Science and Non-science

by

Distrust of science is killing us

Some people distrust science to the point where they destroy their kid’s economic futures.   By not encouraging their kids to learn science but actively teaching them non-science (creationism, for instance), we end up with adults who do not understand logic, proof, evidence, and the scientific theory and can’t compete with those who are actually educated.

But this hatred of science hurts us in other ways, too.  For instance, denying climate change means we are doing nothing about it — leading to deadly storms, mudslides, fires, and devastation.  vaccine

And this isn’t limited to conservatives (as I have pointed out before).  There are liberals who laugh at those who deny evolution while they refuse to vaccinate their kids because of some internet rumor they read somewhere.

This is killing us.

You can’t pick and choose what science to believe.  Science doesn’t care what you believe, anyway — the fact that you don’t believe in science doesn’t make it not true.

But for some reason, people listen to non-scientists when they make up their minds.  Donald Trump is one of those idiots who tweets about vaccinations while his New York city suffers from record-breaking measels and mumps outbreaks.  Washington state has a whooping cough epidemic.  There’s even a worry that polio could come back.  Polio!

Somehow, there is a complete independent streak in America that is so strong that we refuse to listen to experts and “elitists” who know things, and almost always to our detriment.  As Isaac Asimov once said, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

 

by

Snobby Hobby Lobby

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear one of the silliest cases ever.   Allow me to reprint my thoughts on this from a blog post months ago:

Hobby Lobby claims they are being discriminated against because they are being forced to provide health care which could provide birth control to those heathen women — you know, those hussies who can’t control their libido that Mike Huckabee warned us about.

hobby

Hobby Lobby claims to be a Christian corporation. They refuse to even sell Jewish merchandise in the store. (“Want Hannukah gifts? Go elsewhere, Christ-killer!”) They have no problem whatsoever in buying cheaply-made crap from China because after all, the Bible approves slavery.

Most importantly, they claim they have the right to force their religious views on their employees.  Amazingly, a federal judge in Oklahoma agreed with them and held, for the first time that I can see, that a corporation can actually have a religious view.

Fortunately, this is now on appeal, and hopefully clearer minds will prevail.   Many groups are filing briefs opposing Hobby Lobby.

The issue is whether a business can refuse to give health insurance to its employees because of religious reasons.  I am shocked that some of my friends think that this is perfectly fine.  What’s next?  Will they refuse to give you your salary if you buy alcohol with it against their religious views?  Will we have to reduce our own freedoms to make our employers happy?

Should I, as a business owner, be allowed to force my beliefs on my employees? What if my religion believes women should wear burkas and never speak? Should I make all my female employees wear burkas?

The lower court apparently believes employers have powers to ignore laws they don’t like. “If you work here, you have to live by my beliefs, not yours. Don’t like it? Tough!”

I think we instead should say to business owners, “These are people who work for you, who have the right to make their own decisions about health care. You will give them the option, because this is America where we value individual decisions. Don’t like it? Tough!”

Your religion does not give you the right to disobey the law. There are Jamaican religions that believe in smoking marijuana during their ceremonies — tough, that’s illegal. Animal cruelty in the name of religion is illegal. Refusing to give your child medicine in the name of religion is illegal. Religions shouldn’t be exempt from the law just because they “really really believe” something. That’s not what America is about.

Look, if you start a business in America, we expect certain things from you. You have to pay a minimum wage; you have to have a safe working environment; you have to pay business taxes; you have to pay for worker’s compensation; you have to provide health care. Keep in mind that your employees may decide to use their money or benefits to do things you personally disagree with. Don’t like it? Tough. Don’t open a business.

If you don’t like the fact that we have freedom from religion in America, then maybe you should open a business somewhere else, like Iran. I understand they have no problem with you forcing religion on people who work for you.

by

Creationists demand equal time

Creationists, upset that Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” series talks about facts, have demanded “equal time” to argue for their mythology.

In return, I think they should give scientists equal time on the 400 Club and other religious shows. tysonIt only makes sense, after all. I further demand that all science professors get equal time during your church service to refute whatever the preacher is saying about creationism. Teach the controversy!

For that matter, let’s not discriminate when it comes to creationism. We must also teach the Hindu version of creationism, which states that we “devolved” from pure consciousness. And the Cherokee creation story, which holds that the earth was created by a water beetle expanding mud to create the flat earth. Or the Egyptian story, wherein the god Ra emerges from a cosmic egg rising out of the water. Or the central African story of Mbombo, who came to feel an intense pain in his stomach, which led to him vomiting up the sun, the moon, and stars.

What’s that? Most of those are myths? They used to be religions but it turns out that no one believes those things any more? How about that.

Next in line to demand equal time are astrologers, alchemists, and the flat earthers, who demand that their vision of the world be taught alongside actual, real things.

by

A rational theory about the Malaysian airplane

I admit — it’s fun to speculate on all the dramatic things that could have happened to the lost Malaysian plane.  gilligan  Hijackers, an inside job, aliens — you name it, someone has been able to find time on the news shows to flog their pet theory.

I always like Occam’s Razor in these situations, and look for the simplest explanation.  And the one that makes the most sense and doesn’t require us to believe in some conspiracy is that this was simply a fire on board leading to a crash somewhere.

It explains the sudden turn (to get to the closest airport), the lack of communication, and the shutting down of parts of the engine that could be on fire.

Here’s a link to an article by a very experienced pilot explaining why this is the best explanation.

Now, are there other possibilities?  Sure.  And it’s fun to imagine them.  But sadly the most likely explanation is simple and not quite so exciting, though plenty dramatic.

by

Anti-science hypocrites

“Conservatives hate science!  Look at how they deny evolution and climate change!”

Well, while that is true, you can’t smugly say that while consulting your astrology charts and using your crystals for positive energy.  You can’t say that we should listen to the scientists when they talk about global warming and we should ignore them when they talk about vaccines.  science

Mind you, there is a big difference — liberals who believe in superstition and non-science aren’t trying to force their views on everybody else, like the fundamentalists who want to ban Darwin from the classroom.  But still, I don’t see how you can criticize them for ignoring science if you are doing the same, even in smaller amounts.

Science is not good or bad — it just is.  Conservatives deny science when it contradicts their religious or economic views, but otherwise have no problem with it.  (They’ll scream that evolution is just a “theory” yet never complain about the “theory” of gravity, for instance).  Liberals tend to use generalizations too often with science, by claiming that all genetically-modified foods are bad or that nuclear power is evil without acknowledging that there are huge gray areas.   (And of course, both sides have their share of believers in psuedo-science like fortune-telling, faith healing, ghosts, and scientology.)

So look at your beliefs and make sure you aren’t being hypocritical for pointing a finger at non-believers in science if you too are picking and choosing which science to believe.

by

Why do people believe conspiracy theories?

While working on my next novel, I spent some time researching conspiracy theories.  Why do otherwise reasonable people believe in them, and especially the ones that are so easily debunked?

What I found was that conspiracy theories provide a comforting way to explain evil in the world.  Like people who find comfort in their religion, conspiracy theorists find comfort in knowing that evil can be explained, that it’s done by someone else, and therefore they cannot be held responsible.  It’s a simple answer to a complex world.

Belief in grand conspiracies is not limited to political view.  I have some liberal friends who are convinced that George W. Bush masterminded the 9/11 attacks, aliens are hidden in Area 51, and that the moon landing never happened.  They are just as convinced in their view, despite all evidence to the contrary, as the right-wingers who are certain that Obama was born in Kenya, that the government is going to take everyone’s guns away, and that something illegal happened in Benghazi.  (I still haven’t figured out what exactly they claim is the conspiracy with that last one, but they’re convinced it’s one nonetheless).

At a press conference yesterday, one of the loonies grabbed the mike and warned us all that 9/11 was a government plot.  Gee, thanks, Crazy Man!  Without you telling us, we would have never have taken such a claim seriously.  Your wonderful presentation has turned believers into all of us.


If you find yourself as one of these believers, please ask why you are so willing to accept these things without proof.  (Ha ha!  I’m joking, of course.  These guys all think they have “proof” and we’re just too stupid to see it — or more likely, we’re all part of the conspiracy, too!  Dun dun DUN!)

Now do not read this post to mean that I think there are no such things as conspiracies.  Of course there are — businesses conspire to set prices, drug pushers conspire with police officers to make sales and not be arrested, and so on — people conspire every day.  I am referring to the huge major Illuminati-type of massive conspiracies that logically just cannot exist.

by

Animal rights and wrongs

I’ve often found it interesting how many of my friends are fierce animal lovers — but only cute animals, the kind you don’t eat.  They’ll protest when someone who mistreats dogs isn’t imprisoned, and they’ll get upset about the treatment of whales and dolphins, but they also talk about how much they love bacon.  Cute-Dog-dogs-33698322-1024-768

I’ve had them explain to me that it’s two different things, because some animals are raised solely for slaughter.  I am not certain why that matters.  If dogs were raised solely for slaughter, then it would be fine to mistreat them, too?  (Many of these same people also scream when they hear about other cultures that eat dogs.)

Some try to do the right thing, by only buying meat from animals that are “free range” meaning that the animals led torture-free lives (well, until they were killed).  Of course, “free range” is one of those phrases like “all natural” — there is no official government agency deciding who can use the term, and there have been plenty of examples of farms claiming their animals are free-range when they’re really only slightly less crowded than the factory farms where the animals can’t even turn around in their pens.

As I posted previously, I am a pescatarian, which means I eat fish — so you can call me a hypocrite too if you want to.  The fish I eat are pretty low on the evolutionary ladder and yes, although they do feel pain, they are usually not raised in inhumane conditions, either.  So I’m not 100% consistent;  at least I am trying to practice what I preach.

I’m really not going anywhere profound with this.  I have no great final comment that sums up everything with wit and insight.  I’m just hoping some of my friends realize that to those of us who don’t eat farm animals, you seem, well, inconsistent.  Discriminating against animals based on whether you eat them or not doesn’t seem right to me.

 

by

Pundits and weathermen

The thing about being a political commentator and being a TV weather reporter is that both can be wrong 50% of the time and yet still keep their jobs.

The difference is that the weather people are trying to be as accurate as possible. al_roker Political reporters don’t always care.

Mostly this is because some political reporters are in reality propagandists.  They have no interest in the truth; getting people to agree with their already decided-upon conclusions outweighs any desire for accuracy or even honesty.  The ends justifies the means.

Rush Limbaugh is the Poster Boy for this.  Like many of his pals in the right-wing media collective, he has no qualifications for the position whatsoever other than a loud mouth and a desire to never do any research.  His latest lie is that the “Polar Vortex” is another one of them there liberal conspiracies out to convince people of climate change.

So it’s nice to see Al Roker — someone who, unlike Limbaugh, is actually qualified to talk about climate — aim for facts.  (You remember facts?  They used to help convince people of the truth.)

On the Today show, he literally told Limbaugh and all the doubters to “stuff it.” Roker pulled out his old college textbook ‘The AMS Glossary of Meteorology’ from 1959 which used the term.  “Rush Limbaugh claims the Polar Vortex is a creation of a left-wing, liberal media conspiracy,” he tweeted. “It’s Meteorology 101. No political agenda.”

And that’s the silly thing — that this is a political issue at all.  It isn’t, and it shouldn’t be, any more than evolution should be a political issue.

“The good thing about science,” says Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “is that it’s true whether you believe it or not.”

by

Can’t be global warming with all this snow, amiright?

Here we go again.

Let’s try to simplify this.   

If the planet’s temperature goes up a few degrees, that means more water evaporates from the ocean.  The ocean covers 3/4ths of our world, so that’s a lot of water.  When there is a storm then, it is often gigantic.  Hurricanes can be much worse than before, and snow storms can be huge. underpants-gnomes

Will this happen every single time?  Of course not.  But when you look at enough numbers, the answer is clear.

It’s like tossing a coin.  If it comes up heads 90% of the time, it’s probably a trick coin or something is unbalanced.  You don’t look at the 10% of the time it comes up tails and say “Aha! Look, it came up tails. That proves you’re wrong. The coin is balanced.”

We’ve had record heat the last few years, with summers pushing the temperatures to record levels.   In fact, it was just a few weeks ago that we had record warm December days, remember?  Further, in Australia, where it’s summer now, they are experiencing record heat waves.  Despite all this, at no time has a climate change denier said, “Wow, I guess I was wrong.”  But have a cold spell and suddenly they’re all saying, “See?  There’s no global warming!”

Ridiculous.  If you bring up the record heat, they say “Well, that’s one example;  it doesn’t prove climate change.”  Then they turn around and use one example to try to deny it.

Sorry, guys, but I’m going to believe the vast majority of climate scientists as opposed to a bunch of people who have no experience in it and who claim that all the scientists are part of some huge conspiracy.  Apparently, they believe that the scientists are operating under Underpants Gnome logic:

Step One:  Make up data to make people think there is climate change.

Step Two:  ????

Step Three:  Profit!!!

by

Texas don’t need no science larnin’

All of the Republican candidates for Lt. Governor in Texas have reaffirmed their commitment to forcing schoolkids to learn creationism because the Constitution knows not to mess with Texas.Flintstones

These candidates may be dumb, but they’re at least smart enough to couch it in words that in their tiny little minds makes it OK — “We’ll teach both theories.”

Next, they’ll require astronomy teachers to also teach astrology, and chemistry teachers to teach alchemy, because you know, let’s be fair here.

Mind you, the only creationist story they want taught equally with valid science is theirs.  They don’t mean some American Indian creation story, or some Hindu one!  Ha ha!  Those aren’t real religions!  Everyone knows the Constitution only allows for Christian beliefs.  It’s in there somewhere, they know it, it has to be.

Let’s see… remind me again why Americans score so poorly in science?