Topic awaiting preservation: "Kansas looks at redefining science"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html




I mean....

How far backwards do we have to slide here???

For the love of...

quote:

---

"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

---

Yes - if we change the deifinition of science, then we can make things that are *not* science into "a very respectable science program".

And if I change the definition of "moral behavior" I can turn mass murder into a "very respectable moral action"...

If I change the definition of "classical music", Kid Rock is a "very respecatble composer"...

If I change the definition of reality, I can be a very respectable nutcase and shit all over the rest of the world in the name of my chosen diety...

Gah....

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-16-2005 05:17)

lol

I recommend a shock therapy for Stephen Meyer and his fellow nuts.

I think I might be able to spare a few thousand volts...

To be perfectly serious for a moment, though, I don't really understand why Intelligent Design needs to be recognized as science.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Because introducing ID in Science opens the gate to the intervention of faith, fairies, gnomes, troll, elves, unicorns and what not in Science which is convenient for all the nuts out there to "explain" the things in way that please them and expose these ideas in public schools as irefutable Science.

A lot of stuff that passes for science is bogus and a lot of scientific facts are pure fiction.
Take psichology and dream analysis for example. Or the SuperString theory. Or the Big Bang.

"Let us argue mindlessly about the origin of the Universe (as if anyone gives a phuck) and call ourselves scientists instead of devising fusion power and, by failing and/or postponing to infinity, prove ourselves the idiots we are." is the researchers' mindframe.

"Let us argue endlessly about parallel universi instead of actually developing technologies." Very few researchers actually deserve to be called that.

We are NOT a technologically advanced species.
All we have is industrial dependency. All progress is driven by armed conflicts.
Nearly all technological advances (certainly all important ones) are brought about by the need for the military applications they seem to implicate.
We like to think we are more clever than our ancestors. For God's sake, all P.C.'s manufactured today still use electrolitic condensers. There has been no revolution in the computer industry since the advent of the microcip, RAM andhar disks. Nor has there been one in propulsion systems since the advent of the jet engine which came after the solid fuel rocket. Complacency is the word of the day. All road cars today use piston engines. Even though there are more efficient alternatives like the Wankel eccentric engine and others we still stick to the old Otto, more than a century old. All we're good at is expanding on known "science". Extrapolating. Making things bigger, faster, stronger but basically the same. NOT BETTER. Next time you download a pic to your HDD, know you'll be using one 10 years from now too.

So much for humanity's science.

quote:

---

So much for humanity's science.

---

As compared to...who elses?

You do not demonstrate a very knowledgable argument, IMHO. Technology "advances", as you are defining them, occur in leaps. One sees this with a study of human history.

Agrarian, to a trades system, that eventually led to an industral system. The transfer of power from muscle to machine. It is now starting to shift from machine to one of information.
With each "leap", comes a flood of different TYPES of advances. You obviously expect older types of systems and inventions to be "advanced" along.

Why is that?

However, perhpas that is a topic for another thread - the topic of this thread has to deal with something totally different, which you seem to be entirely ignoring in your "tirade".

That what is happening (and has happened, btw such as removing Evolution entirely from the curriculum as a required course in 1999) in Kansas is making that state into a laughing stock. Religious people may send their children there, but they are not getting a quantitative education compared to others in other states and lands where the Sciences with Evolution is taught.

Opening Science to include "super-natural explanations" is just the stupidest of all things.

Now one doesn't even need to collect evidence - why? Just say "a higher power did it". That explains everything. All scientific-like

Uh-oh, wait a minute! Which higher power?

Zeus? Allah? Jehovah? Shiva?

Now we have a debate! Let me see...since there is no way to prove that one of the above truly is meant here, I know! We will resort to killing those who do not believe in the higher power that we believe in!

That will settle the discussion, once and for all!

Don't like our higher power explanation? Then die! Infidel! Unbeliever!

There can only be one higher power - ours!

And a part of humanity takes a huge leap backwards.

Thank you, Kansas.

quote:

---

So much for humanity's science.

---

As compared to...who elses?

You do not demonstrate a very knowledgable argument, IMHO. Technology "advances", as you are defining them, occur in leaps. One sees this with a study of human history.

Agrarian, to a trades system, that eventually led to an industral system. The transfer of power from muscle to machine. It is now starting to shift from machine to one of information.
With each "leap", comes a flood of different TYPES of advances. You obviously expect older types of systems and inventions to be "advanced" along.

Why is that?

However, perhpas that is a topic for another thread - the topic of this thread has to deal with something totally different, which you seem to be entirely ignoring in your "tirade".

That what is happening (and has happened, btw such as removing Evolution entirely from the curriculum as a required course in 1999) in Kansas is making that state into a laughing stock. Religious people may send their children there, but they are not getting a quantitative education compared to others in other states and lands where the Sciences with Evolution is taught.

Opening Science to include "super-natural explanations" is just the stupidest of all things.

Now one doesn't even need to collect evidence - why? Just say "a higher power did it". That explains everything. All scientific-like

Uh-oh, wait a minute! Which higher power?

Zeus? Allah? Jehovah? Shiva?

Now we have a debate! Let me see...since there is no way to prove that one of the above truly is meant here, I know! We will resort to killing those who do not believe in the higher power that we believe in!

That will settle the discussion, once and for all!

Don't like our higher power explanation? Then die! Infidel! Unbeliever!

There can only be one higher power - ours!

And a part of humanity takes a huge leap backwards.

Thank you, Kansas.

Sony - can you tell me what any of that has to do with.....anything, but especially the topic at hand?

The point is that religious groups are pushing very dangerously into ground they need to leave alone.

It is bad enough that they are having hearings to get ID pushed into science classes....now they actually want to change the definition of sicence itself, to support blatantly non-scientific areas.

Regardless of you view on our state of technological advancement as a species, redefining "science" to be able to include religious doctrine is the single most dangerous step I've seen attempted in the US. Worse than the "patriot" act.

^ I agree with that 100% DL.

Ditto

quote:

---

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.

---

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
German dramatist, novelist, poet, & scientist (1749 - 1832)

A 'Multi-tasker' back then. Who knew. =)

DL, you mention that religion is pushing into areas where it does not belong. And I have to question that.


Most people join a religious belief system because it explains that are inexplicable. Where do we come from? What happens when we die? How does one live the good life?

That religion leaps into religion today should not be so much a new concept to western civilization (it's not, of course), but as the predecessor to science throughout many, many cultures (see Greeks, Romans, Chinese, &c) its impact through the ages must surely be registered.

I am not, by any streth of the imagination, recommending that religion be considered for all scientific adjustments to our universal view (in fact, I think the two should happily exist in their thinktanks in complete isolation, so that things like Vatican II and the theory of relativity can come about), but neither am I recommending that the two exist in society in the same thinktank.

It is not that religion is infringing upon the purity of science; science would not exist without religion. And the other way around.

-----------------
What once twItch^ed is now more stable.

quote:

---

What once twItch^ed is now more stable.

---

twItch^?

*plop*

That is the sound of my jaw dropping.

quote:

---

It is not that religion is infringing upon the purity of science; science would not exist without religion.

---

If you mean in a historical sense, then yes, you are correct to point that out. However, re-defining Science to include "supernatural" explanations that cannot be proven, is just absurd.

Therefore, keeping Science and Religion seperate, is a much better solution, IMHO.

quote:

---

science would not exist without religion

---

Pure CRAP!

^ All well and fine... but NOT in a PUBLIC school system. Forget for a minute that I'm a heathen. The inescapable result because of 'freedom of religion' , means every 'other' flavor of religion will go to court -- demand their version of 'creationism' be included in SCIENCE curriculum and the presiding Judge of the day will have no choice but to 'order' so.

Anything and everything PUBLIC, must be, SECULAR SECULAR SECULAR.

I think science could probably exist without religion. The science we have today wouldn't though because it is so intertwined with the cultures that gave birth to it; and those cultures were profoundly religious as are many scientists themselves.

I prefer to view science as a tool to understand, manipulate and help us live better in this physical world we find ourselves. There is no conflict between my faith and anything science demonstrates. I do not see religion and science as separate as much as I see them coexisting; each being regarded in their proper context.

[edit]
After thinking a bit more about this article, I must say that I prefer keeping science focused on looking for physical explanations for physical events. I just don't see how we as humans can measure supernatural activity in such a way that we could know what is and what isn't supernatural.

I am also very opposed to banning ideas from school, namely the idea that the existence of this universe may very well be the result of intelligent design. Science in no way has excluded that possibility and therefore it must not be ruled out. But neither are we sure that we are the result of pure happenstance and that should also be discussed.


: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-16-2005 21:22)

You misinterpret my meaning here, I think.


Figure that the birth of science was, at the beginning, the birth of religion. What we cannot explain, explained through meaning. Meaning taken from the skies, or trees, or rivers.

Religion, by itself doesn't mean a holy book, or a set of ceremonies--but a collection of beliefs held by a collection of people. Why else would we still consider parts of science as religion?

Consider pi. We consider it a scientific fact that it exists. However, it's an assumed scientific fact, given that we'll never, ever know all the numbers in that irrational number. True? So the rest of the numbers must be taken on faith.


Don't mistake, however, that I am supporting what Kansas is attempting to do here. I recommend the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" for more information as to why Kansas so often creates such interesting characters.

-----------------
From twItch^ to wordnerd. This is important.
Everything2 Profile :::: deviantART Profile

I agree with the basis of what you are saying.

Religion and science stem from the same process, and there was no distinction in the beginning.

At various points, one group would stand still and another would continue moving forward.

That is why we have so many different religious sects, and is how sicence came to be what we call science.

However, the two - like man and ape - are no longer interchangable.

Science class exists for the purpose of teaching science.

Until there is any scientific basis for 'ID' it has no place in science class.
Until there is evidence of god, god has no place in science class.

This is a very obivous attempt to push religion into our schools, and every single thing about it is wrong.

{edit
btw - good to see you around =)


{{edit again -
Bugimus said:

quote:

---

Science in no way has excluded that possibility and therefore it must not be ruled out.

---

This is another one of those arguments that holds no water.
If we took the time to talk about everything that cannot be completely excluded, we would never get around to what we actually have evidence *for*.

There is simply no sicentific evidence to support the idea of intelligent design - none. There is the assumption, once again, that because we hit a point where we do not know the answer, "it must be god".
If that is what you believe - great. No problem.

But beleiving it and having it as part of a scientific curriculum are two vastyl different things.



(Edited by DL-44 on 05-16-2005 21:36)

quote:

---

We like to think we are more clever than our ancestors.

---

Yeah, and we launch rockets in outer space, take pictures of galaxies ~15bn Light years away, cure cancer, do genetic modifications simply by hitting two silexes

I do not support making ID part of the scientific curriculum. But when the inevitable discussions come up about origin, students and teachers should be free to discuss that issue without some sort of "gag order" in place. I'm not suggesting that you are necessarily advocating that, but I know plenty do... on both sides. I want to see more dialogue and ideas flowing in our schools, not less.

Also, I don't think that the idea that the universe was created by a transcendent being is on the same level as whether there is a chartreuse penguin peeking out of my anus that controls the weather But then again... it is good to be back once again.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Amen to that ( well to the first part )

Dialogue is welcome.

quote:

---

I don't think that the idea that the universe was created by a transcendent being is on the same level as whether there is a chartreuse penguin peeking out of my anus that controls the weather

---

Hehe...great analogy.

You may not agree that they have equal weight, but from a strictly factual basis, they do.

quote:

---

Also, I don't think that the idea that the universe was created by a transcendent being is on the same level as whether there is a chartreuse penguin peeking out of my anus that controls the weather

---

perhaps not on the same level, since it is *your* anus in question. You can simply look

However, the idea that a 'transcendent being' created the universe, and the idea that the universe is nothing more than a chartreuse penguin whos anus we are peeking out of carries about the same weight in my book

Yeah, I figured as much.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs is back! And with a chartreuse, weather-controlling penguin peeking out of his anus to boot!

That is all. Carry on.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

I honestly had no idea this was yet another religious debate! I thought it was a debate about the inadequacies of science. Which there are plenty of. I didn't realize that there are so many people obsessed with religion, whether for or against it. I didn't read the article that started the thread through so I don't know whether all this fuss is about religion being tought in the public education system of America or something else entirely.

MY PERSONAL OPINION is that religion is a matter of personal conviction and has everything to do with one's system of beliefs but nothing to do with what should be taught in schools or faculties. NEITHER has the theory of evolution anything to do with what can be deemed a proper curriculum. These are yet another way of overloading the schedule of an already overwhelmed student with useless and pointless stuff just to keep someone extra on the payroll. The average student probably does not care for half the subjects he or she's being taught. Nevertheless all subject must be passed with flying colours (was it?) in order to go to faculty (in Romania) and study computer science or other of the finer things in life.

But on a personal record I can't see how being 'taught' you're the grandchild of some ape is at all gratifying or can somehow be productive in any field of 'science' that has anything to do with technology, medicine or human advancement in general, not to mention that many people - including myself - fint it offensive. It does not explain how, nor help, to artificially induce immunity to AIDS, cure cancer or regenerate damaged nervous tissue, etc. It's just 'science' for the sake of having an explanation ready for everything. And instead of tending to such vital issues a lot of highly educated, inteligent and capable people beat the bloody bush to a pulp on evolutionism vs creationism. What do I care of Lucy's adventures humping in the African bush? Or the dramatic existance of the first lunged fish as he heroically ventured onto land only to become somebody's lunch?

It's like I should take it for granted cause it's true (that's why it's taught in schools, right?!) and I should be proud of it.

Anyone who would rather ponder whether he or she descends from a proud lineage of monkeys xor gorrilas or one of God's creations instead of devoting the brain cells they're probably 'blessed' with to more constructive cognitive processes has to much time on their hands.

It is also my personal opinion that all the people that have been debating this tired subject to death long before I even started posting should have taken greater care, at least through their choice of words and tone if nothing else, to avoid hurting other people's feelings in the process of expressing their personal convictions and thoughts. This should not be done because those other people might come with forks and knives to dice death but rather because it is a matter of common curtoasy, respect and a mark of civilisation and proper upbringing.

Thusly 'Well fuck you and your bloody apes' is not proper language for example. Nor is all that penguin talk...

In closing let me just say that dream analysis or psiho-analysis is considered science (or was?).

Feeling the urge to kill yourself? Here, have some Prozac.

What does that tell you of so many things that pass for science?

And poi, the rocket that put Hubble up there... A menage of solid fuel boosters, liquid fuel rocket shuttle engines computer chips fibre optica and human glesh all striving to put into Orbit a telescope that was flawed yet built after the reflective telescope of Isaac Newton, I think. With a camera and a radio transceiver on the back. The size, complexity and quality of manufacturing may vary but the technology is OLD!!!
If they'd had put an interferometer double telescope up there using a ION ENGINE then that would truly have been something to talk about. And as far as I know there is NO CURE FOR CANCER, only treatments. Or maybe we're a lot behind the times here.

Poi, like so many people, you mistake industrial refinements and enlargements for technological advancement. Are there any optical computers around, holographic storage media and TV, Fusion powerplants or supersonic passenger planes around? Weren't they predicting flying cars for 2000 back in the 50's? Aren't we doing the same now?

A 50000 metric ton Diesel powered compartmented double hull oil tanker uses the same technology a 100 metric ton Diesel powered fishing boat does. It's just size and complexity that differ.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-17-2005 09:04)

quote:

---

I didn't read the article that started the thread through so I don't know whether all this fuss is about religion being taught in the public education system of America or something else entirely.

---

Intelligent Design is religion, which some people are trying to disguise as science. Therefore the discussion is really about religion being taught in public schools.

Evolution is not about you coming from Apes. There are many threads that point this out. Evolution is a theory of how organisms evolve through competitive selection. This theory has broad uses across the board. For example in Computer Science you will find something called a Genetic Algorithm which used concepts from the theory of evolution in order to provide some excellent probabilistic results to problems that are really hard to solve (NP-Complete).

In the same light the study of evolution can be used to study the adaptiveness of the HIV retrovirus in order to best determine when and how to administer the drugs to minimize the potential for the virus to develop and immunity to the drugs being administered.

With science it the what would seem inconsequential results which lead to some of the biggest discoveries.

And you have to realize that there is a huge amount of science that goes into enlargements, it is not simple to construct massive equipment, and then make it move.

As for the others, they have been plenty of discussion on optical computers. We have people working on this right now.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad18may99_1.htm

For your holographic storage. They have a prototype.
http://www.inphase-technologies.com/index.html

And for your flying cars.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/15/60minutes/main688454.shtml

So there are many advances, but they normally do not happen in the same way that they have been predicted. You might remember that in the 50's they made a ton of claims, like in 50 years everything in the house will be impervious to water so the wife would be able to just hose down the house to clean everything.

Your flying cars issue and all of your other technologies you are mentioning are simply the opposite of what you were just castigating. You are looking for miniaturization, while you make fun of poi for his enlargements.

By saying that there are no advancements in science going on just shows a limited view of science. There have been huge advances in computer speed, we have quantum cryptography now, we are working with DNA computers, we are working on teleportation, we are working on privatized space flight, we are working on fusion. And so many other technologies and we are making progress. We have made medical advances that are amazing. I can go get my eyes burned with a laser so that I can have perfect vision, someone with the HIV virus can expect a far heightened life expectancy. We have made advances in fighting cancer where we can keep it at bay for longer and longer periods of time.

I do not know how you can believe we are not making any advances. Just because you don't see it in your everyday life doesn't mean it isn't out there, or that it isn't coming. What it means is that you might have false expectations of time frames, and that you are missing out on a lot of the inventions that are now available for you to see.

Dan @ Code Town

Sony - again I have to ask.....what does anything in your little jumble of rants have to do wtih this?

Looking at the article in question and finding something remotely related to the topic at hand to rant about would be a good start...

Where you think we should be technologically, and how you feel personally about our species having evolved from a 'lesser' species has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

As for dreams - it's not a matter of whether or not "dream analysis" is science, it is a matter of whether science is used in said analysis. That wil vary pretty greatly depending on what you mean.

As for the 'penguin talk' not being 'proper language'.....please tell me you're joking?

*Off Topic*

Sonyafterdark said:

quote:

---

Nor has there been one in propulsion systems since the advent of the jet engine which came after the solid fuel rocket.

---

...which is way off the mark for starters:

1) Jet Turbines followed the invention of liquid-based propulsion systems (e.g. pulse-jets, or the ram jet motors used in V1 rockets, or the liquid fuel systems used in the V2). Solid-fuel booster rockets were devised later for specialist purposes like STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) for heavy planes on make-shift runways, and for the massive, short-lived propulsion required to accelerate a high-orbit vehicle to escape velocity (after which, the less powerful but far more advanced liquid boosters take over).

2) Propulsion systems in development since the jet engine include, but are not limited to, ion propulsion (successfully deployed and used), solar-sail (currently seing positive last-stage experimental results), gas-/solid-core nuclear-thermal rockets, laser-pulse, etc, etc, etc...
The concept of propulsion has come an awful long way.

So ya-boo to you. :P

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-17-2005 16:53)

Yeah, you're right & I'm wrong, Hawky. I feel if i persist in my devious devilish ways I might become bird food (hawk, pardon) or something.

Forgot all about them ramjets. Like in the X-series of research aircraft. X11 was a ramjet, I think. The X7 was a solid fuel rocket for altitude and speed records, mayhaps. You must be an engineer with GE or something, the way you reacted.
And I know the Ion Engine is not nearly powerful enough to put something in orbit. Even itself. Just wanted something to rant about.

Sorry all I ranted about had little if anything to do with the topic at hand.

quote:

---

Take psichology and dream analysis for example. Or the SuperString theory. Or the Big Bang.

---

Whoa......... whao. Stop for a second.

I'll agree that Psychology being called a science is slightly contradicting since all Psychology is subjective interpretation. However, Dream Analysis has never been claimed to be a science. As a matter of fact, the very first sentence in Sigmund Freud's 'The Interpretation of Dreams,' is:

In the pages that follow I shall bring foward proof that there is a psychological technique which makes it possible to interpret dreams.

Technique, not Science.

Furthermore, and I'm guilty of being a hypocrite for mentioning what is the blatantly obvious, your posts are completely irrelevant to this topic and are incredibly ignorant and egotistical. Thankyou.

quote:

---

Furthermore, and I'm guilty of being a hypocrite for mentioning what is the blatantly obvious, your posts are completely irrelevant to this topic and are incredibly ignorant and egotistical. Thankyou.

---

You've come a long ways, InSiDeR.

Nice to see.

sonyafterdark:WarMage explained well my own thoughts, but I can't help adding some lines.

quote:

---

But on a personal record I can't see how being 'taught' you're the grandchild of some ape is at all gratifying or can somehow be productive in any field of 'science' that has anything to do with technology, medicine or human advancement in general, not to mention that many people - including myself - fint it offensive.

---

I find it offensive many people - including yourself - are unable ( or refuse ) to understand evolution and are stuck in the false assumption that we are the grandchild of some ape. We aren't. Ape and us have a common ancestor from which we evolved differently. Is it that hard to understand ?

quote:

---

And poi, the rocket that put Hubble up there... A menage of solid fuel boosters, liquid fuel rocket shuttle engines computer chips fibre optica and human glesh all striving to put into Orbit a telescope that was flawed yet built after the reflective telescope of Isaac Newton, I think. With a camera and a radio transceiver on the back. The size, complexity and quality of manufacturing may vary but the technology is OLD!!!

If they'd had put an interferometer double telescope up there using a ION ENGINE then that would truly have been something to talk about.

---

So to you the Hubble telescope is just a slightly improved version of a plain telescope. Like the ones every 6yo child do with a sheet of paper and 2 glasses. I hope you do not ignore that today's telecopes do much more than that. And you're certainly aware that the Hubble space telescope uses a parabolic relfector like Newton's telescope, but the principle of relativity is taken into account to correct the distortion of spacetime. It's not an industrial refinement. That's the application of a concrete progress of our understanding of the laws of physics.

Do you solely realize how much time it takes to conceive a space telescope, then to build it ? the HUBBLE telescope have been designed in the 1970s, and launched in 1990. No wonder it can't match with the technological achievement of 2005. tsssk.

quote:

---

Poi, like so many people, you mistake industrial refinements and enlargements for technological advancement. Are there any optical computers around, holographic storage media and TV, Fusion powerplants or supersonic passenger planes around? Weren't they predicting flying cars for 2000 back in the 50's? Aren't we doing the same now?

---

Yes, and you mistake science fiction with reality.

For the supersonic planes, I wonder if you heard of the Concorde. A little plane that started the commercial flights in 1976, went at mach 2.04, and was the safest plane around.

You say we're going slowly. But the science have progressed far more in the last century than in the 2 previous milleniums. That's amazing that some people don't realize this.

But, all this has little to do with the topic of this thread.

It seems to me that, without religion, we'd have advanced pretty radically in many other areas. Not easy to advance when any attempt could see you burned at the stake.

I can't help thinking though, that without war, we'd still be in the dark ages. Ideas that were born in WWII have propogated amazing advances medicine and science.

But then, would wars of such magnitude that they changed the face of the world have been sparked in a society without religion?

So religion is good, eh? Though it stifles scientific and social development, it fans the flames of war in which are forged some of the greatest advances of man-kind.

Might seem like gratuitous logic, but I really considered this recently. Double-edged sword, that religious stuff.

There was already a whole debate on this in another thread, wasn't there? Evolution VS Creationism?

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

Good one, WH.
Religion > War > Technological Advancement

I think the difference is that military can do stuff unimpeded by public opinion. The research that military does is behind closed doors. You have various alphabet agencies working in accord with the military as oppossed to being up its ass.

Well..that, and FUNDING.

That is the biggest factor.

Throw enough money at it, and you can afford to hire the brillant minds that you need, the materials, equiptment, etc.

The military has big, "black" funding, from massive blocks of money that go to "black" programs.