From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:12:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.024403.5319@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.012628.4238@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.010055.3863@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> >crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
> >#    NIH is being forced to fund study into chiropractry(?) along with the
> >#    other 'alternative medicine' approaches. 
> >
> >"Forced"? I would consider such studies to be good. Surgeons don't
> >have a monopoly in how to help people get better. Alternative methods,
> >which are probably less expensive than "mainstream" medicine are good
> >things if they are effective. 
> 
>      Yes 'forced'.  Meaning that they were made to do something that
>      they would rather not, for good and obvious reasons.
> 
> >#    As far as astrology goes, I'd think that such widespread antiscientific
> >#    beliefs would be of great interest to those in the APS apparently
> >#    interested in scientific purity.  
> >
> >Yea, those astrologers might be after our vital bodily fluids. Come on
> >Dale, this is farther then even you normally stretch a point. I have
> >seen letters from the APS to newspapers asking them to put disclaimers
> >on horoscopes. 
> 
>      Where?  When?  Publicity?  Studies?  Commissions?
> 
>      The position of the APS is that the space station is not 'science'
>      and should not be funded as such.   I would just expect them to pursue 
>      other 'science purity' issues with the same vigour.
> 
> >#    Also, I'm sure such base things as dollars never come into  
consideration
> >#    of certain members of the APS when things like the integrity of science
> >#    come into play.  After all, we have been told many times that the APS
> >#    is not against SSF because of the competition for money, just because
> >#    'it is not science'. 
> >
> >Well the only person who says that dollars never come into
> >consideration is you, so you get little credit from knocking down your
> >own strawman. 
> 
>      So it is competition for dollars with other programs of more
>      direct interest to APS rather than the 'science-thing'?  I'm 
>      shocked.
> 
> >As for the space station not being science, read todays Post and
> >you'll see that Goldin's article has the first 4 non-introductory
> >paragraphs being the scientific return of SSF. If Goldin is going to
> >make "scientific" return the number 1 thing he talks about, it is
> >quite fair to point out it ain't much science to be done, and the
> >budget is better spent in other programs. 
> 
>      Agreed.  However, it is disingenuous to say that it is any different
>      for SSC.  By the way, the hypocracy of the APS with regard to 
>      SSF and SSC was the original subject.  It still exists.
> 
>                                  dale bass
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass