The Motives of Scientists

[John McCarthy]

In article <44si9r$9lo at holly.cc.uleth.ca> wilson at hg.uleth.ca writes:
 From: wilson at hg.uleth.ca
 Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,bionet.general,sci.chem,sci.econ,sci.edu,sci.engr,sci.environment,sci.math,sci.med,sci.physics,soc.culture.scientists
 Date: 3 Oct 1995 23:51:23 GMT
 Organization: University of Lethbridge
 Reply-To: wilson at hg.uleth.ca
 
 In article <JMC.95Oct2233242 at Steam.stanford.edu>, jmc at Steam.stanford.edu 
 (John McCarthy) writes:
 
 >
 >Remember that whole generations of future American politicians were in
 >the armed forces when the bombs were dropped and were spared invading 
 >Japan
 >
 >
 
 Let's suppose a future politican was 20 when the bombs were dropped.  
 That would make him/her 70 now.  That's a bit old to be considered a 
 future politician.  Also what do you mean 'whole generations'.  I 
 don't think you the age span of WWII vets currently in politics could
 be more than 10 years at most.  This hardly constitutes a single
 generation.  Your statement would have been very true in the 1950's
 when support for science among politicians was very high.  
 
I meant future from August 1945.  As to the idea that a generation is
10 years, let me point out that while Harry Truman was a soldier in
WWI, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and now Dole were in
service in WWII.  The U.S. Presidents who were not in military service
in WWII comprise Johnson (already a Congressman), Carter (too young for
WWII but served later in the Navy), Ford (maybe) and Clinton.  Clinton
is the first President from a generation that evaded military service.

-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/