|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mission?[edit]
I'm not seeing the real need for this article, when we can just discuss those two members membership on this committee on their articles. Otherwise... has it done anything else noteworthy for the purpose of RW?--Mikal Harass Follow 15:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think the membership issues that are already addressed bear a further look into other possible interesting tensions. More to the point, a committee like this is where the rubber meets the road in terms of the politicization of science, funding issues, and general discussions of where the country is heading in terms of science, tech and research. As global warming denialism, the drive to teach creationism in schools, the privatization of space exploration and other questionable scientific orientations/policies shape the way scientists do their work, this wiki could play a role in making the debates and policies accessible, readblae, on point and fun. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- That didn't really answer the concern that, at the moment, we only have this article to say what we could (and do, for atleast Akins) say on two other, already existing articles. What it can be later is a question for creating it then, not in the hope this committee does turn anti-science to justify it being here now--Mikal Harass Follow 16:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Right now, you're right, it doesn't do a lot of what I argue it could do. But it's, like, 20 minutes old, and, from what I understand about wikis, other people might develop it, given the chance. I might even do a bit more after the Windies win the cricket and I get a bike ride in. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- That didn't really answer the concern that, at the moment, we only have this article to say what we could (and do, for atleast Akins) say on two other, already existing articles. What it can be later is a question for creating it then, not in the hope this committee does turn anti-science to justify it being here now--Mikal Harass Follow 16:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is ridiculously on-mission. Your objection is stupid, and you should feel stupid - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)