Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Budget Obliterates Funding For Science, Education, EPA u0026 Labor" video.

The more I studied physics the more agnostic I became. I also realized that science and religion are two separate things that cannot be compared. It is similar to comparing a cupcake to a truck.
2
I was raised in a very religious family and now I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. I have seen and study both sides and have great insight in both of them.
2
Johnny, climate change is a wide field. I can technically say I study climate change as I am pushing to develop methods to study structure and dynamics of biological materials. I can say my friend studies climate change as he studies coherence in photosynthesis. My point is that we know very little about the ecosystem. We have very little knowledge on how it will evolve and to what degree certain factors are contributing to climate change. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you are one piece of a very complex, and large puzzle. As a scientist you should appreciate that.
2
Keeping talking, it might happen. How is the stock market doing?
2
How is the stock market doing? Wasn't Kyle and his fan base calling out a recession last week? Now where is it at?
1
Over the past 50 years defense spending has been getting cut while everything as been going up in terms of percent of GDP. All you leftists that want more federal government, cuts in defense spending and taxes on the rich need to realize we have been practicing that over over 50 years.
1
Science is about faith, religion is about doubt. Richard Feynman said very similar words. Having faith is about having a belief. You do not believe in science, you support it. But there is always doubt. A belief means without a doubt. You can believe in a god or an afterlife but still support science. They are unrelated fields.
1
Chuck-U Farly, I agree, science has nothing to do with faith. I never said it did. " Since religion has never proven a damn thing" Neither has science as science does not prove anything. Science is driven on doubt. "Can you prove your god it real? " No. Can you prove gravity is real? You may say by dropping something. Ok, now what is gravity? Why do two spherical object attract each other that is inversely related to the distance between them squared and related to their masses? Gravity sounds pretty magical to me. What about strong nuclear forces? Why do they suddenly drop off after such a small distance? At that point you can say "God", except there is no mathematical equation attached to it. All science does is gives models to explain natural occurrences and predict future results. It does not prove anything.
1
"I would like to add that science does not advocate things that are harmful " Except for dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan. But again, science does not prove anything. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
1
"Wrong, science is drive by evidence. Science is never so arrogant as to say anything as absolute but does demonstrate the truth of its claims. " Science is driven on the scientific method and doubt, never proof. That evidence is simply observables to support a theory, not proof. It was observed that waves needed a median to travel through so the theory of ether was developed to describe light waves. However, future experiments made that theory poor thus new ones were developed. "I can demonstrate that gravity does exist by dropping a pen" You just showed an observable and you have a model to describe it, that being that being the gravitational force model. It does not explain what gravity truly is. Why did the pen fall? You will say gravity, OK, what's gravity? What is this force? Why does it exist? "If you god was as demonstrable as that we wouldn't be having this conversation but to date there is no verifiable evidence that demonstrates your god. " It isn't "my god" as I am not religious. However, one can argue everything, including gravity exists because of god. " Science does have verifiable and testable evidence" It has the scientific method. " That is only you ignorance talking. You are falling into the classic argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't explain it so god did it?" A legit argument that does not take away from science. God could have created all of this and we just model it. Does not take away from science at all. "unlike religion which make shit up all the time," Newton developed Calculus to explain gravity. "Remember, science has verifiable evidence, testable claims and able to predict on what it knows. " That is the scientific method.
1
The dumbest thing people do is try to compare science to religion. They are completely different fields.
1
"You think that handing Billions away to the super wealthy makes the economy a good thing. " What policy are republicans passing that does that? Also, I do take MBA courses as well in grad school. That was an option given to me and I do it on my free time.
1
Sha Dow, I never used the phrase "fake news".
1
As a graduate student in physical chemistry studying bio molecules, I find this exciting.
1
Johnny, because we need to get government out of science and keep science with the scientists. We also need to cut all around as we do spend way too much right now. You do not go into science for the money. There is plenty of funding for it at the local level already.
1
Johnny, your understanding of climate change is shallow. As a scientist you should understand that there is a debate on how much man is playing a role and if it is even bad. Also, climate change is a reason why I support pulling government money out of science as there is a bias in the funding. Clear that up and then increase the funds.
1
" you’re kidding, right? I’m an NSF fellow" I am paid off of an NIH grant, what's your point? "The government does not control the results or the manner in which you conduct your research" If you don't produce you don't get paid. They have to accept your proposal and then you have to produce. "You clearly are not a PhD student if you think that a 30 percent cut to the NSF and the EPA is a benevolent thing." I am a PhD student, I am willing to push my bias aside and stick to principle. We spend too much at the federal level, what do you supposed we cut?
1
" by which I mean the EPA and NSF are under siege by the climate change denying administration " Pruitt does not deny climate change. "Maybe we should use 1% of the military budget this year on environmental science and we wouldn’t be having this debate." Defense has been cut for over 50 years. It was 10% of GDP in 1960 and now it is 3% of GDP. Not saying it should be increased, but defense is not part of the problem. Also, how would military personal feel about defense being cut? Probably the same way you do about science. Why? They have a bias.
1
" if climate change is a 100 piece puzzle, then 99 of the pieces, each from different scientific disciplines, all say that it is real, " Never said it wasn't real. It has been happening for over 4 billion years. My point is that the field is complex as we know very little about the ecosystem.
1
" So, do you think the best way to learn more about it is to defund 2 bodies that are absolutely necessary to generate scientific understanding in this field? Please tell me how that helps." Funding will help, but again, we are spending too much as is. We have to cut. When ol' Bernie talked about "working together" this is one way we can do it. We have to accept we have to cut in most federal spending and work around it. One problem with politics is that so many to look after only themselves.
1
"are you incapable of detecting your own hypocrisy?" Such as? "If they proposed a 30% cut to your grant, I am sure you would not be “excited” about it" It just means I will have to work harder, be more creative. I will become a TA again and work with what I have. I worked without a grant for over 2 years.
1
Johnny, I am not talking about removal of all funds. Yes, there should be funding, but right now we have to cut back. "I suggest you read some more studies from ACP, or even from a general textbook on atmospheric chemistry, before you try to debate an atmospheric organic chemist about the complexities of climate change or the devastating effects of a cut to the EPA and NSF to climate change research as a whole. " Read some work on photosynthesis and the quantum coherence involved in it.
1
"only difference is, I’m not attempting to discuss a subject I’m not well informed on" Clearly are you. You may understand your field well but you don't others. I do not pretend to fully know synthetic chemistry so I do not discuss it. I do, however, understand the complex nature of the ecosystem as I understand the complex nature of biological materials. I can understand the physics behind it and realize how little we know. From there I see that making a radical claim on topics, like climate change, such as that it is a threat is pushing anti-science in my opinion.
1
" I just find it funny how you think federal funding of science is something that is up for debate" It is highly debatable. I am actually on the side that it is unconstitutional and should be left up to the states. Point to me where it says in the Constitution that the federal government can fund science? It does not exist to my feeling is that it should be left up to the states via the 10th amendment. This comes down to an argument of limited government, especially the federal government that the Constitution was designed to do. So it is highly debatable. It isn't to you because you have a bias which is a major problem in economics. People want things but they do not want to pay more for them. You will support higher funded for science but you also said, in our conversation, that you opposed the increase in taxes on graduate students. That money has to come somewhere. A reason why we have a $20 trillion debt is because politicians spend as they know they can buy votes, but they also know that raising taxes loses them votes. Again, I can argue that you are part of the problem. You want to increase spending but also said yourself you do not want your taxes to go up. The entire budget as in taxes and spending, including defense spending, is up for debate.
1
Johnny, you can agree to disagree. However, you have to agree this issue is very debatable. And in my opinion unless you know a lot about it you should not have a strong opinion on it.
1
You can have a strong opinion, but in the end that is what it is, an opinion. A reason why I feel your opinion is lacking as you said there is no debate. Also, you seem to lack understanding of the Constitution and the issue we are facing of high spending and low taxes that the government follows.
1
DrgnFlys, the stock market is a part of the economy and represents more than the top 3%. Also, last week Kyle and his fanbase were rooting for the falling stock prices as if a recession was happening when in reality we were in a correction period and it went up again. Why did that happen? Because the economy is growing with higher wages, less unemployment, and an increase in the interest rates.
1
"The stock market is only an indication of how the rich are doing. 50% of Americans make a personal income of less than 31k/year." The stock market provides a lot of information. As for that 50% statement, I do not buy that from what I have seen. Even at that you are missing many variables such as household income, cost of living, retirement, etc. You can't just throw numbers out there and expect them to mean anything.
1
OHIOspikey, thanks for the link, but again, you have to put the numbers in perspective. It isn't denying the facts, it is putting them in proper perspective. I earn $23,000 a year. I am in that bottom 50%. I am also a PhD student who is a couple years a away from earning my PhD and seeing my income go up around three times or more within a year. That is why you can't just throw numbers out there. "This data is the most useful information, because it tells you what is happening at the per person level" In a country of 320+ million people there are many variables. WV is ranked third to last in median household income of around $40,000 a year. However that state is ranked number 1 in home ownership rate. Why? Because cost of living is low. When you include cost of living WV is not in the top 10 in poverty rates, CA is where CA is ranked 9th in median household income. " This means that the average worker can work 40 hours of week for a year at 15 dollars per hour and be in the middle of the economy. " Again, you have to put that number in perspective. One is what economy do they live in? If they live in rural Nebraska then that value is much higher than in the bay area in CA, thus they are a larger participate in the economy. "I don't care where you live in America. 31k/year or less is poor or in poverty." No it isn't. Again, WV is number 1 in home ownership rate. "As for the the stock market, 84% of all stocks are owned by the top 10%" I agree, but higher stocks means the company has more assets to invest and grow benefiting society in both jobs and wealth. Sure the worker may not own stock, but now they have a job.
1
"I find it odd that you would pick home ownership as your metric for a successful economy." The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. A home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Also, owning a home is tied into the "American Dream". Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth as they have little to no desire to run a business. Owning a home is a part of having high assets that you can pass onto your children and can greatly increase your credit score. It is a strong indicator of success. " It doesn't tell a lot about the health of economy when home ownership includes people that are still paying a bank for a home" They are able to get the loan because of a strong economy. "It also doesn't make a lot of sense to pay rent, if you can finance a house for cheaper than the cost of rent." For some people rent is cheaper. "So, it makes sense that people are buying, rather than renting with rent costs that high. " WV is the cheapest state to rent in. I will post the link later. "I would think that a better metric for gauging the economy would be median equity gained per household" Arguably it is. I don't disagree. But you cannot look at median income, or any number at that and expect to make a conclusion. Consider this, 66% of the country is between the ages of 15 to 64, working age. Half of that is 33%. So 33% earn less than $30,000 a year. Out of that 66% 13% of them are 16-24. The average earnings for that age group is around $27,000 a year. So strip out 13% of 33% and you have 20% of the nation left who are over 24 years old earning less than $30,000 a year, a rough estimate. Is the number so bad now? Especially considering other factors?
1
My sources https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rental-data/ https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/demo/age-and-sex/2012-age-sex-composition.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/how-much-americans-earn-at-every-age.html
1
Most education funding, as in 84% of it, comes from the state and local government.
1