Canadian Scientists Protest

[bleeding heart]

I don't know if I should apologize or say "Off with his head!" because he got right into that one?

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

.....What do they have to gain?

After all, if it's all about the money , as Materialists Shady and Capricorn believe (and they are explicit about it, unaware of the existence of any other motivations, by anybody, for anything)...then Shady and Capricorn might explain for us the foreign scientists' deep concerns about this.

OK...start here....unfortunately, Canada didn't make the list:

http://www.idurun.com/?p=311

Broadening scope to professorships, it seems that one can do quite well in Canada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/world/europe/02iht-educlede02.html?pagewanted=all

[bleeding heart]

OK...start here....unfortunately, Canada didn't make the list:

http://www.idurun.com/?p=311

Broadening scope to professorships, it seems that one can do quite well in Canada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/world/europe/02iht-educlede02.html?pagewanted=all

It's interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with European scientists' concern over the shutting down of Canadian research...which must, according to Shady and Capricorn, be purely on individual financial concerns...since no other motivations can possibly exist, evidently.

[cybercoma]

I don't know if I should apologize or say "Off with his head!" because he got right into that one?

WWWTT

Everybody knows that there's no such things as facts (just ask Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault). Everyone's biased. Even scientists. Scientists should serve to explain what the government's policies are. If they don't like that, then they can go get a job somewhere else. What they don't get to do is make a fat paycheck off the generosity of the government then turn around and bite the hand that feeds. They're ungrateful and it shows.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with European scientists' concern over the shutting down of Canadian research...which must, according to Shady and Capricorn, be purely on individual financial concerns...since no other motivations can possibly exist, evidently.

I'm sure that financial concerns are a factor, otherwise they would gladly work for peanuts. Clearly they don't (in Canada). Canada has never been a hotbed for government funded R&D in general, so some of the international peer concern is probably chronic.

[bleeding heart]

I'm sure that financial concerns are a factor,

Possibly they are, as I made clear earlier. Multiple motivations are the norm in human endeavour.

It's those whom I disputed that insist upon a single motivation (personal finances) with other possibilities, evidently, an incomprehensible joke.

Edited July 15, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

...It's those whom I disputed that insist upon a single motivation (personal finances) with other possibilities, evidently, an incomprehensible joke.

Difficult to parse such motivational nuance...few would work for nothing or pauper's wages. And not insignificantly, those who would work for next to nothing are usually motivated by a pointed bias or ideology, and probably don't make the best "scientists".

There's nothing really special about scientists compared to other professions.

[bleeding heart]

Difficult to parse such motivational nuance

Sure it is; and difficult to parse love; or its kissing cousin, hate; or its opponent, indifference.

But I feel pretty confident that they exist, in spades.

...few would work for nothing or pauper's wages. And not insignificantly, those who would work for next to nothing are usually motivated by a pointed bias or ideology, and probably don't make the best "scientists".

But few, I think, find their intial impetus into science, which is more often than not at a young age, defined solely--in fact, scarcely at all--by even a real consideration of money.

There's nothing really special about scientists compared to other professions.

Not really, no. But there's extra-financial motivations for lots of them.

Again, I'm not denying it as a possible factor; I'm suggesting the strong possibility of more than one factor.

A controversial notion, it seems, even a preposterous one, among a couple of posters earlier in the thread.

[capricorn]

I got curious about this "scientists" protest so I let google be my friend. As it turns out, this protest was organized to coincide with a national conference in Ottawa.

The Evolution 2012 scientific conference is coming to Ottawa from July 6-10 2012. To coincide with the conference, a group is organising a march on Parliament Hill from the conference venue at the Ottawa Conference Centre to protest the lack of evidence-based policy and the contempt for science that characterises the Canadian Government.

http://events.cfiottawa.com/events/71227092/?eventId=71227092&action=detail

The names of the organizers are found in a comment appearing in the above.

I think the Facebook group is where the organisers are named. They are listed there as Adam Houben (PhD Student - Environmental and Chemical Toxicology at University of Ottawa), Katie Gibbs (PhD student at University of Ottawa) and Dave Bagler (Green Party of Ontario candidate for the Ottawa-Vanier seat, stood unsuccessfully in 2011, www.davebagler.ca).

So the organizers of the protest were 2 Ottawa U. students and a failed Ottawa Green Party candidate. I don't see the name of a scientist there.

In reading the media coverage, some said 2,000 scientists gathered from across the country to join in the protest, while other coverage said "scientists and their supporters" participated. MSM coverage does not mention that there happened to be an ongoing national convention of scientists. So readers were left with the impression that the scientists traveled to Ottawa specifically to participate in the protest.

I would be curious to know, how many of the reported 2,000 marchers were really scientists? Taking into consideration who coordinated and organized the protest I doubt very much that a majority of the marchers were in fact scientists.

Edited July 15, 2012 by capricorn

[TwoDucks]

You don't consider someone working on a doctorate in toxicology a scientist? Nice job there, Lou.

[bleeding heart]

I got curious about this "scientists" protest so I let google be my friend.

.....

I would be curious to know, how many of the reported 2,000 marchers were really scientists? Taking into consideration who coordinated and organized the protest I doubt very much that a majority of the marchers were in fact scientists.

Google can be a bad friend. Google is only as good a friend as the person using it.

You got the organizer part at least partly wrong...probably because you took as your authority some anonymous voice on the internet saying "I think the Facebook group is where the organisers are named."

I don't know either how many of the marchers were scientists; but many of them were, as we can find by properly "befriending" Google. Try it again, but don't quit at the precise moment of confirmation bias.

[capricorn]

You got the organizer part at least partly wrong...probably because you took as your authority some anonymous voice on the internet saying "I think the Facebook group is where the organisers are named."

I don't think so.

Bagler, who is an IT consultant out of Ottawa, launched the website for "Death of Evidence".

http://www.deathofevidence.ca/inthenews

Kathie Gibbs gave interviews and is named in many media articles.

Houben was also an organizer.

“It’s time to finally get out of our labs,” organizer and UW alumnus Adam Houben explained.

http://theimprint.ca/article/157-death-of-evidence-rally-on-parliament

[TwoDucks]

I don't think so.

Bagler, who is an IT consultant out of Ottawa, launched the website for "Death of Evidence".

http://www.deathofevidence.ca/inthenews

Kathie Gibbs gave interviews and is named in many media articles.

Houben was also an organizer.

http://theimprint.ca/article/157-death-of-evidence-rally-on-parliament

Again, why do you not consider someone working on a PhD in Toxicology or Biology, which your friend Google tells me Ms Gibbs is, not a scientist? You realize that Scientist is not an official designation and only describes someone who works or studies in a scientific field, right?

[capricorn]

Again, why do you not consider someone working on a PhD in Toxicology or Biology, which your friend Google tells me Ms Gibbs is, not a scientist?

By all reports Gibbs is a student in a scientific field. Nowhere is she called a scientist. In any case, I'm sure she considers herself a scientist.

You realize that Scientist is not an official designation and only describes someone who works or studies in a scientific field, right?

Absolutely. I conduct scientific culinary experiments in my kitchen on a regular basis.

[Shady]

I would be curious to know, how many of the reported 2,000 marchers were really scientists?

The media didn't bother to ask. Apparently they think that anyone wearing a white coat must be a scientist. Nobody that wasn't couldn't possibly be wearing one and protesting right?

[BubberMiley]

Yes, they're probably not really scientists, but if they are, they just want more money! Nothing to see here. THe Harper Government loves science and doesn't politicize the results!

[cybercoma]

Bagler, who is an IT consultant out of Ottawa, launched the website

You mean they got an IT person to do the IT part? Scandalous!

[TwoDucks]

By all reports Gibbs is a student in a scientific field. Nowhere is she called a scientist. In any case, I'm sure she considers herself a scientist.

Absolutely. I conduct scientific culinary experiments in my kitchen on a regular basis.

So you recognize that two of the three organizers are studying in scientific fields and acknowledge they may view themselves as scientists. So am I correct in assuming your issue is that they're not professionals? If so, how does that make a difference?

[cybercoma]

So you recognize that two of the three organizers are studying in scientific fields and acknowledge they may view themselves as scientists. So am I correct in assuming your issue is that they're not professionals? If so, how does that make a difference?

They could be professionals. Someone working on their PhD does the exact same work as scientists with their PhD. They take part in conferences, publish papers, and sometimes earn a living pursuing their PhD by getting grants and funding from institutions and private investors. To say someone working on their PhD is not a scientist just shows that the person saying knows nothing about academia.

[capricorn]

So you recognize that two of the three organizers are studying in scientific fields and acknowledge they may view themselves as scientists.

How very observant of you.

So am I correct in assuming your issue is that they're not professionals?

I find games of assumptions rather boring. That's why I never attempt to put words into the mouths of other posters.

[TwoDucks]

How very observant of you.

I find games of assumptions rather boring. That's why I never attempt to put words into the mouths of other posters.

I don't like having to make assumptions of what people think. Enlighten me as to why you don't think these three are qualified to have organized this protest.

[Guest Manny]

I don't think you have to be a "scientist" to organize a protest. Scientists may not be the best people to do that. Their specialty is doing calculation and experiments in a laboratory.

[TwoDucks]

I don't think you have to be a "scientist" to organize a protest. Scientists may not be the best people to do that. Their specialty is doing calculation and experiments in a laboratory.

Or maybe you do have to be a scientist to start a protest. If that's the case, damn, think of all the everyday things you and I are doing which we really should be getting them to do for us.

[capricorn]

I don't like having to make assumptions of what people think.

Neither do I, so I don't. I find it a total waste of time.

Enlighten me as to why you don't think these three are qualified to have organized this protest.

Another one of your assumptions.

[TwoDucks]

Neither do I, so I don't. I find it a total waste of time.

Another one of your assumptions.

Oh, you. Well, why did you interject questioning the qualifications of the organizers and how many scientists were actually at this event? It certainly comes across as trying to discredit their position. Do you have a legitimate argument to make here? If so, I'm all ears.