science Foundation.
You are right - language does matter. And you don't get to unilaterally decide to change how a term is commonly used, formally or informally, no matter how much you want to.
Informally, "science agency" means an agency that does a relatively significant amount of science. Formally, "federal science agency" means an agency that sponsors or performs scientific research. This is important because it means by law the agency must have a scientific integrity policy, must have an open access policy for the extramural research they sponsor, etc.
I suspect we are at an impasse for the first part of your response. However, I did want to address a specific point.
The lack of a clean and clear positive public perception about NASA IS the problem, and is the point I am getting at.
Quote from: incoming on 11/03/2017 05:39 pmYou are right - language does matter. And you don't get to unilaterally decide to change how a term is commonly used, formally or informally, no matter how much you want to. I acknowledge I don't get to unilaterally decide this, but I do get a say in it (since I am part of the community). Hence, I make my case and stand by it.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:11 pmI suspect we are at an impasse for the first part of your response. However, I did want to address a specific point.You want clarity and preciseness and better public understanding of what NASA does. I stated that you cannot boil down what NASA does to a single word. How exactly are we at an impasse?
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:11 pmThe lack of a clean and clear positive public perception about NASA IS the problem, and is the point I am getting at.If you think that saying "NASA is a science agency" impedes this, then saying "NASA is a space agency" is just as bad.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:52 pmQuote from: incoming on 11/03/2017 05:39 pmYou are right - language does matter. And you don't get to unilaterally decide to change how a term is commonly used, formally or informally, no matter how much you want to. I acknowledge I don't get to unilaterally decide this, but I do get a say in it (since I am part of the community). Hence, I make my case and stand by it.Guess what, everyone else in this thread has made a case too, and they all disagree with you. At what point do you realize that you are the one whose definition doesn't match common usage, and that you are definitely failing at #3 and possibly at #2 from your list above?
And I tend to be of the opinion that those agencies aren't science agencies either, and the only science agency is NSF.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:52 pmAnd I tend to be of the opinion that those agencies aren't science agencies either, and the only science agency is NSF.This is fun.What other aspects of reality do you redefine in your universe?
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/03/2017 07:28 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:52 pmAnd I tend to be of the opinion that those agencies aren't science agencies either, and the only science agency is NSF.This is fun.What other aspects of reality do you redefine in your universe? Are you implying that this thread should be moved to the "Spock's beard" sub forum?
And I say that although you can't boil it down to a single word, most people do that, and so we have to find something better. You seem to be saying (and feel free to correct me) that we can't boil it down, and we shouldn't try, and we should try and push people not to do that. I don't believe that is viable.
Further, you said that you don't need to take an extreme all encompassing view of what science is, but I disagree (see my points about lawyers vs applied legal scientists). While I can't point to the exist place of disagreement, I can see that this is a philosophical disagreement.
Quote from: meberbs on 11/03/2017 06:06 pmIf you think that saying "NASA is a science agency" impedes this, then saying "NASA is a space agency" is just as bad. I disagree.
If you think that saying "NASA is a science agency" impedes this, then saying "NASA is a space agency" is just as bad.
1) This isn't actually a hugely populated thread with lots of people providing comments. 2) I think that it does provide more clarity, because it allows for discussions of development and the like, and I've gotten responses from non-space people who seem to understand my point.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:43 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 03:23 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:12 pmI appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...With regard to your question - I would submit that it is possible to apply the scientific method to almost all activities. The scientific method, in many respects, is a more systematized version of logic and critical thinking. But, as state, most people don't perceive the world that way, and don't think that way. I fully agree that having people have more open minds is a good thing, and to push them that way. The problem is that the world remains messy (including communications)(and if you want to get to a word I REALLY get annoyed at, it's exploration - but that's a different discussion)When it comes to the scientific method, there really is no room for interpretation. The key is reproducibilty in the result no matter who or where the experiment is conducted when all variables are controlled.Because the "world is messy" is not a good reason to lower the bar in our institutions but to ask the populace to rise to the occasion...Let me know how that works out, because IMHO, most of the populace has decided it doesn't want to.
Settlement of the solar system, and eventually the stars, is the goal.
Your goal. Not NASA policy. Not United States policy.