Greenjackets
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 55
Marco Rubio Showing Some GT Love
- Thread starter Greenjackets
- Start date
- Status
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Lol....I wonder if any on his staff had a stroke at the thought of losing the bigger uga vote
Captain killem
Banned
- Messages
- 861
Ignorant as they are it woulda went right over their heads.lol
RLR
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 355
Disclosure: this is not a trolling or hijack attempt. Merely a naive attempt at an apolitical, informed, GT-related political chat.
I always loved the political atmosphere on the Flats - in the sense that politics amounted to little more than a optimization problem. Everyone can have an opinion. Few people are able to put forth a better solution.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know any GT alumni / former GT athletes that have made a career in politics? Taylor Bennett comes to mind. Senator Perdue. Obviously Jimmy Carter (does that really count?)
Interesting Political Infographics
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ I always had a sense that GT was fairly conservative, which makes sense since we're in the Capital of the South. Somewhat surprised on first blush that the engineering profession leans pretty heavily liberal, due to my bias attending GT, no doubt. Also, other highly conservative fields have overlap with GT's core majors.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/facebook-primary/ I also found it interesting that Rubio is (was) polling about 7 - 8 % behind his national numbers in Atlanta and Athens Clarke County. . . By polling, I mean number of facebook likes. so, obviously a millennial lean. cool infographic nonetheless (fivethirtyeight is really nailing the election analysis. anyone else following them lately?)
From GT's page on Wikipedia (not a comment on the substance of what was being protested. simply praise for the way GT handled these situations - especially relative to the mutts)
Around 1960, state law mandated an immediate cut-off of state funds to any white institution that admitted a black student At a meeting in the Old Gym on January 17, 1961, an overwhelming majority of the 2,741 students present voted to endorse integration of qualified applicants, regardless of race. Three years after the meeting, and one year after the University of Georgia's violent integration, Georgia Tech became the first university in the Deep South to desegregate without a court order. . .There was little reaction to this by Tech students who, like the city of Atlanta described by former mayor Hartsfield were "too busy to hate".
Students across the nation protested the Vietnam War including at similar institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where students picketed and blocked access to the Draper Laboratory that was producing guidance systems for the Poseidon missile.. . There were significant protests at other institutions that conducted military research, but there were no protests against the military electronics research at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.. . . There was similar nationwide concern over the United States' involvement in the Cambodian Civil War, resulting in the Kent State shootings, which in turn caused about 450 colleges to suspend classes. In Georgia, the student response was largely restrained. Several hundred students at the University of Georgia marched on the home of president Frederick Corbet Davison demanding that the school be closed; consequently, all schools in the University System of Georgia were closed on May 8 and 9. While there were no protests at Tech, the students were still concerned over the events at Kent State; on May 8, four hundred students and faculty filled Bertha Square for a student-organized memorial, after which the students left quietly.
I always loved the political atmosphere on the Flats - in the sense that politics amounted to little more than a optimization problem. Everyone can have an opinion. Few people are able to put forth a better solution.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know any GT alumni / former GT athletes that have made a career in politics? Taylor Bennett comes to mind. Senator Perdue. Obviously Jimmy Carter (does that really count?)
Interesting Political Infographics
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ I always had a sense that GT was fairly conservative, which makes sense since we're in the Capital of the South. Somewhat surprised on first blush that the engineering profession leans pretty heavily liberal, due to my bias attending GT, no doubt. Also, other highly conservative fields have overlap with GT's core majors.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/facebook-primary/ I also found it interesting that Rubio is (was) polling about 7 - 8 % behind his national numbers in Atlanta and Athens Clarke County. . . By polling, I mean number of facebook likes. so, obviously a millennial lean. cool infographic nonetheless (fivethirtyeight is really nailing the election analysis. anyone else following them lately?)
From GT's page on Wikipedia (not a comment on the substance of what was being protested. simply praise for the way GT handled these situations - especially relative to the mutts)
Around 1960, state law mandated an immediate cut-off of state funds to any white institution that admitted a black student At a meeting in the Old Gym on January 17, 1961, an overwhelming majority of the 2,741 students present voted to endorse integration of qualified applicants, regardless of race. Three years after the meeting, and one year after the University of Georgia's violent integration, Georgia Tech became the first university in the Deep South to desegregate without a court order. . .There was little reaction to this by Tech students who, like the city of Atlanta described by former mayor Hartsfield were "too busy to hate".
Students across the nation protested the Vietnam War including at similar institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where students picketed and blocked access to the Draper Laboratory that was producing guidance systems for the Poseidon missile.. . There were significant protests at other institutions that conducted military research, but there were no protests against the military electronics research at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.. . . There was similar nationwide concern over the United States' involvement in the Cambodian Civil War, resulting in the Kent State shootings, which in turn caused about 450 colleges to suspend classes. In Georgia, the student response was largely restrained. Several hundred students at the University of Georgia marched on the home of president Frederick Corbet Davison demanding that the school be closed; consequently, all schools in the University System of Georgia were closed on May 8 and 9. While there were no protests at Tech, the students were still concerned over the events at Kent State; on May 8, four hundred students and faculty filled Bertha Square for a student-organized memorial, after which the students left quietly.
augustabuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,412
tmhunter52
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,437
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
iceeater1969
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 9,596
Thanks for actual facts. Most of which I did NOT know.
During 65/66 got to see mlk and the reaction of gt students which was pretty much = its about time we made the change. It was quite different fellow workers at my part time job, most of whom were offended. Also after riots went with many tech students to help clean up a poor area of town called Lightning which was hit hard by riots. Some one at gt saw a need for a rebuild of a local park in the community. I got dressed in my best (only) suit and walked to local lumber company that immediately donated and deliverd all that was requested. Next weekend swings, see saws, etc installed.
Tech students too busy doing something.
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,079
One thing on this business of the ideological leanings of the professoriate.
The trend toward liberalism in the sciences and, especially, in engineering is fairly recent. I've heard it speculated – to my knowledge, no one has down any research on the question – that this is largely due to the persistent way the prominent Republican politicians and spokespeople deny what is actually pretty clear evidence from scientific sources. The poster child here is climate change, of course, but you can hear much the same thing on medical questions, biological questions, geological and astronomical questions, and, of course and with somewhat greater justification, questions in the social sciences. When you hear prominent members of an avowedly conservative political party saying they either don't believe that the theory of evolution is true or that "there are doubts about it", it shouldn't surprise anybody to find that many in the scientific and engineering academy have decided that there isn't much place for them there. So they say they are "liberal" when what they actually mean is that they don't want to be associated with people who don't take empirical evidence seriously.
I would guess, however, that this doesn't mean that they are socially or politically liberal necessarily. I know plenty of physical and life scientists who are either blissfully ignorant on such matters or are simply uninterested until around October 31. But, like I say, I don't know that anyone has down any systematic research on this – no doubt they have or are in the process and I don't know about it – so all this is just a guess based on other people's speculations.
The trend toward liberalism in the sciences and, especially, in engineering is fairly recent. I've heard it speculated – to my knowledge, no one has down any research on the question – that this is largely due to the persistent way the prominent Republican politicians and spokespeople deny what is actually pretty clear evidence from scientific sources. The poster child here is climate change, of course, but you can hear much the same thing on medical questions, biological questions, geological and astronomical questions, and, of course and with somewhat greater justification, questions in the social sciences. When you hear prominent members of an avowedly conservative political party saying they either don't believe that the theory of evolution is true or that "there are doubts about it", it shouldn't surprise anybody to find that many in the scientific and engineering academy have decided that there isn't much place for them there. So they say they are "liberal" when what they actually mean is that they don't want to be associated with people who don't take empirical evidence seriously.
I would guess, however, that this doesn't mean that they are socially or politically liberal necessarily. I know plenty of physical and life scientists who are either blissfully ignorant on such matters or are simply uninterested until around October 31. But, like I say, I don't know that anyone has down any systematic research on this – no doubt they have or are in the process and I don't know about it – so all this is just a guess based on other people's speculations.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
I suggest that if you feel the certainty that leads you to assert "actually pretty clear evidence" in the football forum that you be willing to start a thread to defend that claim in the appropriate forum. Of course, I suspect that you hold these positions about climate change and evolution by faith and won't follow through.
- Messages
- 4,531
- Location
- Savannah,GA
I've moved this thread to the Swarm Lounge.
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,079
No need for faith here. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that for human caused climate change is just slightly less conclusive. That's why the article - looked, couldn't find it - speculated that this was why the shift to being "liberal" by scientists and engineers in academics is so recent. Used to be - and there is research on this - that ideological dispositions were about even in these fields and, I might add, in academics as a whole.
But you're right; I don't have any inclination to make a federal case out of this on a fan site. It isn't worth the digital ink.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
It's not about making a federal case of it. It's about having the courage to defend your nonsense. I'm sick of you fundamentalist liberals asserting nonsense as demonstrated science without being adult enough to back-it-up. And I don't mean just citing "authorities" that you accept on faith like biblical fundamentalist cite their authority, the Bible. I mean talking through the actual data which leads to a conclusive or nearly conclusive case.
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,079
Well, there's a difference between acceptance based on faith in scripture and acceptance of interpretations of empirical evidence given by people who have studied a question and know what they are talking about. I suspect you know that. But here are some things for you to chew on.
On evolution, I think I'll let Darwin do my talking for me:
http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Still the best on the subject. Well written too.
Don't know enough about climatology to really "talk through the actual data" on climate change. But here's the evidence:
http://www.ipcc.ch
The "executive summary" is about the limit of my capability. If you are more versed on the question, have at it. But don't expect much in return from me on either subject. I have other things to do.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
Actually, there is no difference between your two examples of faith in an accepted authority. Knowledge based on trusting an authority is just that.
There is a difference between types of authority, such as testimony from personal experience or from experimentation or from claims of divine revelation.
But, if you can't discuss the data in an intelligent way and you still assert it as settled truth, it functions for you as if it were divine revelation.
The fact that you assert Darwin as the best on evolution proves your ignorance. It's embarrassing really.
Fwiw, I have no problem with people accepting things by faith in an authority. I just wish liberal fundamentalists were adult enough to admit it. You do so here, so I commend you. Of course, the logical corollary is that you don't criticize others simply because they accept different authorities.
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,079
I think this discussion is fruitless, largely because you are working from a vision of "faith in authority" that is basically mistaken.
Let's start by admitting that trying to comprehend the entire body of empirical evidence amassed even in fields that you can claim some expertise in is impossible. Indeed, even the expert use of analytical techniques to analyze evidence reported in areas where you have no expertise can lead to gravely mistaken conclusions, usually because of a lack of assumed background knowledge in the field or a use of inappropriate techniques for parsing out the data. This is a basic assumption of modern knowledge. I'm pretty expert at data analysis in some of the social sciences. I'd be both a criminal and a fool if I tried to use that knowledge to critique the design of a nuclear reactor. What I would do in a situation like that is consult with a nuclear engineer and I'd take his pronouncements as expert opinion that I should accept as a best approximation of what I should know about the subject. Further, I would assume - correctly - that he could back up his opinion with data drawn from theory and experience.
This is quite different from accepting what someone would say about the design of nuclear reactors who had a deep knowledge of oceanography. This person would be a different authority, but an untrustworthy one; lacking in either the expertise or experience to allow us to form valid opinions. And anyone who depended on such an authority to make design suggestions about a reactor would be immediately dismissed as a fool and removed from the premises, presumably complaining that her opinion has been ignored.
It has. For good reason. I don't know where your outrage about what I said came from, but I certainly hope it came from an expert source. That you don't give Darwin his props leads me to believe this isn't the case, however. But let's stop at that; I keep saying I have other things to do then you draw me back in. I'll stick to football.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
I know enough of the science regarding evolution and climate change to know that the science isn't settled. Therefore, I know anyone who asserts it as settled science is either making a faith claim or is dissembling. Even neoDarwinists like Dawkins don't point to Darwin as sufficient.
I wonder what fields of social science you claim expertise in that you are unfamiliar with concepts of paradigms, controlling nomos, theory-change etc.
Here's the deal. You made assertions about evolution and climate change that are false. You know that you don't know the data. Yet, you confidently argue with me as if I don't know what I'm talking about. What arrogance!
Like I said, I'm sick of anti-intellectual liberal fundamentalists
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,079
Oh, ok, one more time.
In fact, I know a good deal about evolutionary theory - I've written scholarly work on it. And, yes, since Darwin didn't know about either genetics or DNA, his work isn't complete. But if you knew anything in depth on the subject, you'd know that the Origin is still the canonical statement of the basis of the theory. That's why I cited it. My guess = you've never read it. My advice = start there, then try to make sense out of everything else. Evolution is as close to a fact as any scientific theory gets.
As for climate change: that is less settled then evolution, but just barely. Here again the evidence is simply overwhelming; saying that there is still doubt flies in the face of a stupendous research effort stretching out over almost 40 years. As I said above, that's the basis for my thinking on the subject. It isn't faith; it's acceptance of the overwhelming evidence for the phenomena.
What's interesting here is that you have failed to address any point I made in the post I wrote above. You've simply repeated the argument you made before. If you have another account of how we can make sense of scientific data and use it effectively in our lives, let's hear it.
In fact, I know a good deal about evolutionary theory - I've written scholarly work on it. And, yes, since Darwin didn't know about either genetics or DNA, his work isn't complete. But if you knew anything in depth on the subject, you'd know that the Origin is still the canonical statement of the basis of the theory. That's why I cited it. My guess = you've never read it. My advice = start there, then try to make sense out of everything else. Evolution is as close to a fact as any scientific theory gets.
As for climate change: that is less settled then evolution, but just barely. Here again the evidence is simply overwhelming; saying that there is still doubt flies in the face of a stupendous research effort stretching out over almost 40 years. As I said above, that's the basis for my thinking on the subject. It isn't faith; it's acceptance of the overwhelming evidence for the phenomena.
What's interesting here is that you have failed to address any point I made in the post I wrote above. You've simply repeated the argument you made before. If you have another account of how we can make sense of scientific data and use it effectively in our lives, let's hear it.
- Status