The Smug Baldy Speaks

One of the things I find interesting bout the FISA bill is that it doesn’t provide the telecoms that colluded with Bush administration officials with immunity from criminal charges.

Moderate America is a political blog that’s claims to be more about policy than people. To the folks – mainly fringe nut-cases – that tend to think that there really isn’t any such thing as a political moderate, or worse – that a moderate has no views whatsoever, moderate-america responds:

A political moderate is a person who holds values that are considered traditionally conservative as well as some that are considered traditionally liberal. Are you for a strong national defense and for good public education? Do you value the environment while you also value the need to provide decent jobs? Do you believe that it’s wrong to discriminate against people for housing or employment because they belong to some minority or religious group? What about voluntary prayer in schools?

We like the idea that moderation in politics more than some amorphous non-position. Instead moderation is a position that blurs the traditional lines of political parties, and recognizes that our ideas and ideals are sometimes complex.

Chris Anderson, Editor in Chief of Wired Magazine, believes that we’re entering a new age of scientific understanding that renders the “old” scientific method obsolete. The reason? We now live in an age where petabytes of data are available, and we can now use powerful computer and mathematical models to find heretofore unanticipated correlations.

This is a world where massive amounts of data and applied mathematics replace every other tool that might be brought to bear. Out with every theory of human behavior, from linguistics to sociology. Forget taxonomy, ontology, and psychology. Who knows why people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves.

The point that Anderson is trying to make is that now that we have such an overabundance of data, we don’t really need science anymore. We don’t need to worry why things happen, only that they do happen, and that’s good enough.

The problem with this sort of thinking isn’t just that it mistakes correlation with causation, but that it elevates the role of data in our thinking about natural phenomena to an undeserved level. As I mentioned before, scientific reasoning begins with data – it doesn’t end with it. In Anderson’s world, there’s some level of data at which we can stop asking why. He claims that the more we learn (that is – the more data we have) the farther we are from having good theoretical models that account for the facts.

That’s an interesting position, but it’s wrong. Even in the cases he uses, such as theoretical physics, the volume of data isn’t what threatens our mental models – nor does it need to fundamentally alter how we go about creating those models. As he correctly points out – data without a model is just noise. To go from that truth to a conclusion that boundless vistas of disconnected data are somehow more than noise is quite a conceptual leap.

More data doesn’t change – and certainly doesn’t obsolete – good scientific reasoning from facts toward organizing principles that account for those facts. Instead, new mountain ranges of data provide the possibility of new discoveries and challenges to existing theoretical structures that simply cannot explain them. We’re not facing some data-driven obsolescence of the scientific method.

Instead, we’re probably looking at an acceleration of it.

One of Sylvia Brown’s biggest on-screen blunders, mistakenly telling Shawn Hornbeck’s parents – on camera – that he had been murdered, has now caused a bit of a stir in syndication across the pond. The Ofcom regulatory agency found that ITV’s rebroadcast of the Montel Williams episode in which Sylvia Browne needlessly devastates Hornbeck’s parents to “be in breach of its broadcasting code”:

The regulator ruled that an episode of The Montel Williams Show on ITV2 on 11 February breached rules on offensive material and potentially harming viewers by suggesting psychics could give life-changing advice.

I would suspect that Sylvia’s bad advice was both life-changing for the Hornbeck family, as well as harmful. Imagine if some quack told you that your son had been murdered. If you were to believe that “prediction” and then your son were to be found, what would you do to minimize your cognitive dissonance? Would you deny the living, breathing fact that you child was still alive, or would you perhaps question the validity of your favorite psychic’s claims that he or she had super powers?

In Britain, apparently, you can’t go around and make silly claims like that. At least, not without having a regulator call you on it. See, we could learn something from our British cousins!

In my ongoing series about how local non-scientists are attempting to make scientific appeals to include intelligent design in public science classrooms in Alabama, I bring you this tidbit that appeared in yesterday’s Mobile Press Register. In letter titled, “Science not beyond error” a minister from a local Church of Christ argued:

Herein lies the critical flaw of science when studying the creation of our world. Science cannot observe and therefore cannot test the creation, nor can scientists examine any of the so-called “Big Bang” scenarios. These singular events are far beyond any application of the scientific method. Since they happen but once, they can never be reproduced or observed by any scientist.

Observation and reproduction of studies and experiments are essential to the scientific method. Therefore, because the creation and associated theories cannot be observed or tested, responsible scientists will avoid aggressive assaults upon that which they cannot test by present methodology.

[emphasis added]

Again, this writer is probably well-meaning, and most likely educated. But as in previous instances, this is another great example of why we absolutely must improve science education – not only in Alabama, but throughout the US.

In this instance, the writer’s argument suffers from two fatal errors. First, he conflates Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with cosmology, and in particular “Big Bang” theories in Physics. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever concerning the origin of the universe. Instead, it’s simply a coherent, tested, and testable biological theory about how species change and adapt over time. For nearly 150 years, it has been the unifying theory of biology, and while biology and physics are indeed both sciences, Evolution only has cosmological importance if it violates your religious comfort zone. Scientifically Evolution and Cosmology are apples and oranges.

The second fatal flaw in the writer’s argument is the misunderstanding of the notion of historical sciences. Different sciences can be placed on a continuum ranging from experimental sciences to historical sciences. Physics is largely an experimental science, as is chemistry and psychology, and these would sit near the “experimental end of the continuum. Toward the far end, we have sciences that are largely historical in nature, such as paleontology and astronomy. Within the philosophy of science, it’s well understood that many sciences have aspects that are experimental and those that are historical. In all these cases, however, the methods and rigor used by all scientists, even those who use mathematical models and known physical properties of the universe to describe the conditions at one ten-billionth of a second after the Big Bang, are valid scientific methods.

Here’s some more for our Republican War on Science file. Or should that be – Idiocy in high places file? Either way, LA Govenor Bobby Jindal demonstrated yesterday that he has no grasp whatsoever of the issues surrounding the establishment of religious dogma under the heading of “Intelligent Design” in our science classes.

Here are some areas where Governor Jindal demonstrates his willful ignorance of the underlying issues:

When asked if he had doubts about the Theory of Evolution, Jindal replied:

I don’t think this is something that the Federal or State government should be imposing its view on local school districts. As a conservative I think that government that’s closest to the people governs best. I think local school districts should be in the position for deciding the curricula and deciding what students should be learning.

In this case that’s absolutely, positively wrong, Mr. Governor, and you should know it. You should be aware that Federal interests trumps State and Local interests whenever constitutional rights of American Citizens are infringed. In the case of Intelligent Design (or ID), federal courts have found that ID is nothing more than Christian Creationism with some scientific-sounding jargon. The teaching of this isn’t just bad science (or non-science) it also violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As such – any local school board that attempts to sneak ID into public schools is actually indoctrinating students into a “state-preferred” religion, and the Federal government has an expressed interest in keeping that from occurring. That is, unless you all want to have your kids recite the Branch Dividian creed in Biology class. Thought not.

Jindal goes on to say:

I don’t think students learn from us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some want only to teach Evolution. I think both views are wrong … As a parent when my kids go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to make decisions for themselves. I want them to see the best data.

He’s not being entirely honest there, is he? The best data in human sexuality clearly demonstrates that abstinence education doesn’t work, but conservative parents like Jindal want their kids exposed to it rather than comprehensive sex-education that could save their lives. The best data available also clearly demonstrates that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is scientific, while Intelligent Design is instead a religious-political position. And nobody in a state like Louisiana, that has a large population of conservative Christian voters, wants to dwell on that little truth nugget. No – for Jindal to be honest, he would have to say that he has a vested interest in keeping conservative Christian voters placated with his lukewarm support for a political position that has no chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day. In other words – teaching the controversy won’t ever really occur in US public schools, but politicians like Jindal will pretend to support it to curry conservative favor.

Interestingly, conservatives are ok with science as long as it doesn’t appear to step on their religious toes too much. For example, most parents are OK with teaching about viruses and bacteria in science classes – especially techniques for minimizing the spread of harmful ones like hand washing and food service sanitization. Unfortunately, you can’t have it both ways Mr. Govenor. If your more fundamentalist supporters have their way, ID would replace Evolution in science classes, and we’d also have to replace bacteriology with an “evil spirit” theory of disease. Interestingly, in some areas (not just beloved Louisiana) this is what passes for medical science, sometimes with disastrous results.

Of course, the scariest part of this whole episode is that, Bobby Jindal is reported to be on McCain’s VP short list, which would mean he has a great shot at becoming president himself since McCain is older than, well, everyone. Is it too much to ask that we get presidential and vice-presidential candidates that have more than a thimble full of scientific literacy?

There’s a nice post on ArsTechnica today about the 2-year cost of the iPhone 3G. They compared the new iPhone 3G with other smart phones and calculated the TCO for a two year period. The upside – it’s not any more expensive than some other smart phones. The down side, over a two year period, expect to spend almost 2 Grand.

On Thursday, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann blasted John McCain’s remark that it doesn’t matter when we bring troops home from Iraq. As always, Keith is a sober and articulate foil for the pro-war insanity coming from this Administration, and it’s heir apparent, Senator John McCain.

In a recent column, conservative economics professor and syndicated columnist Walter Williams asked the question, "Are Americans Pro-Slavery?" You read that correctly, slavery. You see, Dr. Williams would like you to think that US Federal, as well as State and Local taxes amount to a condition of slavery, since American workers spend a healthy portion of their work-year just to cover taxes which go to someone else:

The average American worker toils from January 1st to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period. Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of government. Most of what’s taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.

There are a few things that are troubling and misleading about Dr. Williams’ suggestion. First, to raise the specter of slavery is no trivial thing, and it becomes even less trivial if the subject is raised by an African American. Also, to consider arguing with an African American within the context of a discussion that raises that specter can be difficult, since doing so invites charges of racism and insensitivity. Troubling as that may be to me, to ignore the wrongheadedness of Dr. Williams’ claim simply because he’s African American and he’s talking about slavery would be worse than having to deal with false accusations if my meaning is misinterpreted.

Read the rest of this entry »

John McCain’s got some powerful faith, and here’s where he revises history with his erroneous belief that America was founded upon Christian principles as a “Christian” nation. Never mind the fact that the founding fathers were largely deists, freethinkers, and Quakers. No, John lets his freak flag fly:

HT to Les at StupidEvilBastard.com