Science? What about passion and strongly held belief?

It is a sad irony that the teaching of science in American schools is so unscientific. In a more rational world, children would learn about nature and a mode of inquiry—the scientific method—that would awaken them to the awe, fascination, and surprise that the universe should inspire. Instead, the chronic problems afflicting K–12 education and the growing politicization of science have pushed us ever further from that ideal.

Science has been misused and poorly taught for centuries.

https://www.city-journal.org/k-12-science-curriculum-environment

Now we teach passion and strongly held belief and call it "climate science". There is, of course, real climate science and hopefully those engaged in it will eventually start calling out those who use strongly held belief wrapped in the sheep skin of science.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/covid-spread-cant-only-be-explained-by-whos-being-bad/ar-BB17VlsC

Rethinking what is known v. believed about this freaking bug that turned the world upside down but helped improve our capacity for blaming those with beliefs different from our own. The most widely held belief I see and try to push back against is "because this happened after that, it happened because of that". It's such an old logical flaw there's a cute latin phrase for it. We enlightened 20th century geniuses with the oh so great reverence for science seem as vulnerable to it as ever. "We may also be heterogeneous in our biology. A recent paper in Science suggests that many people who’ve never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 carry a kind of immune cell, called a T-cell, which recognizes this novel virus and may partially mitigate an infection. These cells may be left over from infections with related viruses — the coronaviruses that cause the common cold. "While scientists who authored the paper warn that it doesn’t imply that people with pre-existing T-cells can’t get infected, they leave open the possibility that it might account for some of the vast variability in symptoms. "Whatever the source of this heterogeneity, we know it exists. Most people on the contaminated cruise ship Diamond Princess remained uninfected, while others got asymptomatic infections and still others got severely ill."

Models are not reality and are not much better at predicting reality than a human is

Scientific American sought to dismiss such concerns in an April 15 article headlined “Climate Science Deniers Turn to Attacking Coronavirus Models.”While not exactly defending the methodology used in the models, the article said they were wrong “because millions of Americans responded to pleas for social distancing.” It then invoked newer models that would also prove to be wrong – forecasting only 60,000 U.S. deaths; there are now more than 107,000 – before defending the original alarmist numbers with what almost sounds like an argument for the politicization of science from the coronavirus to climate change: “Health experts say the models worked the way they were supposed to -- by providing a glimpse into a dire future that was partially averted because of collective action.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/06/04/covid_vs_climate_modeling_cloudy_with_a_chance_of_politics_123891.html

"I Believe the Science!" (Amen)

Lee’s report wasn’t the first time that doubt had been cast on Wansink’s work: in 2016, he published a blog post (which he later deleted) revealing that he had encouraged graduate students to do this sort of data fishing; the post resulted in a flurry of critical coverage toward his methods. But Lee’s was the most comprehensive and damning account. “Year after year,” she concluded, “Wansink and his collaborators at the Cornell Food and Brand Lab have turned shoddy data into headline-friendly eating lessons that they could feed to the masses.” Two days after Lee’s story was published, John Becker posted on the official “Joy of Cooking” Twitter account, “We have the dubious honor of being a victim of @BrianWansink and Collin R. Payne’s early work.”



https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/the-strange-uplifting-tale-of-joy-of-cooking-versus-the-food-scientist

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics - what do we know?

It is essential that we look at data, and it is easy to be fooled by what we find when looking at the data.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/04/mass_shootings_in_america_anatomy_of_a_hyped_statistic_137960.html

Publish the data with the conclusions, let others review it, that's the first step towards legit science. 

"Science" On Your Side?

Most important rule of politics: Do what it takes to win. Whatever it takes. Part of that rule is claiming that your side is the one that is comporting with "science". As far as I can tell, either side will make claims to that effect, most of which demonstrate their ignorance of how science is done and what it can or cannot tell us. I love this quote:

Put aside the fact that there is no such thing as settled science. Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does. All the great scientists of history are justly famous for overturning the assumptions of their fields. The real problem is that in politics, invocations of science are very often marketing techniques masquerading as appeals to irrefutable authority. In an increasingly secular society, having science on your side is better than having God on your side – at least in an argument.

Much of the rest of the article is skippable, until you get to this little demonstration of New York values:

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio is pushing to fine businesses that do not address customers by their “preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.” The NYC Commission on Human Rights can penalize offenders up to $250,000.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435634/global-warming-transgenders-liberals-deny-science-when-it-suits-them

"Studies Show" That Most of Us Fall for Bubble Gum Science

Since that time, the Clean Air Act has repeatedly been challenged as costly and unnecessary. As a fight brews over President Obama’s new use of the law to address global warming, it’s worth re-examining the vast difference the law has already made in the quality of the air we breathe, and in the length of our lives.

Numerous studies have found that the Clean Air Act has substantially improved air quality and averted tens of thousands of premature deaths from heart and respiratory disease. Here, I offer new estimates of the gains in life expectancy due to the improvement in air quality since 1970 — based on observations from the current “smog capital” of the world, China. (To learn more about how this was calculated, click here.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/upshot/the-connection-between-cleaner-air-and-longer-lives.html?_r=1

I hate bubble gum science like this.  It's obvious that normal air quality will make life better, but teasing out causality when so many factors are changing - food, medications, etc, makes predictions like the ones in this article a fool's game.

Climate McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows

The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
One of the peer-reviewers reportedly wrote:

'It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.'

This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was "utterly unacceptable" and "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."
He added:

'The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.'

In truth, to anyone familiar with the Climategate emails there will be nothing surprising or unusual in this incident or this claim. As the emails leaked in 2009 made abundantly clear, the organised suppression of sceptical papers in learned journals by the alarmist establishment has long been rife within the field of climate science.

Science influenced by politicians with funding ... yawn.  Duh.  Of course.

Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard | Power Line

Pause here and note that it is odd to see that some folks apparently haven't gotten the memo that you're not supposed to call it "global warming"—"climate change" is the term of art now.  Anyway, to continue, read this slowly and carefully:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Let's translate: Among the one-third of papers that "endorse" the "consensus," there is near unanimity.  In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus.  Again—the only mystery here is that the number isn't 100 percent.  Perhaps this would have been too embarrassing to report, like a North Korean election.  For this exercise all climate scientists may as well be called named Kim Jong Il.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php

I can't even guess why we're talking about consensus as regards the scientific method, the two should never meet.

The Death Of Expertise (Thank Goodness)

Worse, it's dangerous. The death of expertise is a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. Fundamentally, it's a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself. Yes, I said "Western civilization": that paternalistic, racist, ethnocentric approach to knowledge that created the nuclear bomb, the Edsel, and New Coke, but which also keeps diabetics alive, lands mammoth airliners in the dark, and writes documents like the Charter of the United Nations.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

Actually, the opposite is true.  

In short, this author is a pompous ass.  Frankly, when science is conclusive, it doesn't take expert opinion to disseminate it.  And if science isn't conclusive, expert opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion.  It isn't the rejection of science, it is the affirmation that opinion is not part of scientific truth.

"Experts" have manipulated us for years with mis-information and outright dishonesty.  They abused their positions of power.  We don't have to depend upon them any longer.  Experts don't always have access to information we don't access to, and we aren't subject to the distorting incentives that experts can be subject to.  

I long for the day that enough folks will have enough scientific literacy that when someone says abnegation of "experts" is against science, the whole room full of people will think "bullshit" and cross that expert off of their list of folks to listen to.

Climate Scientists' Biggest Challenge Isn't Scientific - Bloomberg View

Opinion is not scientific evidence or proof. A scientist who is an "expert" can still deliver only an opinion. 
The scientific method does not include popularity contests. Consensus is to scientific proof what lemon is to a skin rash. 
This seems so simple to me, but confusion about this matter riddles debate after debate, and the willingness to use govt force in support of "expert" and "scientific" opinion is killing people (low fat diets).

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-21/climate-scientists-biggest-challenge-isn-t-scientific

Throw Away Line

"Yet despite its widespread use and vast financial success, and although it was derived from the work of Carl Jung, one of the most famous psychologists of the 20th century, the test is highly questioned by the scientific community. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-briggs-does-it-pay-to-know-your-type/2012/12/14/eaed51ae-3fcc-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html?tid=ts_carousel

It's funny, in the author's throw away line intro, she highlights one of the biggest mis-understandings of the role of science.  The point of science is to "highly question" everything.  The practice of science is to identify a conjecture, and test it - IOW, try to prove that conjecture is wrong.  If sufficient testing is conducted, a conjecture may be considered a "hypothesis", then a "theory", and possibly one day a "law".  There is never a point in which something is proved true.  The scientific method only works if one uses it in this way.  IOW - saying "the test is highly questioned by the scientific community", the author is saying the equivalent of "not all scientists are asleep." 

Nevermind the implication that the opinions of scientists matter.  A scientist is a person with an opinion.  Science results when folks who have opinions subject them to the scientific method.  If 1000 scientists say "we think X is correct" and 1000 scientists say "we think X is false", that's all good and everything, but it has little or nothing to do with the practice of science.  The opinion of the "scientific community" is as relevant to the practice of science as are the opinions of football prognosticators to the outcome of football games. 

The linked article though is an interesting read, and clearly highlights the often seen divide between academia and reality.  Often, academics see little need or have little ability to work in ways that allows a translation from laboratory to life.  This has led to a widespread perception that academics are good for little amongst those that must produce a product to feed themselves.  In our culture's widespread mis-understanding of the scientific method, which leads many to treat science as an article of faith, we have come to write and speak about science and scientists as if it and they are some special class of human.  Have a read and see if you can see this thread in the following cuts:
"Academics would contend that is precisely Myers-Briggs biggest flaw: It's about belief much more than scientific evidence. And it's administered by leadership coaches who, by and large, have no formal education in the science of psychology."
--In other words, "we don't care if folks think it is useful."
""People like it because it reveals something they didn't know about themselves or others," says Wharton's Grant. "That could be true of a horoscope, too."
--In other words, "people like it, but that does not mean that the system has been shown to have scientific validity."  To which, I would say, "whatever."

"Even Katharine Downing Myers concedes that "psychologists had no use for the indicator; they felt that Jung was a crazy mystic."
--"Concedes"?  Why would it need to be a concession?
"And yet the psychological community has been reticent to speak up too vocally against it. The fact is, many psychology professors do lucrative side work as organizational consultants. And as taboo as it is to praise Myers-Briggs in U.S. academia, it's equally taboo to disparage it in corporate America."
--What would they say "against it"?  "We have not tested this, therefore, it may or may not be scientifically valid."  Whatever.  Shut up or test it already.
""Some psychologists see it as a necessary evil," Grant says. They think: "I want to have influence with practitioners, so I can't poke a hole in their sacred cow."  Continuing:  "It is sacred because CPP has done such a thorough job of ingraining it in organizational culture, because company norms are hard to break, because institutions are attracted to the safety of its all-personalities-are-created-equal message, and because - despite what Myers-Briggs advocates would call the complexity and depth of the tool - it is, in the end, elegantly simple."
--Nope, it's sacred because it resonates with people. People wish to be understood, and they want to understand themselves. This tool helps them. In that way, it works, and it wouldn't work any better if a guy with a PHD said "I've tested this tool and found it to have scientific credibility." 

I don't know whether these PHDs take themselves overly seriously, or the author merely set them up to sound as thought they do.  What I know is that in 30 years of fooling around with the MBTI and the Keirsey adaptation of the same system, people love to gain the insights this system offers.  I have even seen people in tears after seeing their type described in writing - "I've always been told I shouldn't be this way".  Seeing their type decribed in writing, they realize they couldn't have been any other way, and their choice to "be who they are" is validated. 

Do you care whether the system has been tested by PHDs, or do you care that it provides you insight and a better strategy to understand others, and to be understood by others? 

Science Morons R Us

"In one recent episode, GQ magazine asked Rubio about the age of the Earth. "Whether the Earth was created in seven days or seven actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that," said the senator, who sits on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. "It's one of the great mysteries."  Not so mysterious, really, according to the vast majority of scientists. They say the planet is about 4.5 billion years old, based on the decay of radioactive elements in samples taken from the Earth." 

http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/gop-must-embrace-science-to-survive-20121129  

"A majority of scientists" eh? Not that I even care how old the earth is, but what if I have 500,000 scientists on my side of a question, and you have 500,001 on your side - which of us is scientifically correct?  In other words, what role does opinion play in proof or falsification of a scientific inquiry? 

That's an easy question to answer - none.  

In what follows, a science illiterate lectures us about the scientific illiteracy of our political leaders. It is well established that what politicians do best is tell us what they think we want to hear, which is a particularly unscientific starting point. So, with my best effort to restrain my contempt, which I view as a an emotional state of personal failure, any moron who looks to a political party for an accurate representation of what science is or is not deserves all the deception they will receive. However, I should not be made to suffer the consequences of the opinions of those so deceived.  More from the willingly deceived author:  

"Rubio bashed Crist's cap-and-trade "scheme" and went so far as to question whether humans contribute to climate change.  ""I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to make that decision," Rubio told The Miami Herald at the time. "There's a significant scientific dispute about that."  

"In truth, there is largely consensus in the scientific community about the root causes of global warming. 

Wanless said he was so alarmed by Rubio's change of heart that he wrote him a letter offering to convene a meeting with a group of scientists. He heard nothing. He pressed the letter into Rubio's hands at a fundraiser. Still no response.  ""I understand that he's not a scientist, but at some point people need to listen to scientists about science," Wanless said. "It's especially critical for a leader representing Florida to understand the reality of climate change. With a six-foot rise of sea level, which is probably where we will be at the end of the century, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe counties are gone.""

As my friend Jeff Glassman has said, "Consensus is to science what carbon dioxide is to global warming - a trailing indicator!"  As for Rubio's insipid dodge - " I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to make that decision" - I would offer that scientists are not qualified to make such a "decision" either. They either have the proof, or they do not, and opinion is not part of that.  

"A decisive majority of Americans accept the scientific reality of climate change" - could there be a more stupid argument to make about science? There is no "scientific reality of climate change" beyond the facts that it can be determined that the world has not always been the same temperature it is now. We barely know what the world's "average" temperature is now. The author claims facts matter but cites precious few facts, and instead repeats claims that cannot be backed by fact.  

"Except that these are matters of science, not opinion" Wrong, moron. These are matters of scientific inquiry, and when the scientific method has adequately tested the conjectures in these matters, they may be elevated to the status of hypothesis.  

My hypothesis is that you would happily forgo the scientific process in order to adopt pointless legislation now that would attack economic productivity, make billions more poor and less upwardly mobile, and would undermine the socialist security net which you likely claim is an essential element of a "modern, democratic state" - or some such pap. 

The stakes are much higher than whether AGW is real, will cause more harm than good, and is addressable by humans without just killing a few billion of us. You with your religious faith in pseudo science would willingly kill the economic growth essential to even have a prayer of keeping options open for the poor you claim to be so concerned about. Moron is the only word that applies. And may I one day forgive myself for giving in to contempt.

The Unscience of Algore

"An additional strength of the falsifiability criterion is that it makes possible a clear distinction between science properly speaking and the opinions of scientists on nonscientific subjects. We have seen in recent years a growing tendency to treat as "scientific" anything that scientists say or believe. The debates over stem cell research, for example, have often been described, both within the scientific community and in the mass media, as clashes between science and religion. It is true that many, but by no means all, of the most vocal defenders of embryonic stem cell research were scientists, and that many, but by no means all, of its most vocal opponents were religious. But in fact, there was little science being disputed: the central controversy was between two opposing views on a particular ethical dilemma, neither of which was inherently more scientific than the other. If we confine our definition of the scientific to the falsifiable, we clearly will not conclude that a particular ethical view is dictated by science just because it is the view of a substantial number of scientists. The same logic applies to the judgments of scientists on political, aesthetic, or other nonscientific issues. If a poll shows that a large majority of scientists prefers neutral colors in bathrooms, for example, it does not follow that this preference is "scientific.""  

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism  

Anthropogenic global warming conjecture, anyone?  We have more carbon in the air but a flat average worldwide temp for fifteen years - the "carbon drives temperatures" conjecture is FALSE. There's room for a more nuanced approach, but the complete absurdity of Algore's "the science is settled" statement grows more apparent by the second.

"Official Truth"

Interesting discussion of the concept of "official truth" by David Friedman, in this case applied to food/diet/health and AGW.

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2012/06/salt-official-truth-and-new-york-times.html

From Tbone Burnett's "The Wild Truth":
"i get the feeling that as soon as something appears in the paper it ceases to be true"

"Believe" In Science?

So Rick Santorum doesn't buy Evolution. So what? What Chivers actually knows about adaptive radiation can dance with an angel on the head of a pin.  He doesn't "accept" science, like progressives constantly try to frame it in smug tones, he simply believes it.  And he should. Evolution is the foundation of biology but it doesn't make him intellectually superior because he believes some aspect of science blindly. A whole lot more Democrats 'accept' astrology than Republicans, does that make all Democrats anti-science?

Pres. Obama did not accept the science that vaccines didn't cause Autism, yet he still got elected in 2008.  Was he 'turning his back on the Enlightenment' the way Republicans supposedly are?  Of course not, he is a progressive and so the fix is in.

When progressives deny the value of animal research in science, they are bequeathed false equivalence positions like it is simply 'moral' but if a Republican 10 years ago limited federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research to existing lines it was not a 'moral' position, it was 'anti-science'.  The fact is that almost all scientists state animal research is necessary for science progress and 62% of Republicans agree but only 48% of Democrats 'accept' that science. And no one in media seems to mention it.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/maybe_assistant_comment_editors_shouldnt_write_about_science-86110

Virtually no one I talk to understands the scientific method, and especially the first principles of it, which is that no scientist is trustworthy.  I like the way the article's author turns the current liberal smugness on its head - but don't take that as an endorsement of the GOP's science stupidity.  Even most of the GOP that correctly identifies the left's belief in AGW as just one more justification for why they think they need to run things does not really understand why the Dems are dumb on AGW science.

RCP State of the Science

Interesting paper with some interesting data intermingled with unclear thoughts.

Like this one:
Third, our need for energy independence at home has never been greater.
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/01/16/state_of_science_in_america_106261.html

They must have missed the memo that we indeed can have that if desired, but apparently, not enough politicians want that to allow for it to happen.

This one is unquestionably true:
Fourth, we must renew our focus on educating the youngest members of American society. A 2009 survey found that only 59 percent of adults knew that early humans did not co-exist with dinosaurs. While humorous, perhaps, it underscores the serious problems associated with a scientifically illiterate population.
Science literacy is much more than simply knowing trivial tidbits of information. It means being able to ask the right questions to find the best answers for the everyday problems and curiosities of life. It means being able to understand and scrutinize significant scientific studies. Most importantly, scientific literacy means being able to comprehend and make educated decisions about important science issues. We must not allow ourselves to be manipulated by ill-informed politicians and fringe activists who would otherwise hold back or misdirect technological progress on everything from genetic modification and pharmaceuticals to embryonic stem cells and vaccines.
However, with the conflict of interest inherent in political control of science research spending, there is also a massive conflict of interest in having a population that understands either science or economics.

This one is hopeful but quaint:
Finally, we must recognize that science is a means to bridge the great divide that exists between the developed world and the developing one.
Without liberty and property rights, science won't do the developing world any more good than it already has.

WOW - Jurassic Park in 2016

Resurrecting the woolly mammoth is possible.
Scientists announced the possibility of cloning a woolly mammoth within 5 years. Just like Dolly the Sheep, the new mammoth would be cloned by a process called "nuclear transplantation." Using a preserved femur recovered from the Siberian permafrost, scientists plan to extract the nucleus of a bone marrow cell and transplant it into an elephant egg cell. Following a 22-month gestation period in a surrogate elephant mother, a woolly mammoth could be born. However, because the DNA inside the bone marrow may be severely degraded, resurrecting the woolly mammoth is still a long shot-- but well within the realm of scientific possibility.
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/12/26/realclearsciences_top_10_stories_of_2011_106259.html

Get That Monkey Of Your Back

In Monkeys on Our Backs, Richard Tokumei thoroughly explains how the policies endorsed by liberals, who believe in evolution, not only go against its principles, but, because they do, are doomed to failure.  Policies endorsed by conservatives, on the other hand and unbeknownst to them, are actually derived from the principles of evolution which they publicly denounce, and, because they are, they have a better chance of working than liberal policies.  The book is full of such astute observations, peppered with a sense of humor.
For someone who is not a scientist and has no background in evolutionary biology, Tokumei has a deep understanding of evolution and how it operates.  And he is able to express the fundamental principles of evolution very clearly.  In fact, Part One of the book, where he explains how evolution works, is simultaneously so accurate and so lucid that I believe it should be used as a biology textbook in junior high schools..
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201104/why-liberals-and-conservatives-are-both-wrong-about-evolut

This sounds like a great book!

Masters of The Meaningless

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/22/harry-reid/reid-calls-nuclear-waste-issue-solved/
Scientists are now saying leave the nuclear waste where it is, in deep ground storage. And when I say deep ground, (I mean) 10 feet underground. The new nuclear power plants are going to be built, and it's terrific that the president stepped forward on this. I'm not against nuclear power. I'm against bringing nuclear waste to Nevada. Scientists say leave it where it is. That's what we have to do.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/22/harry-reid/reid-calls-nuclear-waste-issue-solved/
This is standard polspeak of course, but next time you hear a politician speak like this, won't you be thinking as I do:
-Which scientists? 
-How many? 
-What if 49 say "leave it where it is" and 48 say "move it to one location"? 
-What if the 49 who say "leave it" are conservative voters from near the Yucca mountains and the 48 who say "move it" are all liberals from states other than Nevada? 

In short, beware the politician who appeals to a faux authority.  Yes, faux authority is convenient for a fella that has to appear to know everything about everything - that's why we must distrust those who use it just as instinctively as they use it.

However, I'm going to find a scientist who says that we need to restore the constitution to it's historical limitations on the power of the federal government and introduce that guy to every politician I can find.