Instead of re-posting the entire entry here, I’m going to link to my Rationality Now post with my commentary about the CRU email hack and what, if any, implications the emails have on climate change research.
Science
Right turn, Clyde… or not.
I’ve mentioned before that I wish the Republican party would “go back to being the fiscally conservative, small government party they used to be instead of the religious, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-environment party they are now.”
Andrew Sullivan, over at The Daily Dish, seems to have the same idea, but in more detail. Andrew and I are not alone, either, since I’ve seen links to his post from two other blogs today, as well as a post by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs who also put together a list of why he’s parted ways with the Right. No doubt there are plenty more who agree with these folks.
Here’s a sampling of items from both posts that I find particularly noteworthy (though I recommend going through the full posts of both blog authors).
From Andrew Sullivan:
- I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.
- I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
- I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.
- I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.
- I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy
- I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.
- I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.
From Charles Johnson (reasons why he parted ways with the Right):
- Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)
- Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)
- Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)
- Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)
- Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)
- Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)
- A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)
- Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)
I think all of those issues are critical issues with the Right, but I tend to focus in on the anti-science, anti-intellectual issues like evolution and climate change… and then I just continue down the path of monumental incredulity at the crap that is touted, supported, and defended by what used to be a fiscally and bureaucratically conservative and responsible party.
I will grant that not all Republicans are this way, but the party in general (or as Andrew Sullivan puts it… “in so far as it means the dominant mode of discourse among the institutions and blogs and magazines and newspapers and journals that support the GOP”) has taken on the self-righteous air of superiority, while in practice, promoting ignorance, hatred, and the idea that the better educated you are, the smarter you are, and the more experience you have, the less qualified you are to partake in intellectually challenging endeavors.
If this country is going to improve its status (and it does need improving) or even maintain its current position in the world, the Right needs to change its ways or get out of the way, because its current pattern of blocking science and education, glorifying ignorance, and pounding its virtual fists on the podium of bigotry doesn’t cut it and it won’t cut it in the future.
As Charles Johnson said:
The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.
I won’t be going over the cliff with them.
I won’t be jumping off that cliff, either.
Fundraiser video for the RDF
I love this video for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. It was made for their 2009 fundraising effort and it’s extremely well done.
Promoting real science is increasingly important in our world and the RDFRS does a great job of it.
My daughter is awesome!
This evening, I was waiting for my new laptop to get through all its updates and my wife and I were watching NCIS while waiting, which allowed my eight-year-old daughter to stay up a little later than usual because… you know… we didn’t want to miss any of the NCIS episode to go tuck her in and I needed to be there to click “Next” on my laptop. Priorities.
While my daughter was, in turn, waiting for my wife and I to finish our important “tasks,” she grabbed some paper and colored pencils and wrote and illustrated a four-page book. Though the book doesn’t show off her graphic artistry (she can do much better), when I read the book, I was delighted… and proud. Here’s the book (click to embiggen).
Title Page |
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Now, of course she doesn’t know everything, but if you’re going to learn everything, history and science are pretty good starting points. This creation of hers happened without any prompting on my part tonight, so I was especially pleased that she felt it was a cool enough topic to illustrate… in the 10 or 15 minutes she was waiting! She read it to me and my laptop and NCIS got ignored from that point.
I think my laptop is still prompting me to click “Next.”
Goodbye, Smallpox! Thanks, Science!
Today is the 32nd anniversary of the elimination of smallpox, according to Wikipedia. How was it eliminated?
Vaccines.
That’s medical science at its best… not “alternative” medicine, not homeopathy, not prayer, not the “Will of God.” Science. Real people doing real research to develop real solutions to real problems.
Nothing works like science.
Phil Plait says it better than I could (as usual).
You can discover the galaxy, too.
NASA’s equipment is some pretty powerful stuff. But astronomy also depends on the curiosity and contribution of amateur astronomers. [...] If they can discover something great, so can any of you other students who are here tonight. All you need is a passion for science.
- President Barack Obama during the White House Star Party
(via)
Assertions Are Easy
Some people wonder why evolution isn’t more accepted than it is. Despite the monumental amount of evidence in multiple fields of scientific inquiry, those pesky creationists, bringing up the same tired arguments, sometimes seem like B-movie zombies. No matter how many times they get smacked down, they keep coming back to torment scientifically-minded, rational people with their brainless moaning and logic resistance.
It’s not that they have anything new. Oh, sure. Occasionally a new bit of scientific evidence will be discovered… a fossil, some DNA functionality, a new species in a remote location… and they’ll latch onto it and somehow manage to twist it into something they claim supports intelligent design or a young Earth, but it doesn’t. Aside from that, it’s the same old stuff. Why, then, won’t their arguments die?
Because assertions are easy.
For example…
Transylvania has the largest population of vampire bats in the world, which is why vampire legends originated there.
See how easy that was? Does it sound reasonable? Sure it does, as long as you don’t know anything about vampire bats (or vampire legends). It took me about 20 seconds to come up with that claim and type the sentence. How long would it take you, if you don’t actually know any data about vampire bats, to refute my statement?
The internet helps, but you have to have motivation. Wikipedia is an obvious and expedient place to visit. Here’s what you find out from the Wikipedia article…
Vampire bats are bats whose food source is blood, a dietary trait called hematophagy. There are three bat species that feed solely on blood: the Common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus), the Hairy-legged Vampire Bat (Diphylla ecaudata), and the White-winged Vampire Bat (Diaemus youngi). All three species are native to the Americas, ranging from Mexico to Brazil, Chile, and Argentina.
There you go. All the known species of vampire bats are native to the Americas. What if you don’t know where Transylvania is? Another visit to Wikipedia lets you know it’s in Romania… which isn’t part of either of the Americas. So it would seem that my statement has been soundly refuted and put to rest.
Or has it?
Oh no, I say.
There used to be another species of vampire bat that was native to Romania, but it went extinct over 100 years ago. Vampire legends started well before the bats went extinct.
Now what? The Wikipedia article says nothing of an extinct species of vampire bat. There’s nothing in the Romania information that states anything about vampire bats being native to the country. If you want to do more research into debunking my claim, you’re going to have to spend a bunch of time searching the internet… to refute something that you’re 99% sure is completely bogus, anyway.
But how much time did I spend on my claim? Not much… perhaps under a minute… and if I really believe what I’m saying, I’m going to start making that statement all over the place to anyone who will give me 30 seconds of his time or to any place that will allow me to post my nonsense. By the time I’ve reached 1,000 people, you’d still be trying to confirm whether there actually was a species of vampire bat in Romania 100 years ago.
Then suddenly you’ll find that someone else is saying that vampire bats lived in Romania 100 years ago, but they’re saying that bones were found that prove it… and that the bats were as large as ravens… and a group of scientists is researching whether or not they preyed on human babies.
What… is… going… on?!?
Assertions are easy.
It’s what creationists do. They shovel on the assertions (Gish Gallop, anyone?) and then, when their assertions are left unchallenged, they declare victory… and spread the news. It takes very little time to make assertions, but gathering evidence and presenting a logical refutation takes quite a bit of time (in comparison). Even if you already know the evidence and the refutation, it generally takes more time and effort to deliver it.
It’s not just creationists, though. Politicians do it. So do their opponents… especially protestors. Scientology does it (Fair Game doctrine). Climate change deniers do it. Moon hoaxers do it. Obama birthers do it. Sometimes, to add to their pseudo credibility, they’ll actually add facts to back up their claims… but only the facts that support their arguments. They’ll leave out contradictory facts or simply leave their facts out of context. They’ll misquote an expert (or quote mine). They’ll twist words.
When moon hoaxers do it, it’s amusing (unless you’re Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin). Nobody really takes them seriously. When creationists do it, it’s more serious because they want to teach our children to believe their nonsense… and they frequently want it in our schools. When climate change deniers do it, it can be dangerous in the long term… and just irresponsible.
Am I doing it right now? Sort of… but not really. These are my opinions based on my observations. I’m sure plenty of examples can be found where creationists have provided valid scientific data to irrefutably support their arguments.
*snicker* …or not.
Almost Unbearable Irony
A friend and I just returned from a trip to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum is an attempt to show that the bible is scientifically accurate when you read the book of Genesis in a completely literal way. Though the museum is physically amazing (clean, well built, very high quality, etc), it pretty much fails from the science aspect.
So it was to my great amusement that I found this t-shirt available… though I heard it was discontinued and this was on clearance for $9.00…
Truer words are rarely spoken
Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy blog just recently posted this article about Simon Singh and his current tussle with the British Chiropractic Association. I’ve been following the situation, but what really caught me about this update was Plait’s words in the first two paragraphs about science.
Science thrives on criticism. Reality, being what it is — real — can withstand the slings and arrows of critics. It’s our methods, models, and interpretation of reality that are subject to withering critique, and through such honing moves us ever-closer to understanding the true nature of the world.
Any claim that is said to be scientific should be held up to such scrutiny. If it is correct, it will survive. If it is not correct, it can be abandoned or improved. That is in the best interest of everyone.
That, in my opinion, is beautifully stated.
Too often, as in the case with the BCA, purveyors of bad “science” will try to quash those who disagree with their statements rather than offer evidence to support their statements. Or, if pressed further (again as in the case of the BCA and as noted in Plait’s post), they will offer up shoddy research, conjecture, invalid evidence, or outright lies.
There are plenty of other groups that take the same tactics as the BCA (as noted previously here), using every trick they can conjure up instead of simply providing well-researched, corroborated evidence to back up their claims. If they refuse or cannot offer such evidence, they should be brushed aside and ignored until such time as they can step up and take some responsibility for their claims.
…but I won’t hold my breath.
Note: Cross posted from Rationality Now.
Conspiracy Theories and Other Muddled Thinking
Almost everyone laughs at Flat-Earthers, people who actually believe that the Earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary. Most people also laugh at the Moon-Hoaxers, the folks who think that we never landed on the moon and that it’s all just a conspiracy with elaborately faked footage, photos, and reports. Conspiracy theorists in general provide a good laugh for most rational people, whether it’s talk of alien abductions, secret government programs with captured spaceships, crop circles, the Illuminati taking control of the world, or government mind control drugs in public water.
There’s a long history of conspiracy theory and one would think that that history would be just that… history… a thing of the past. Barring a few fringe groups, we don’t expect to see people outright denying scientifically proven facts or making accusations of secret, intricate, tangled webs of clockwork precision government cover-ups.
Yet we have just that… and not just among small “fringe” groups. Here’s a short list (in addition to the ones already mentioned).
- 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists – claim that the US government caused the twin towers to collapse.
- Lizard-People Conspiracy Theorists – claim that lizard-people are running the world (seriously).
- AIDS Conspiracy Theorists – claim that AIDS is a man-made disease cooked up in a lab.
- Obama Birthers – deny that Obama is a US citizen (or that it hasn’t been documented).
- Global Warming Deniers – deny that global warming is occurring or is affected by human activity.
- Creationism Proponents – deny that evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth.
- Holocaust Deniers – claim the Holocaust never happened.
- Anti-Vaxxers – claim that vaccines cause autism.
- 2012 Alarmists – claim that, since the Mayan calendar ends in December of 2012, the world will end.
I’m sure there are many more. Some of the ideas are absurd because of historical evidence, some because of scientific evidence, and some because of their sheer implausibility (backed up by no evidence). Some are combinations.
A common thread, however, is that each of them ignores or denies actual evidence contradictory to its premise. In some cases, their proponents will fabricate evidence, making scientific or historical claims that are patently false in an attempt to bolster their case. Using outdated, no-longer-relevant data is also a common tactic, whether through ignorance or malicious intent.
What is the motivation for people to believe and perpetuate these absurd claims? Sometimes it’s politics. Sometimes it’s religion. Sometimes it’s an overactive imagination. There are plenty of other psychological reasons proposed.
Is this a big deal? Are conspiracy theories just good fun or are they harmful or dangerous? In some cases, like the lizard-people idea, they’re harmlessly silly and don’t gain enough traction in popular culture to cause anything other than snickering and pretend horror. In other cases, such as Holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they can cause emotional pain for those who are close to the event in question. In the worse cases, the conspiracy theories can gain enough traction to cause political turmoil, educational degradation, and even health risks. Global warming deniers, creationists, and anti-vaxxers are perfect examples of these.
Potentially dangerous effects aside, these conspiracy theories show a lack of critical thinking skills and/or a lack of understanding of science. Perhaps they demonstrate an innate distrust for any authority figure… to the point of automatically assuming that anything said by an authority figure is innately false or misleading (regardless of whether or not the figure in question has anything to gain by misleading the public). Perhaps they simply indicate a complete lack of curiosity, their proponents believing everything they hear without any skepticism at all. Politics and religion can also entrench someone firmly in a position that is rationally indefensible.
It’s the groups whose ideas have a tangible, negative effect on society that concern me the most. Folks who believe that lizard-people are controlling the Earth are relatively harmless and somewhat amusing. It’s the people who think that our activities don’t have an affect on our planet’s warming and who want to block any action we could take to limit that affect… or it’s those who feel that it’s okay to teach our children that our world was created by magic, corrupting science education, instead of teaching them the real science behind the wondrous way in which life evolved on our planet… or it’s the people who publicly mislead doting parents with bogus claims that childhood vaccines cause autism, leading those parents to forgo protecting their children which, in turn, leads to everyone else’s health being put in danger.
Those are the conspiracy theorists that I have a problem with. Those are the people who have a detrimental effect on society. Those are the people whose blindness to rationality, evidence, and critical thinking cause harm to the rest of the world. They cheapen our existence, mislead our children, endanger our health, corrupt our national discourse, and create hostile divisions where there should be none… and they will defend their absurd positions with a ferocious certainty that is completely unwarranted by evidence.
What’s the solution? In my opinion… education. Starting in grade school, children need to be taught how to think, not what to think. Critical thinking skills are… well… critical. The scientific method needs to be understood… not just science facts, but the why and how of the facts. And these skills need to be taught, not just to school children, but to adults.
As for those adults who refuse to accept evidence and continue to scream their absurdities from the rooftops, they need to be countered… loudly, frequently, and eloquently. We cannot silence them by removing their right to free speech, but we can do everything in our power to point out their muddled thinking, debunk their bogus conclusions, and reveal them for the charlatans they are. They should be embarrassed by their own silliness and we need to hold up a mirror to them, giving them a perfect view of their intellectual ugliness. They will complain, accuse, deny, quite possibly lie… and they will be loud.
We need to be louder.
Note: Cross posted from Rationality Now.
I support stem cell research
Neil Gaimen supports stem cell research, too.
Since President Obama removed the restrictions on stem cell research funding, the National Institute of Health has been working on a set of guidelines for scientists wanting said funding. A draft of the guidelines has been issued and the next 14 days are the public comment period for those guidelines, so this is the chance to let your opinion be heard on the matter.
According to Don Reed, a national stem cell research advocate, the guidelines are a bit more conservative than hoped, but more importantly, are being flooded by stem cell research opponents. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued an action alert to oppose the funding and evidently, of the 6,000+ responses received so far, 99% of them are opposed to stem cell research.
You can add your comments in support of stem cell research on the NIH’s website using their comment form.
Don Reed said (emphasis mine)…
Your comment can be as short as “I support embryonic stem cell research, and am glad some of the restrictions are being loosened.“ That matters.
Anyone who clicks on the comment box, and writes in a sentence-that message will be tallied as one citizen in support. Of course, you may say more if you want. If you are a long-term research supporter, our letter will be put in the expert witness category.
He also notes that more than one person in a family can comment. It takes less than 60 seconds to complete the information in the comment form and add your support to stem cell research.
Let’s not let religious dogma hobble this research… research that has some of the greatest potential for critical healthcare advances in science today.
Please take the time to comment using the NIH form before the May 26th deadline.
(crossposted via RationalityNow)Fighting Giraffes
I found this clip from a post on the Why Evolution is True blog. Two male giraffes fight by doing what’s called “necking” (it isn’t sweet). Watching it really made me cringe because of the power of the hits… and it’s just so incongruous with the stereotypical image that most people have (including me) of the tall gentle giant.
This combat is one of the ideas proposed for how and why giraffes evolved their long necks. The article linked above is quite interesting and explains the idea in more detail.
