Large Hadron Collider

[SpanglerFan316]

. . . It is because they are too stupid even to have ever heard of these things. None of their sources of information--their pastors, Good Morning America, USA Today, Time magazine--has told them about bosons or or branes or the electroweak force.

I'm not sure I can respect the opinion of someone who resorts to petty insults of those whose points of view he doesn't understand. Spangler, I'm disappointed that you would even include that paragraph. I can only conclude that either you agree with the perspective or wanted to get a reaction. Neither of which I can respect.

Most of my post have a tongue-in-cheek aspect or are intended to poke fun at someone (or both). You might read your comment (below) and consider the reaction of people who respect physics a great deal. (Several of the links I provided make arguments in favor of this grand experiment. However the argument that we waste in Iraq many times more than the SSC http://www.hep.net/ssc/ would have cost seems sufficient.) With so many potential quotes, I might be guilty of choosing one which would "get a reaction" as a "poke" at your comment. :D

Of course, you could also discuss the merits of the argument. The author of the blog wrote "It’s funny that evangelicals only stage really organized outcries over evolution, rather than, say, geology or particle physics. How come no picket lines in front of the moon rock repository, where scientists have blasphemously dated basalt back 4.5 billion years, well before the appearance of the moon on Day Four of Creation five thousand years ago?" Is this even true? Do "evangelicals" picket "in front of the moon rock repository"? (I have no idea.) Are "evangelicals" knowledgable about science (e.g. geology, physics, biology)?

Finally I consider the blog to part of the current political debate. Do you consider the quote from the blog to be worse than the "dirty tricks" that the McCain or Obama campaigns will use before the election?

This seems like a monumental waste of money and energy.

[wu_shizzle]

Large Hadron Rap

[RoyalShock]

My statement about a waste of money and energy wasn't accompanied by a petty insult. Weighing the quantifiable costs with the possible benefits leads me to think it's a waste at this point in time.

As a general rule, evangelicals spend a good portion of their free time studying scripture, fellowshipping, witnessing and doing mission work in addition to pursuing family, career and other interests. I'm sure many do follow the scientific community, but those that don't surely aren't stupid because they choose to spend their free time nourishing their soull and working to save the souls of others. Again, he doesn't understand, yet thinks he's qualified to dismiss all evangelicals as stuipid. That doesn't sound like a very intelligent position on his part.

As for picketing, if I'm going to target a cause, I'm focusing on the one with greater public awareness and acceptance, not the ones only 1% of people may know/care about and even fewer understand. That sounds like good strategy to me.

Having said all that, I don't care about the blog beyond using the quotes you posted to dismiss his opinion. And I care less about comparing it to campaign "dirty tricks".

My comments were directed at your purpose for posting the 2nd quoted paragraph, which wasn't material to the topic. Your follow-up post has only reinforced my opinion.

[SpanglerFan316]

RoyalShock: It is your right to object. It is my right to object to the way science has been treated by the current administration and by the Religious Right. If you can choose to be sensitive about my posts, then I can choose to be sensitive about the treatment of science.

You wrote " My statement about a waste of money and energy wasn't accompanied by a petty insult. Weighing the quantifiable costs with the possible benefits leads me to think it's a waste at this point in time." I am inclined to say that you don't have the slightest idea of the "possible benefits" of this research but instead let me ask how you calculated the "possible benefits." Did, for example, anyone know the "possible benefits" of James Clerk Maxwell's independent derivation (but not origination) of the equations of classical electromagnetism? The answer in the case of E&M and in the case of the Higgs boson is that nobody knew at the time of discovery what were the "possible benefits." Suppose the information from CERN helps lead to safe, inexpensive fusion reactors? How much would this be worth? Nobody knows the potential benefits of this CERN research and nobody knows the timeframe. It is possible that the benefits may not be apparent for 100 years. Are you sorry for the work of Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Westinghouse, etc. in the past?

I chose to quote from a blog. If you wish to suggest that a quote I select represents my personal views, then I will remember to apply this same standard to you. In case you are confused, I don't consider "all evangelicals as stuipid." I think most readers of the Off-Topic forum of SN understand that a certain level of hyperbole may be present and take this into consideration when reading posts.

[RoyalShock]

You demonstrated exactly why I don't think the "possible benefits" outweight the cost. It's all the "could", "might", "hope", "suppose", "what if" language being used. If they can't speak confidently about their own project, why should I be confident it will yield any useful results?

I never look at today's advancements/technologies/conveniences as sole justification for past research. Likewise, I won't use potential benefits as sole justification of current research.

If this were a $5 million project, I could maybe see it as justified. But not with a cost of $6-$10 billion.

[1979Shocker]

Here are a couple of online webcams

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

[engrshock]

javascript:emoticon(':lol:')