Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 26, 2011 7:15 AM
I have an acquaintance who has always had some, let's say, unorthodox views on scientific and political matters. But of late, she's turned into a full-out conspiracy nut. She firmly believes that the CIA assassinated JFK, that some kind of shadowy group controls both the U.S. government and the media, that cancer can be cured by diet, and that modern pharmaceuticals are a government mind-control conspiracy. She's a 9/11 Truther, of course. Her latest is "chemtrails". If you've never heard of this one, Google it and marvel at the nuttiness.
Cousin Dave
at July 26, 2011 8:15 AM
I could find it hilarious if he would use some other descriptive and creative terminology besides "stupid".
NikkiG
at July 26, 2011 10:33 AM
Cousin Dave,
Chemtrails is number 118 on the Table.
-Jut
JutGory
at July 26, 2011 11:27 AM
Hmmm... I did not see the USDA food "plate" in there. Did I just miss it?
Well, I guess technically they could be considered "chemtrails", so long as you allow that the chemicals are water vapor and the contents of jet engine exhaust.
I R A Darth Aggie
at July 26, 2011 11:46 AM
Jut, I didn't look that far... didn't realize that pseudoscience extended into trans-uranium territory!
Aggie, that reminds me of something I saw last night; wish I could find it again. A blogger wrote that he was explaining vitamins to his 8-year old thusly: "Vitamins are chemicals that help your body work properly." To which the 8-year-old replied: "But aren't chemicals bad?" No doubt about where the kid learned that....
Cousin Dave
at July 26, 2011 3:12 PM
This will be depressing...
I had the sad duty of informing a relatively senior manager at work that no, he couldn't prohibit "chemicals" from being transported to his lab - without specifying what they were by some method of identification.
See, they would be sample vials, normally with contaminated water, but he couldn't grasp that all materials in the vials were "chemicals".
So it's the same problem at work as found here and on other fora: people think colloquially, and they get mad when you point out that colloquialisms have no value in regulatory/legal or scientific/engineering space, regardless of their position or opinion.
Radwaste
at July 26, 2011 5:56 PM
That caught my eye too, Cousin Dave. It's from here (just scroll past the first dozen or so comments):
I actually had a schoolteacher tell me once that one of her fondest dreams is that we will someday live in a radiation-free world. She wasn't stupid. But she was very mal-educated.
Cousin Dave
at July 26, 2011 6:25 PM
No, she was stupid. Don't blame unseen players: Let her carry her own cargo. She preferred flattering lies to challenging truths.
Anyone who thinks such elementary forces (and perhaps more importantly, definitions) can be tamed by policy is someone who's never had courage... Not at dawn, noon, dusk or midnight. She doesn't believe in a world without "radiation", she's merely been (chirpily) convinced that she wants one. But she doesn't, as any cosmologically attentive nine-year-old could explain to her during a seven-minute walk through a city park.
(And I hope the little brat stiffs her for an ice cream.)
Now, before wrapping up this blog comment and logging off to watch the video of the weekend's German Grand Prix with a cup full of ice chips and a plate of crackers and gratitude for the end of my work week, let me just say this:
Every last one of you self-regarding peckerwoods ought to set aside ten minutes to read the article I linked in the first comment to this post.
Set aside twenty, if you're dim.
There are no shortcuts to success or insight or fulfillment or righteousness... Even at our best we're going to battle human nature, the wretched demon beating in every heart.
Etc. So, know that!
What DOES a guy have to link to in order to pick a fight with the owner of this blog, anyway? That was a right hook! Like, pow! You're belief system is shattered!
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 26, 2011 7:10 PM
Your, not you're.
Time for racing. High hopes for Nando in the Ferrari...
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 26, 2011 7:12 PM
I first heard about chemtrails in a radio show on some station in the midwest. I laughed at what a great comedy/parody bit it was ... then for some reason checked it out on the 'net and realized THEY WERE SERIOUS. This was connected to the theory about the chemtrails planting nano-bots in our bodies for later activation by the government, to control us. The radio people explained how to take cell samples from your mouth to see if you're 'infected' - using hydrogen peroxide & red wine. Finding square 'cells' "proved" you were infected, beacuse we all know there are no straight lines or square cells in nature, of course ... unless you were educated, say via the same bio course in high school that I did that taught you about cuboidal cells. Hmmm. musta been the gubbamint lying to me. I fear for our future with these nutbags running around....
Mr. Teflon
at July 26, 2011 9:20 PM
Crid,
Self-importance is at the the top of your own list.
As you read that article, it apparently never occurred to you that the people who brought you processors with switches five atoms thick, who landed Neil and Buzz on the Moon 42 (!) years ago...
...who brought you every modern convenience...
...are not impressed that you have found out what they have known all along: that the process isn't "perfect", where revelation awaits the supplicant like some gem from the Dalai Lama, where the answer appears like a Pop-Tart, quickly and ready to eat.
You shouldn't be surprised that some would consider your offering TL;DR. But you are, I guess.
I read it, and thought it an appeal to ignorance. That way paves a path for your revealed truths, fabricated, of course, without supporting work.
Radwaste
at July 27, 2011 2:27 AM
> Self-importance is at the the top
> of your own list.
I'm a beautiful, beautiful man. People need to know.
> that the process isn't "perfect"
Weird quote marks.
> I read it, and thought it an
> appeal to ignorance.
Well, you're wrong. But you're excused from all further assignments, including my own little texts here... Though many find them to be the highlight of their online day!
In the weeks ahead, as you (ever-more-desperately) scour the internet for a similarly novel, invigorating and expository voice to replace my own, take a moment to reflect on the meta-ness of it all.
Amy's attitude about science can be too chirpy. It's not a 100% reliable daylight engine that wipes away disease and feeds the hungry and soothes the troubled. It's as human an enterprise as anything in civilization, including the churches. It's just as subject to corruption, fanaticism and the other mortal distortions. And properly pursued, science is eye-bleedingly demanding... Its best lessons can't be made accessible to general interest readers, especially those who are in it mostly to be condescending to others. Enjoying its metaphors deeply is not the same as fluency in its strictures. The NYer piece describes only a few of the ironies and nuances by which science demands the trickiest of human virtues— humility.
Science is merely the best we can do. But because it's a human project, that doesn't mean it's always good.
If you find a replacement for my guidance in your thinking, promise you won't come cryin' when things go wrong with it: People who demand only flattering consideration deserve to be disappointed.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 7:47 AM
"The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything"
Note the "it reminds us" part. It's been 84 years since Heisenberg formulated the Uncertainty Principle. It's not just human nature that gets in the way, but Nature itself. The search for truth about the physical world & human behavior is difficult not because it's conducted by fallible people, but because the physical world & the neurons in our brains operate on mind-boggling concepts like quantum mechanics. If it was easy, everything would have been known hundreds of years ago, and all those researchers would have to do something else for a living. So why are you insisting that we treat this article as revelatory in any way?
Winston was much, much better with rhetorical flourishes than you are:
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
The same has always applied to the scientific method, so what's your point?
Martin
at July 27, 2011 8:36 AM
> It's been 84 years since Heisenberg
> formulated the Uncertainty Principle.
Exactly! Oh, that's darling. It's a wonderful example, and I'm grateful.
Heisenberg's observation concerned measurement of atomic and subatomic particles in special (and even today, rarefied) contexts, and the difficulty of measuring their location and vectors in the same moment.
It was NOT a playful, broadly-applicable box of chatter about the nature of doubt. It was NOT the kind of thing rock stars should be building post-career-peak albums about (Hi, Sting!). It wasn't about whether or not you should bang your secretary if you think your wife won't find out. It's about physics. It's not for nonspecialist blog commenters to sling around as if they understand. You don't know the history, and you don't know the chemistry...
You are not a mathematician. Nor is Amy.
But IT SURE IS FUN, isn't it? It's fun to pretend that because you understand a metaphor at a cocktail party, you are, in essence, a highly-degreed theoretical physicist!
> why are you insisting that we treat
> this article as revelatory in any way?
Because I don't think you're as bright as you pretend to be. Just for example, I don't think you had any fucking clue that the precise experimental effects described in the piece existed. (And if you had, you wouldn't have reached so inanely for Churchill.)
Am I wrong?
No?
You're welcome, then. Great piece, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 11:00 AM
I still don't understand why you thought this piece would shake Amy's belief system. She's gone on about nutrition science (for instance) at great enough length to indicate that she knows that science has limitations, and that these limitations will continue to come to light, in ways like those described by Lehrer.
Martin
at July 27, 2011 12:28 PM
Thank you, Martin. That's correct.
I will post soon about the guy who had big personal costs for exposing Lilly.
I truly understand the limitations of studies, and that all studies are flawed, and I look for the flaws first to see if a study is too flawed to be taken to mean at all what it says. I also look for a body of work on a topic. And I do go over the math. It's painful, because I am not a mathematician, but I often find reasons to discount a study before I even get to the math.
I think in a way (skeptically) that most people don't. I just wrote a column about SIDs and co-sleeping and looked at the far-lower stats on this in Japan and realized/suspected that they have more than they say they do, but don't report the cases as SIDs. Just to name one example.
For another, the shaky bridge/sturdy bridge study, mentioned in one of Helen Fisher's books as if the data and methodology were sufficient...the sample size was 23 (or maybe 26, can't recall now). I am meticulous about looking to see whether studies are actually well-founded, and have a "bible" on my office wall from a top epidemiologist who kicks my ass on how to be skeptical, how to look for limitations in studies.
Amy Alkon
at July 27, 2011 12:46 PM
Let me put it this way, Crid. Consider the specific questions mentioned in the piece:
Do atypical antipsychotics (and cardiac stents, Vitamin E, antidepressants...) really work?
Is verbal overshadowing a real effect?
What's the role of symmetry in sexual selection?
Is acupuncture an effective treatment?
How do genes control differences in disease risk between men & women?
How do you think any of these questions will ever be resolved, except through further application of the scientific method? "Great piece, right?" Right. And I sure didn't know about all these experimental effects. But the answer to the question posed by the author (is there something wrong with the scientific method?) is still no.
Martin
at July 27, 2011 2:24 PM
> I still don't understand why you
> thought this piece would shake
> Amy's belief system.
Sugar... Muffin, Honeydew... Where did I say that "shaking Amy's belief system" was a goal? I said "Critical thinking doesn't deserve a teenage fanclub", and "Amy's attitude about science can be too chirpy."
___
> I think in a way (skeptically) that
> most people don't.
There it is, then. Unchecked egoism: You think you've been given special powers... Without even an associate's degree.
I think that's just pathetically grandiose.
___
> How do you think any of these
> questions will ever be resolved,
> except through further
> application of the scientific
> method?
Did I ever recommend anything else?
I think you're naive about it, that's all. And perhaps, like Amy so blindingly demonstrated above, you're in it mostly to make fun other other people, as in the mirthless cite of this blog post.
Marty, Marto, Mart-a-saures: How many times in the last week have you consulted the Periodic Table of the Elements? The past month? The past year, or five? Can you describe, without looking it up, what's "periodic" about it? I'm sure that chemists are crazy-shit humorous in their own lives: That cutup Francis "Franky" Crick was famous for cracking wise. His whoopy cushions and risque limericks enlivened many dry symposia! But stealing their punchlines for use in other fields never quite pays off.... Too many yoohadta be-theres. Didja hear the one about the peptide bonds?
> the answer to the question posed
> by the author (is there
> something wrong with the
> scientific method?) is still no.
Except that, y'know, it's apparently telling lies, even when these sincere professionals are sure they're doing it right. You can't even take the point. Fucktards are outlawing lightbulbs, rationing salt and warping transportation policies... All based on twitchy research.
It's not too late for big things to happen in science. When I was a toddler, plate tectonics was nowhere. By the time I was in second grade, it was impossible to challenge. The scientific method itself may be facing a quake. Because on top of the history of frauds and abuses and incompetence, we (apparently) have discovered new sources of error. And you wanna say "nothing's wrong with the scientific method"?
If that were true, you'd be living it, rather than admiring it from a distance. And your life would be a lot better than it is.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 5:09 PM
OK, I did say her belief system would be shattered, but that was just to try to get her attention. It was time to watch the formula one racing. (Hamilton won, by the way.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 5:50 PM
"Fucktards are outlawing lightbulbs, rationing salt and warping transportation policies...All based on twitchy research"
The ban on incandescent lightbulbs, the war on salt, ethanol fuel boondoggles - all of these, and so many more, are political movements driven by nannystate politicians & activists with a boundless lust for power over what people eat, drive, what have you. Shockingly, scientists are political animals too, and some are willing to lend their authority to political movements that comport with their desires. You thought that politicians & bureaucrats were just helpless puppets of mad scientists? Is there any corrective to this perversion of science? Well, yes. Just a few days ago Instapundit linked to a fine, sober Scientific American article pointing out that the actual, reliable scientific evidence for the war on salt was almost nonexistent. You have to take what you can get.
And about that Reason article...you don't think excited articles about the breathtaking pace at which scientific consensuses were being overturned were being written 100 years ago, just after radioactivity and the atomic nucleus were discovered, and Einstein formulated the Special Theory of Relativity, all within a decade? In 1900, there was universal agreement about which man stood at the pinnacle of Science, namely Isaac Newton, who discovered the laws by which God Himself set the Universe in motion. Just a few years later, Einstein proved that Newton's universe was not the real one. If a quake like that is awaiting us in the 21st century, I'll be delighted. Fraud, abuse, incompetence, and error are not new, and don't invalidate the scientific method, then or now.
Martin
at July 27, 2011 6:26 PM
"Except that, y'know, it's apparently telling lies, even when these sincere professionals are sure they're doing it right. You can't even take the point. Fucktards are outlawing lightbulbs, rationing salt and warping transportation policies... All based on twitchy research. "
Martin beat me to it, but... those two sentences encapsulate the problem. There was no science involved in any of those things -- they were all political sops so that environmentalists can feel morally superior to everyone else. I freely concur that there was a bunch of stuff that was cleverly packaged to look like science, but that doesn't make it so. It has extended as far as to re-defining scientific terms to mean whatever the powers that be want them to mean. "Red is gray, and yellow white..." But we don't actually get to decide which is right. Only nature does.
To a huge extent, science in this past decade has been overrun by politics. This is what happens when a society takes its eye off the ball.
By the way, I haven't kept up with F1 this year... is Hamilton still with McLaren?
Cousin Dave
at July 27, 2011 6:53 PM
> Shockingly, scientists are political
> animals too
Well, don't be sarcastic until you decide which side of the argument you're on. I think being sunny and glib about how science makes things better is as bad as religious fanaticism. In both cases, priestly figures are given undue authority.
> Fraud, abuse, incompetence, and
> error are not new, and don't
> invalidate the scientific method
Well OF COURSE THEY DO. I mean, we'll always come back to it... Truly decent people who want to investigate the world have nowhere else to go. Science is the best we can do. But when those corruptions are in play, the science under discussion *is* is lost and invalidated, as is public respect for it... Quite rightly. After the actor got busted with a prostitute, I couldn't hear the name "Hugh Grant" without snickering; And after the CRU email scandal a few years ago, I'm similarly cynical about anyone who uses the word "climate".
> you don't think excited articles
> about the breathtaking pace at
> which scientific consensuses
> were being overturned were being
> written 100 years ago
That's precisely the point. Science is a human enterprise: It doesn't make the ugly part of human nature go away.
_____
> There was no science involved in
> any of those things
Their proponents will certainly tell you that there was. Al Gore burns an uncounted tonnage of fuel flying all over the world to explain to the little people that greenhouse gases are a big problem. He uses charts and graphs. If you say that's not "science", then basically you're hoping to set aside the word for whatever you happen to find credible. Words are made worthless that way. (Favorite example: I'm not into any [air quotes] organized religion, man... But I'm a very spiritual person...!)
> This is what happens when a
> society takes its eye off the
> ball.
Don't make me agree with you, I'm still pissed at you about that other thing. I forget what it was.
> is Hamilton still with McLaren?
Yes, still making headlines every couple of months for [A] doing something brilliant or [B] doing something childish. I like sports figures who do that over the course of a career, instead of squirting out all their shameful stuff at once, like Tiger or Pete Rose.
Recent seasons have been exciting on paper, but have had boring races. This year is the other way around: Vettel has the championship all sewn up, but individual contests have been glorious.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 7:44 PM
> Martin beat me to it, but... those two
> sentences encapsulate the problem. There
> was no science involved
I'm not sure you guys read the piece.
Okay, Seacrest out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 8:32 PM
"In both cases, priestly figures are given undue authority"
There's a big difference. Priests answer to imaginary gods. Scientists must answer to a very real nature, which always has the last word. No matter how deeply so many scientists were invested in Piltdown Man & the notion that white men had no lowly African ancestors, fossils that proved otherwise kept stubbornly popping up. Mohammed could concoct a convenient revelation from Allah to let him rape 9-year olds, or do whatever he wanted. Scientists who sell their souls to politics can't make nature do what they want, though I hate to think how much money we'll waste on CFL bulbs and carbon taxes in the meantime. The politicization of science ultimately has a political solution, I think. If the taxpayers who fund their research start pulling the plug, they'll shape up.
Martin
at July 27, 2011 8:35 PM
> Scientists must answer to a
> very real nature
BUT YOU'VE JUST SAID YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL CASES WHERE SCIENTISTS DON'T!
And even then, that's ignores the distortion described by the article.
You guys are no fun
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 8:48 PM
Whenever scientists abandon honest inquiry, nature proves them wrong in the end. How can I restate that so that it gets through your skull?
Martin
at July 27, 2011 8:59 PM
Maybe this bit from Bailey: "In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality" Does that help?
Martin
at July 27, 2011 9:05 PM
"Their proponents will certainly tell you that there was. Al Gore burns an uncounted tonnage of fuel flying all over the world to explain to the little people that greenhouse gases are a big problem. He uses charts and graphs. If you say that's not "science", then basically you're hoping to set aside the word for whatever you happen to find credible. Words are made worthless that way. "
I disagree; in fact, I think it's the opposite. I've seen no evidence that Gore applied the scientific method in order to reach the conclusions he reached. I've seen a lot of evidence that he applied a bunch of non-scientific criteria, mostly related to his own desire to get filthy rich without working, and get laid a lot by Hollywood bimbos. If you apply the word "science" to what Gore is doing, then the word ceases to have any meaning. Sort of like applying the word "statesman" to anyone in Washington these days.
"Don't make me agree with you, I'm still pissed at you about that other thing. I forget what it was."
Yeah, well I'm still pissed at you too. Here, have another beer.
Cousin Dave
at July 27, 2011 9:11 PM
> nature proves them wrong in the end.
It doesn't matter, because we don't live in the end.
> Does that help
Thus far, with global warming, it has not.
> If you apply the word "science" to what
> Gore is doing, then the word ceases to
> have any meaning.
So you admit that you're being precious? What's the point?
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 27, 2011 9:36 PM
> Scientists must answer to a
> very real nature
BUT YOU'VE JUST SAID YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL CASES WHERE SCIENTISTS DON'T! -crid
Funny I didnt see where martin wrote that scientists had to answer to nature (whenever crid stamped his feet and demanded immediate action)
> nature proves them wrong in the end.
It doesn't matter, because we don't live in the end. -crid
Well crid, if it doesnt matter then why are you so upest? I'm confused.
Mostly, I think you all want "science" to mean the best of everything. You want it to be like a get-out-of-jail-free card, or an incantation. You want to be able to say "Science will handle this for us!", and then not think about it too much.
It's like the Boomer generation's Consumer Reeports mentality that I've talked about here before. You've heard the word "choices" so many times that you can't imagine life is about anything else. You dream of perpetual motion machines which require no attention, judgment or sacrifice: They just hum along silently without you. And you choose science! And Poof, you're done! Nothing to worry about, the bright guys will handle everything!
Science isn't like that. When someone says that a problem has been passed to the scientists, your responsibilities have (still) just begun.
_______
> I'm confused.
yes
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at July 28, 2011 12:08 AM
Yeah, yeah...
"Critical thinking" doesn't deserve a teenage fanclub.
Nor, frankly, does the scientific method.
Human nature persists, knowutimeen?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 7:15 AM
I have an acquaintance who has always had some, let's say, unorthodox views on scientific and political matters. But of late, she's turned into a full-out conspiracy nut. She firmly believes that the CIA assassinated JFK, that some kind of shadowy group controls both the U.S. government and the media, that cancer can be cured by diet, and that modern pharmaceuticals are a government mind-control conspiracy. She's a 9/11 Truther, of course. Her latest is "chemtrails". If you've never heard of this one, Google it and marvel at the nuttiness.
Cousin Dave at July 26, 2011 8:15 AM
I could find it hilarious if he would use some other descriptive and creative terminology besides "stupid".
NikkiG at July 26, 2011 10:33 AM
Cousin Dave,
Chemtrails is number 118 on the Table.
-Jut
JutGory at July 26, 2011 11:27 AM
Hmmm... I did not see the USDA food "plate" in there. Did I just miss it?
TX CHL Instructor at July 26, 2011 11:32 AM
Her latest is "chemtrails".
Ugh.
Well, I guess technically they could be considered "chemtrails", so long as you allow that the chemicals are water vapor and the contents of jet engine exhaust.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 26, 2011 11:46 AM
Jut, I didn't look that far... didn't realize that pseudoscience extended into trans-uranium territory!
Aggie, that reminds me of something I saw last night; wish I could find it again. A blogger wrote that he was explaining vitamins to his 8-year old thusly: "Vitamins are chemicals that help your body work properly." To which the 8-year-old replied: "But aren't chemicals bad?" No doubt about where the kid learned that....
Cousin Dave at July 26, 2011 3:12 PM
This will be depressing...
I had the sad duty of informing a relatively senior manager at work that no, he couldn't prohibit "chemicals" from being transported to his lab - without specifying what they were by some method of identification.
See, they would be sample vials, normally with contaminated water, but he couldn't grasp that all materials in the vials were "chemicals".
So it's the same problem at work as found here and on other fora: people think colloquially, and they get mad when you point out that colloquialisms have no value in regulatory/legal or scientific/engineering space, regardless of their position or opinion.
Radwaste at July 26, 2011 5:56 PM
That caught my eye too, Cousin Dave. It's from here (just scroll past the first dozen or so comments):
http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=1586
Instapundit linked it yesterday.
Martin at July 26, 2011 5:56 PM
I actually had a schoolteacher tell me once that one of her fondest dreams is that we will someday live in a radiation-free world. She wasn't stupid. But she was very mal-educated.
Cousin Dave at July 26, 2011 6:25 PM
No, she was stupid. Don't blame unseen players: Let her carry her own cargo. She preferred flattering lies to challenging truths.
Anyone who thinks such elementary forces (and perhaps more importantly, definitions) can be tamed by policy is someone who's never had courage... Not at dawn, noon, dusk or midnight. She doesn't believe in a world without "radiation", she's merely been (chirpily) convinced that she wants one. But she doesn't, as any cosmologically attentive nine-year-old could explain to her during a seven-minute walk through a city park.
(And I hope the little brat stiffs her for an ice cream.)
Now, before wrapping up this blog comment and logging off to watch the video of the weekend's German Grand Prix with a cup full of ice chips and a plate of crackers and gratitude for the end of my work week, let me just say this:
Set aside twenty, if you're dim.
There are no shortcuts to success or insight or fulfillment or righteousness... Even at our best we're going to battle human nature, the wretched demon beating in every heart.
Etc. So, know that!
What DOES a guy have to link to in order to pick a fight with the owner of this blog, anyway? That was a right hook! Like, pow! You're belief system is shattered!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 7:10 PM
Your, not you're.
Time for racing. High hopes for Nando in the Ferrari...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 7:12 PM
I first heard about chemtrails in a radio show on some station in the midwest. I laughed at what a great comedy/parody bit it was ... then for some reason checked it out on the 'net and realized THEY WERE SERIOUS. This was connected to the theory about the chemtrails planting nano-bots in our bodies for later activation by the government, to control us. The radio people explained how to take cell samples from your mouth to see if you're 'infected' - using hydrogen peroxide & red wine. Finding square 'cells' "proved" you were infected, beacuse we all know there are no straight lines or square cells in nature, of course ... unless you were educated, say via the same bio course in high school that I did that taught you about cuboidal cells. Hmmm. musta been the gubbamint lying to me. I fear for our future with these nutbags running around....
Mr. Teflon at July 26, 2011 9:20 PM
Crid,
Self-importance is at the the top of your own list.
As you read that article, it apparently never occurred to you that the people who brought you processors with switches five atoms thick, who landed Neil and Buzz on the Moon 42 (!) years ago...
...who brought you every modern convenience...
...are not impressed that you have found out what they have known all along: that the process isn't "perfect", where revelation awaits the supplicant like some gem from the Dalai Lama, where the answer appears like a Pop-Tart, quickly and ready to eat.
You shouldn't be surprised that some would consider your offering TL;DR. But you are, I guess.
I read it, and thought it an appeal to ignorance. That way paves a path for your revealed truths, fabricated, of course, without supporting work.
Radwaste at July 27, 2011 2:27 AM
> Self-importance is at the the top
> of your own list.
I'm a beautiful, beautiful man. People need to know.
> that the process isn't "perfect"
Weird quote marks.
> I read it, and thought it an
> appeal to ignorance.
Well, you're wrong. But you're excused from all further assignments, including my own little texts here... Though many find them to be the highlight of their online day!
In the weeks ahead, as you (ever-more-desperately) scour the internet for a similarly novel, invigorating and expository voice to replace my own, take a moment to reflect on the meta-ness of it all.
Amy's attitude about science can be too chirpy. It's not a 100% reliable daylight engine that wipes away disease and feeds the hungry and soothes the troubled. It's as human an enterprise as anything in civilization, including the churches. It's just as subject to corruption, fanaticism and the other mortal distortions. And properly pursued, science is eye-bleedingly demanding... Its best lessons can't be made accessible to general interest readers, especially those who are in it mostly to be condescending to others. Enjoying its metaphors deeply is not the same as fluency in its strictures. The NYer piece describes only a few of the ironies and nuances by which science demands the trickiest of human virtues— humility.
Science is merely the best we can do. But because it's a human project, that doesn't mean it's always good.
If you find a replacement for my guidance in your thinking, promise you won't come cryin' when things go wrong with it: People who demand only flattering consideration deserve to be disappointed.
Best Wishes, Radster.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 7:47 AM
"The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything"
Note the "it reminds us" part. It's been 84 years since Heisenberg formulated the Uncertainty Principle. It's not just human nature that gets in the way, but Nature itself. The search for truth about the physical world & human behavior is difficult not because it's conducted by fallible people, but because the physical world & the neurons in our brains operate on mind-boggling concepts like quantum mechanics. If it was easy, everything would have been known hundreds of years ago, and all those researchers would have to do something else for a living. So why are you insisting that we treat this article as revelatory in any way?
Winston was much, much better with rhetorical flourishes than you are:
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
The same has always applied to the scientific method, so what's your point?
Martin at July 27, 2011 8:36 AM
> It's been 84 years since Heisenberg
> formulated the Uncertainty Principle.
Exactly! Oh, that's darling. It's a wonderful example, and I'm grateful.
Heisenberg's observation concerned measurement of atomic and subatomic particles in special (and even today, rarefied) contexts, and the difficulty of measuring their location and vectors in the same moment.
It was NOT a playful, broadly-applicable box of chatter about the nature of doubt. It was NOT the kind of thing rock stars should be building post-career-peak albums about (Hi, Sting!). It wasn't about whether or not you should bang your secretary if you think your wife won't find out. It's about physics. It's not for nonspecialist blog commenters to sling around as if they understand. You don't know the history, and you don't know the chemistry...
You are not a mathematician. Nor is Amy.
But IT SURE IS FUN, isn't it? It's fun to pretend that because you understand a metaphor at a cocktail party, you are, in essence, a highly-degreed theoretical physicist!
> why are you insisting that we treat
> this article as revelatory in any way?
Because I don't think you're as bright as you pretend to be. Just for example, I don't think you had any fucking clue that the precise experimental effects described in the piece existed. (And if you had, you wouldn't have reached so inanely for Churchill.)
Am I wrong?
No?
You're welcome, then. Great piece, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 11:00 AM
I still don't understand why you thought this piece would shake Amy's belief system. She's gone on about nutrition science (for instance) at great enough length to indicate that she knows that science has limitations, and that these limitations will continue to come to light, in ways like those described by Lehrer.
Martin at July 27, 2011 12:28 PM
Thank you, Martin. That's correct.
I will post soon about the guy who had big personal costs for exposing Lilly.
I truly understand the limitations of studies, and that all studies are flawed, and I look for the flaws first to see if a study is too flawed to be taken to mean at all what it says. I also look for a body of work on a topic. And I do go over the math. It's painful, because I am not a mathematician, but I often find reasons to discount a study before I even get to the math.
I think in a way (skeptically) that most people don't. I just wrote a column about SIDs and co-sleeping and looked at the far-lower stats on this in Japan and realized/suspected that they have more than they say they do, but don't report the cases as SIDs. Just to name one example.
For another, the shaky bridge/sturdy bridge study, mentioned in one of Helen Fisher's books as if the data and methodology were sufficient...the sample size was 23 (or maybe 26, can't recall now). I am meticulous about looking to see whether studies are actually well-founded, and have a "bible" on my office wall from a top epidemiologist who kicks my ass on how to be skeptical, how to look for limitations in studies.
Amy Alkon at July 27, 2011 12:46 PM
Let me put it this way, Crid. Consider the specific questions mentioned in the piece:
Do atypical antipsychotics (and cardiac stents, Vitamin E, antidepressants...) really work?
Is verbal overshadowing a real effect?
What's the role of symmetry in sexual selection?
Is acupuncture an effective treatment?
How do genes control differences in disease risk between men & women?
How do you think any of these questions will ever be resolved, except through further application of the scientific method? "Great piece, right?" Right. And I sure didn't know about all these experimental effects. But the answer to the question posed by the author (is there something wrong with the scientific method?) is still no.
Martin at July 27, 2011 2:24 PM
> I still don't understand why you
> thought this piece would shake
> Amy's belief system.
Sugar... Muffin, Honeydew... Where did I say that "shaking Amy's belief system" was a goal? I said "Critical thinking doesn't deserve a teenage fanclub", and "Amy's attitude about science can be too chirpy."
___
> I think in a way (skeptically) that
> most people don't.
There it is, then. Unchecked egoism: You think you've been given special powers... Without even an associate's degree.
I think that's just pathetically grandiose.
___
> How do you think any of these
> questions will ever be resolved,
> except through further
> application of the scientific
> method?
Did I ever recommend anything else?
I think you're naive about it, that's all. And perhaps, like Amy so blindingly demonstrated above, you're in it mostly to make fun other other people, as in the mirthless cite of this blog post.
Marty, Marto, Mart-a-saures: How many times in the last week have you consulted the Periodic Table of the Elements? The past month? The past year, or five? Can you describe, without looking it up, what's "periodic" about it? I'm sure that chemists are crazy-shit humorous in their own lives: That cutup Francis "Franky" Crick was famous for cracking wise. His whoopy cushions and risque limericks enlivened many dry symposia! But stealing their punchlines for use in other fields never quite pays off.... Too many yoohadta be-theres. Didja hear the one about the peptide bonds?
> the answer to the question posed
> by the author (is there
> something wrong with the
> scientific method?) is still no.
Except that, y'know, it's apparently telling lies, even when these sincere professionals are sure they're doing it right. You can't even take the point. Fucktards are outlawing lightbulbs, rationing salt and warping transportation policies... All based on twitchy research.
It's not too late for big things to happen in science. When I was a toddler, plate tectonics was nowhere. By the time I was in second grade, it was impossible to challenge. The scientific method itself may be facing a quake. Because on top of the history of frauds and abuses and incompetence, we (apparently) have discovered new sources of error. And you wanna say "nothing's wrong with the scientific method"?
If that were true, you'd be living it, rather than admiring it from a distance. And your life would be a lot better than it is.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 5:09 PM
OK, I did say her belief system would be shattered, but that was just to try to get her attention. It was time to watch the formula one racing. (Hamilton won, by the way.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 5:50 PM
"Fucktards are outlawing lightbulbs, rationing salt and warping transportation policies...All based on twitchy research"
The ban on incandescent lightbulbs, the war on salt, ethanol fuel boondoggles - all of these, and so many more, are political movements driven by nannystate politicians & activists with a boundless lust for power over what people eat, drive, what have you. Shockingly, scientists are political animals too, and some are willing to lend their authority to political movements that comport with their desires. You thought that politicians & bureaucrats were just helpless puppets of mad scientists? Is there any corrective to this perversion of science? Well, yes. Just a few days ago Instapundit linked to a fine, sober Scientific American article pointing out that the actual, reliable scientific evidence for the war on salt was almost nonexistent. You have to take what you can get.
And about that Reason article...you don't think excited articles about the breathtaking pace at which scientific consensuses were being overturned were being written 100 years ago, just after radioactivity and the atomic nucleus were discovered, and Einstein formulated the Special Theory of Relativity, all within a decade? In 1900, there was universal agreement about which man stood at the pinnacle of Science, namely Isaac Newton, who discovered the laws by which God Himself set the Universe in motion. Just a few years later, Einstein proved that Newton's universe was not the real one. If a quake like that is awaiting us in the 21st century, I'll be delighted. Fraud, abuse, incompetence, and error are not new, and don't invalidate the scientific method, then or now.
Martin at July 27, 2011 6:26 PM
"Except that, y'know, it's apparently telling lies, even when these sincere professionals are sure they're doing it right. You can't even take the point. Fucktards are outlawing lightbulbs, rationing salt and warping transportation policies... All based on twitchy research. "
Martin beat me to it, but... those two sentences encapsulate the problem. There was no science involved in any of those things -- they were all political sops so that environmentalists can feel morally superior to everyone else. I freely concur that there was a bunch of stuff that was cleverly packaged to look like science, but that doesn't make it so. It has extended as far as to re-defining scientific terms to mean whatever the powers that be want them to mean. "Red is gray, and yellow white..." But we don't actually get to decide which is right. Only nature does.
To a huge extent, science in this past decade has been overrun by politics. This is what happens when a society takes its eye off the ball.
By the way, I haven't kept up with F1 this year... is Hamilton still with McLaren?
Cousin Dave at July 27, 2011 6:53 PM
> Shockingly, scientists are political
> animals too
Well, don't be sarcastic until you decide which side of the argument you're on. I think being sunny and glib about how science makes things better is as bad as religious fanaticism. In both cases, priestly figures are given undue authority.
> Fraud, abuse, incompetence, and
> error are not new, and don't
> invalidate the scientific method
Well OF COURSE THEY DO. I mean, we'll always come back to it... Truly decent people who want to investigate the world have nowhere else to go. Science is the best we can do. But when those corruptions are in play, the science under discussion *is* is lost and invalidated, as is public respect for it... Quite rightly. After the actor got busted with a prostitute, I couldn't hear the name "Hugh Grant" without snickering; And after the CRU email scandal a few years ago, I'm similarly cynical about anyone who uses the word "climate".
> you don't think excited articles
> about the breathtaking pace at
> which scientific consensuses
> were being overturned were being
> written 100 years ago
That's precisely the point. Science is a human enterprise: It doesn't make the ugly part of human nature go away.
_____
> There was no science involved in
> any of those things
Their proponents will certainly tell you that there was. Al Gore burns an uncounted tonnage of fuel flying all over the world to explain to the little people that greenhouse gases are a big problem. He uses charts and graphs. If you say that's not "science", then basically you're hoping to set aside the word for whatever you happen to find credible. Words are made worthless that way. (Favorite example: I'm not into any [air quotes] organized religion, man... But I'm a very spiritual person...!)
> This is what happens when a
> society takes its eye off the
> ball.
Don't make me agree with you, I'm still pissed at you about that other thing. I forget what it was.
> is Hamilton still with McLaren?
Yes, still making headlines every couple of months for [A] doing something brilliant or [B] doing something childish. I like sports figures who do that over the course of a career, instead of squirting out all their shameful stuff at once, like Tiger or Pete Rose.
Recent seasons have been exciting on paper, but have had boring races. This year is the other way around: Vettel has the championship all sewn up, but individual contests have been glorious.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 7:44 PM
Mo' Bailey, love that man
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 8:20 PM
> Fraud, abuse, incompetence, and
> error are not new, and don't
> invalidate the scientific method
Well OF COURSE THEY DO.
Crid, by that logic you would say there is no difference between a bar of gold and a bar of lead painted to look gold
lujlp at July 27, 2011 8:31 PM
Upon review---
> Martin beat me to it, but... those two
> sentences encapsulate the problem. There
> was no science involved
I'm not sure you guys read the piece.
Okay, Seacrest out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 8:32 PM
"In both cases, priestly figures are given undue authority"
There's a big difference. Priests answer to imaginary gods. Scientists must answer to a very real nature, which always has the last word. No matter how deeply so many scientists were invested in Piltdown Man & the notion that white men had no lowly African ancestors, fossils that proved otherwise kept stubbornly popping up. Mohammed could concoct a convenient revelation from Allah to let him rape 9-year olds, or do whatever he wanted. Scientists who sell their souls to politics can't make nature do what they want, though I hate to think how much money we'll waste on CFL bulbs and carbon taxes in the meantime. The politicization of science ultimately has a political solution, I think. If the taxpayers who fund their research start pulling the plug, they'll shape up.
Martin at July 27, 2011 8:35 PM
> Scientists must answer to a
> very real nature
BUT YOU'VE JUST SAID YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL CASES WHERE SCIENTISTS DON'T!
And even then, that's ignores the distortion described by the article.
You guys are no fun
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 8:48 PM
Whenever scientists abandon honest inquiry, nature proves them wrong in the end. How can I restate that so that it gets through your skull?
Martin at July 27, 2011 8:59 PM
Maybe this bit from Bailey: "In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality" Does that help?
Martin at July 27, 2011 9:05 PM
"Their proponents will certainly tell you that there was. Al Gore burns an uncounted tonnage of fuel flying all over the world to explain to the little people that greenhouse gases are a big problem. He uses charts and graphs. If you say that's not "science", then basically you're hoping to set aside the word for whatever you happen to find credible. Words are made worthless that way. "
I disagree; in fact, I think it's the opposite. I've seen no evidence that Gore applied the scientific method in order to reach the conclusions he reached. I've seen a lot of evidence that he applied a bunch of non-scientific criteria, mostly related to his own desire to get filthy rich without working, and get laid a lot by Hollywood bimbos. If you apply the word "science" to what Gore is doing, then the word ceases to have any meaning. Sort of like applying the word "statesman" to anyone in Washington these days.
"Don't make me agree with you, I'm still pissed at you about that other thing. I forget what it was."
Yeah, well I'm still pissed at you too. Here, have another beer.
Cousin Dave at July 27, 2011 9:11 PM
> nature proves them wrong in the end.
It doesn't matter, because we don't live in the end.
> Does that help
Thus far, with global warming, it has not.
> If you apply the word "science" to what
> Gore is doing, then the word ceases to
> have any meaning.
So you admit that you're being precious? What's the point?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 9:36 PM
> Scientists must answer to a
> very real nature
BUT YOU'VE JUST SAID YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL CASES WHERE SCIENTISTS DON'T! -crid
Funny I didnt see where martin wrote that scientists had to answer to nature (whenever crid stamped his feet and demanded immediate action)
> nature proves them wrong in the end.
It doesn't matter, because we don't live in the end. -crid
Well crid, if it doesnt matter then why are you so upest? I'm confused.
lujlp at July 27, 2011 10:47 PM
> Scientists must answer to a
> very real nature
BUT YOU'VE JUST SAID YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL CASES WHERE SCIENTISTS DON'T! -crid
Funny I didnt see where martin wrote that scientists had to answer to nature (whenever crid stamped his feet and demanded immediate action)
> nature proves them wrong in the end.
It doesn't matter, because we don't live in the end. -crid
Well crid, if it doesnt matter then why are you so upest? I'm confused.
lujlp at July 27, 2011 10:52 PM
Mostly, I think you all want "science" to mean the best of everything. You want it to be like a get-out-of-jail-free card, or an incantation. You want to be able to say "Science will handle this for us!", and then not think about it too much.
It's like the Boomer generation's Consumer Reeports mentality that I've talked about here before. You've heard the word "choices" so many times that you can't imagine life is about anything else. You dream of perpetual motion machines which require no attention, judgment or sacrifice: They just hum along silently without you. And you choose science! And Poof, you're done! Nothing to worry about, the bright guys will handle everything!
Science isn't like that. When someone says that a problem has been passed to the scientists, your responsibilities have (still) just begun.
_______
> I'm confused.
yes
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 28, 2011 12:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/26/the_periodic_ta_1.html#comment-2384722">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Not true, Crid. I look for the best evidence I can find on a subject - and sometimes there just isn't good evidence. I'm prepared for that, too.
Amy Alkon at July 28, 2011 12:44 AM
"But because it's a human project, that doesn't mean it's always good."
If you reject the scientific method, just what other method do you have in mind?
I suggest it's the one you use already: Hastily Assumed Righteous Outrage.
Radwaste at July 29, 2011 6:39 PM
Leave a comment