From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Summary: more hypocracy
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:25:44 GMT

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