When does the world scientific community deem the general public worthy of "knowing"?

This is a question that I have pondered from time to time, and I have thought that I would toss it out to you intelligent people to throw in your ideas & theories. When does the scientific community make the decision as to share knowledge found through research and study to the general public?


What do you think?

When they want to free the slaves from bondage would be your answer.

When it will make a profit for the company that paid the research grant.

Or.....about one generation too late to do any good.

Whichever comes first.

In most cases, it is not the decision of an individual or even a group of scientists. It is a manager (and management levels) above the scientists that invariably stops with a government bureaucrat because almost all PUBLIC scientific research and ALL classified research is funded one way or another by the government. And an above post covered PRIVATE research.

I have seen this on MANY large scale government contracts I have worked on.. The movie Dante's Peak is a perfect example: www.imdb.com...

Need more be said???

reply to post by maestromason


Before its complete or after it is no longer relevant.

From what I can see most scientific discoveries are published ion science journals. The ones who do the releasing "to the people" would be MSM if it thinks it can make advertising dollars by telling you about it.

For the most part you need to actively search and check scientific journals or specific industry magazines.

Unless you're talking about Darpa then the answer is you get to know about it when it is sold, interesting, and doesn't affect national security.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


So you are saying that we are being held slaves to those "in the know"? I would have to look at the proof in the past 60 years of how we went from Cathode Ray Tubes to 45-nm wafers capable of making a quadrillion operations per second squared without a working model.

Someone has been knowing something for quite some time now and we may have been getting "drip fed", desensitized and conditioned for the past half a century as to the working theories that they have had in the labs, from "unknown models" or Model X.

IMPOSSIBLE!

Originally posted by maestromason
This is a question that I have pondered from time to time, and I have thought that I would toss it out to you intelligent people to throw in your ideas & theories. When does the scientific community make the decision as to share knowledge found through research and study to the general public?


What do you think?

Only after several meetings with their intellectual property attorney to consider patents, trademarks, and copyright issues. The normal time for such activity is measured in decades so the best strategy for most of us is to adivse our grandchildren to expect big announcements when they are about to retire.

When it has been validated by their peers.

Originally posted by whatwasthat

Originally posted by maestromason
This is a question that I have pondered from time to time, and I have thought that I would toss it out to you intelligent people to throw in your ideas & theories. When does the scientific community make the decision as to share knowledge found through research and study to the general public?


What do you think?

Only after several meetings with their intellectual property attorney to consider patents, trademarks, and copyright issues. The normal time for such activity is measured in decades so the best strategy for most of us is to adivse our grandchildren to expect big announcements when they are about to retire.

edit on 8-4-2011 by whatwasthat because: spelling

whatwasthat,

I had to respond to your idea that IP attorneys are involved, that idea is interestingly strange. I have worked on high level projects and to say the least I know that at the top levels that are involved(that being the R & D side) there are no IP sharks waiting at the bottom of the pool to be fed. There are reasons why "unclassified technologies" are classified for 40-50 years before being made available to the public, then and only then can those technologies be considered for implementation or integration into civil sector whether Uni-based or government based. That just goes to show you that your perception on logical order intrudes on even the most complex of issues.

The prime example is the IC or integrated circuit. Prior to the 70's/80's logic based circuitry was primarily built around the logic gates of the cumbersome and most hazardous Cathode Ray Tube encapsulated in a vacuum, and very fragile to handle. The simple fact that the IC has no inventor must puzzle some people who are EE's like myself, for logic ALWAYS has a progenitor. The most BASIC stacked die package of a 45-nm IC is quite a marvel to look at under a SEM at low mag.


Here you have on a microscopic level a current regulator, millions of transistors, a data bus and power bus system working on power levels that use less energy than a standard pen light(@

Well I personally think it shouldn't be up to a person to decide whether a given population will be worthy of knowing. It all comes down to it being new knowledge.

Who is it for TPTB to judge whether someone can or can't handle such truths in a civil manner.

I think everyone deserves to know ASAP because this unknown knowledge causes curiosity, then causes belief systems to be put in effect out of what knowledge is available, and then you get your "state-of-the-art" civilization that lives based on that knowledge.

How do the military or whomever have a right to withhold information that could better our understanding of life and help our way of living? Easy answer.

To make a buck. Hence advertisement and television shows. Or for some other reason we don't know of.

Just my two cents

As soon as we develop technology to a certain level, we are classified as a different class of civilisation, and it would basically allow for the aliens to make contact without breaching thier galactic laws. For that reason, and due to world leaders who are not willing to become apart of such a community due to fears about public reactions, we are held back from reaching the next level in technology and the knowledge associated with it.

reply to post by maestromason


Jack Kilby is the father of the integrated circuit.

reply to post by maestromason

When does the world scientific community deem the general public worthy of "knowing"?

Knowledge is power... just like heat is a form of energy. Science is cousin to politics because in both camps, facts are derived from truths and used to further specific goals and agendas.

Once a truth is released to the public... set free, so to speak, the energy/power is lost to them and it becomes the property of the human race.

As for the 'when' part... it all depends on when the scientific community feels it has milked as much mileage from a certain truth as possible and that the leverage gained by releasing it outweighs that from keeping it in chains.

Originally posted by Mayson
reply to post by maestromason

 

Jack Kilby is the father of the integrated circuit.

Or Robert Noyce or maybe they both invented it independently at about the same time. Noyce has the earlier patent.

reply to post by maestromason


The scientific community almost never makes the decision. The decision is usually made by the media when they think a concept is "sexy" enough to sell advertising. Scientists almost always share their results through peer reviewed journals. Science depends on reproducible results. What the scientists are doing in the peer reviewed journals is saying, "This is what I did and what I think it means. Here is how I did it if you want to do it too and see if you can do what I did". If other scientists can do it and come out with the same results then the concept or theory gains credibility. If other scientists can't reproduce the results then the theory, and the scientist, lose credibility and the scientist better go back to the drawing board.

Originally posted by Mayson
reply to post by maestromason

 

Jack Kilby is the father of the integrated circuit.

You need to do some alternative searching on this. Jack Kilby did not invent the IC. I was waiting for someone to bring up his name. Mr. Kilby was only a goat to stick it to because they could not just state that they had no inventor for it. Look deeper, I belong to the IEEE and have done the homework and research, they rewrote the books so that it would make sense. For all of you Googlelites out there you need to search a lot harder to find out the truth, you just cannot Google up the truth in this case. You would be shocked to find out that the developement of the IC goes all the way back to reverse-engineering lab work at Wright Patterson's AFB then transferred to Area - 51. Disinformation is so easy now-a-days with the proliferation of the Internet. The facts are right there.

reply to post by maestromason


It's interesting the same IEEE you claim to be a member of has bestowed numerous awards on Jack Kilby for his work. I'm guessing your views are not mainstream among EEs?

At any rate you lost all credibility here:

You would be shocked to find out that the developement of the IC goes all the way back to reverse-engineering lab work at Wright Patterson's AFB then transferred to Area - 51. Disinformation is so easy now-a-days with the proliferation of the Internet. The facts are right there.

My only question after that is: Have you had your meds reviewed recently?

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by maestromason

 

It's interesting the same IEEE you claim to be a member of has bestowed numerous awards on Jack Kilby for his work. I'm guessing your views are not mainstream among EEs?

At any rate you lost all credibility here:

You would be shocked to find out that the developement of the IC goes all the way back to reverse-engineering lab work at Wright Patterson's AFB then transferred to Area - 51. Disinformation is so easy now-a-days with the proliferation of the Internet. The facts are right there.

My only question after that is: Have you had your meds reviewed recently?

wasco2,

I do not know how old you are, nor do I care the only reason I bring that up is because I see that you are heavily dependent on false sources for your information, and your avatar seems to scream of skepticism. You have not apparently done your research on the matter, but that is neither here nor there. I have been a member of the IEEE for the past 20 years and I came into it with the factual knowledge that Mr. Kilby did not create the IC, against what the status quo accepts to be true.


This thread was constructed on a simple question of "when does the scientific community deem the general public worthy of "knowing". I asked a general question as to what do most "people" think, I know that ATS is not most people, so that is why I included "intelligent people" to filter all of the nut cases that are in the mix.


My credibility is not, nor will it ever be lost to any subject that I contribute input to.You may belong to a union and not agree with certain union rules & regulations, that does not classify one as against the union. So wasco2, you must be short of understanding and instruction to even make a statement like that, but that is to be expected of one who is a MSM kool-aid drinker. Would you like some *TRUTH with your cyanide?


*Put Google away and go visit a place called the library for a change, and be careful of where you venture while there, for the profane and gullible have been known to be led astray.

reply to post by maestromason


I was going to make this longer but there's no point. I am at least as well educated as you and my education and training was in assessing and treating people's mental health.

Your belief in the "special knowledge" that modern electronics were back engineered from recovered alien technology puts you squarely in certified loon territory. If you're not getting help already I suggest you seek it out.

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by maestromason

 

I was going to make this longer but there's no point. I am at least as well educated as you and my education and training was in assessing and treating people's mental health.

Your belief in the "special knowledge" that modern electronics were back engineered from recovered alien technology puts you squarely in certified loon territory. If you're not getting help already I suggest you seek it out.

I must put forth that......

#1 You put words in peoples mouth, so that indicates to me that you have an agenda here on ATS, that I am not going into.

#2 I seriously doubt that you are any where near as educated as I am, from past two encounters that we have had. If you need to know, it is a very simple act to study for one's self.

#3 You apparently cannot READ or at most comprehend what you read maturely, because you misconstrued everything that I posted here so that puts you in the category of a troll trying to spark an argument for debate. Well, go away troll, your huckleberry is not here.


Next time you care to join a forum, please READ and COMPREHEND what it is that you are reading before attempting to add content. It is only right.

Also, please by all means tell me when did I use the term "special knowledge" since you want to quote me. Who needs meds?, you do! for your short attention span disorder and seeing "invisible quotes" on your monitor. Please keep it to subject, we had a nice roll going before you staggered in. Please keep your Dr. Phil moments to yourself.


Back to topic.....

It is the head lead of the project in all of the cases where I am experienced in. Data has to be verified, and that process is done through the lab. The lab holds the data while a redundancy protocol is evoked to ensure quality control. The data is then recorded and testing continues. I only know of a handful of souls that get all of the correlated data handed off to them signed and dated.