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

In article <1992Jul29.042544.7010@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.035138.6668@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.032824.6226@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> >crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
> >#     Do they?  I'm glad to hear that they will now oppose SSC
> >#     on the grounds that it is mostly engineering.
> >
> >False. We ain't building the damn thing to learn about engineering, we
> >are building it to learn about science. The amount of new engineering
> >was kept to a minimum. The same is not true for SSF.
> 
>      How exactly does one quantify 'the amount of new engineering'
>      in a project comprised of components that have never been built
>      before?   With this in mind, how do you state that there is
>      more 'new engineering' in SSF vs. SSC.  Both sets of designers
>      have attempted to keep the technological risks of their 
>      prospective toys down.
> 
>      Also, engineering IS used as a justification for SSC, just as 
>      science is used with SSF.
> 
> >#     At least be consistent.  Is it the 'science-thing' or is it
> >#     the money?  Or is it both, in which case they should vehemently
> >#     oppose astrology AND the SSC.
> >
> >Well, the APS thinks that the SSC is good science, so you can't
> >logically expect them to oppose it on those grounds. Astrology doesn't
> >get funded by the federal government, so they don't bother much with
> >it. 
> 
>      Why not?  After all, the stated reason that the APS opposes
>      SSF is that it 'is not science'.  I rarely hear such banal things
>      as the word 'money' cross such lips in this context.
> 
>      Also, if it were just the money in some warm-hearted sort
>      of fiscal conservativeness, then the APS would oppose social
>      security and medicare.  They do not, so I just take it as
>      parochial money-mongering, and hence hypocracy.
> 
> >#     I don't see the AMA opposing SSC on the grounds that it will
> >#     not be a boon to cancer cures as claimed.  I don't see  
> >#     AIAA or civil engineering societies opposing the SSC on 
> >#     the grounds that it is too expensive to be justified by
> >#     great advances in engineering, as has been claimed.
> >#     And yet the APS seems to object to the SSF on the grounds that
> >#     there is 'not enough science' to justify the project.  One can
> >#     only think that this is because they are worried about their
> >#     parochial funding.
> >
> >Earth to Dale. The primary purpose of the SSC is not to cure cancer,
> >or learn engineering. The primary purpose is to do science.
> 
>      So?  SSF is justified on the basis of many things, one of which 
>      is science.  SSC is justified on the basis of many things, some
>      of which are 1) national technological competitiveness, 2) national
>      pride, 3) medical usage, 4) engineering advances.
> 
>      In fact, in the debates you rarely hear things like 'we need this
>      because it is a national imperative that we verify and extend
>      the standard model, and soon!'  No, all one hears is stuff about
>      'national technological competitiveness' and stuff about 'the
>      europeans beating us to it'.  In fact, the guy from Motorola
>      mentioned hundreds of trillions of dollars of spin-offs from
>      the SSC in the next century.  Ho ho ho.
> 
> >I guess the Dale Bass method of science is to accuse everyone with a
> >different opinion to be unethical.
> 
>      Not exactly, just pointing out hypocracy when I see it.
> 
>      By the way, do you think that we're doing science here?  That may
>      explain alot.
> 
>                                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