Those Damn Facts And Rigorous Standards

Anti-Vaxxers Fund Study That Finds Zero Link Between Vaccinations And Autism:

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: Vaccinations do not cause autism. Study after study has shown this, and even the original research used to peddle this myth was eventually retracted due to falsified data. But this hasn’t stopped many anti-vaccination groups from still trying to create data that says otherwise, often by commissioning studies that they hope will support their ideologies.

But for one group at least, this method of funding scientific studies to prove their point seems to have backfired. A six-year study looking into the effect that vaccinations have on the neurological development and social behavior of rhesus macaque infants, funded in part by the anti-vaccination and autism advocacy group SafeMinds, concluded that there was no evidence at all for such a link.

That didn’t stop the group from claiming the results didn’t change things. In a statement, they say that they had “concerns about changes in the study design protocol and analysis that may have led to these contradictory results.” The contradiction they are referring to is the fact that they were previously given preliminary results from a smaller trial, which purported to back up their position, before the study was expanded to include more subjects and underwent more rigorous standards that eventually found zero evidence.

"The results didn’t change things." A nice example of Confirmation Bias.

Oh, the irony of funding a study that proves you wrong.

Science Or The Pope?

Sometimes I get the impression that no one listens when scientists speak, and that everyone listens when the pope speaks. Why is the pope so important?

Scientists and Pope Francis agree that climate change is real and that it is a threat.

Democrats hopeful pope's visit will end climate change denial in Congress:

Pope Francis’s arrival in Washington on Tuesday has reinforced hopes that one of the last great bastions of climate change denial – the US Congress – may be on the verge of crumbling.

As the pope touched down in the US from Cuba, Democratic leaders in Congress and environmental campaigners were optimistic that Francis would keep the focus on his core themes of the global economic order, poverty and environmental degradation over the next six days, and so widen the emerging fractures in the Republican wall of denial.

Republicans, meanwhile, remained wary, and expressed hope that the pope would steer clear of controversial issues on his first visit to the US.

Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic senator from Rhode Island, said he believed the call to action from a popular pope made it increasingly difficult for Republicans to continue to dismiss the science on climate change. “I think this whole edifice of climate denial is crumbling,” Whitehouse told the Guardian.

Pope Francis Makes Biblical Case For Addressing Climate Change: ‘If We Destroy Creation, Creation Will Destroy Us’:

“Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will; or, even less, is the property of only a few: Creation is a gift, it is a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude,” Francis said.

Francis also said that humanity’s destruction of the planet is a sinful act, likening it to self-idolatry.

“But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: ‘I don’t like it! This is not good!’ ‘So what do you like?’ ‘I like myself!’ – Here, this is sin! Do you see?”

Scientific opinion on climate change:

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.

Do people pay more attention to what the pope says about this issue than the scientists? Does the media pay more attention to the pope on this issue? Do the politicians?

It's good that the pope is talking about this and that he is causing some people to think about the issue of climate change. I don't understand why people pay attention to him in general. I don't understand what makes him so special. I don't think that climate change is important because of what God thinks. I don't think that climate change makes us sinners.

I wish more people trusted the science. I wish more people paid less attention to the pope.

The Sun Goes Up, The Sun Goes Down

Why do teachers make less money than Bill O’Reilly?

"I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication...It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that." Bill O'Reilly

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill O'Reilly Proves God's Existence - Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog March to Keep Fear Alive

A law should be passed requiring Bill O’Reilly to say “Hello, I’m Bill O’Reilly and I’m an idiot.” at the beginning of every one of his broadcasts.  If he says it enough times maybe he and his audience will start to believe it.

Rush Displays His Ignorance

From Rush Limbaugh’s War on Science by Chris Mooney:

Rush is ticked because everybody told him to be afraid of swine flu, and now it turns out that as pandemics go, the current strain of swine flu is probably less like a category 3 hurricane, and more like a category 1 or tropical storm. So what does Rush do? He blames the scientists:

We are the targets of lies, damn lies and science and scientists are rapidly becoming as trustworthy as politicians.

I suppose that some scientists lie, especially those that are paid big bucks by corporations to do so. I would assume that Rush Limbaugh likes those scientists, just as he likes the politicians that lie the most.

It is one thing to accuse scientists of lying. It is another thing to accuse science of lying. Is it possible for science to lie? I don’t think so.

Mathematicians are capable of lying and telling us that two plus two equals five. Why one would choose to do this is a mystery to me. All the rest of the mathematicians would laugh him out his profession. Mathematicians are capable of lying, mathematics is incapable of lying. Two plus two equals four. Scientists are capable of lying, science is incapable of lying.

Why does Mr. Limbaugh attack science and scientists? If he wants to go after someone regarding this issue, why doesn’t he look inward and attack the media? After all who is responsible for most of the hype that is out there?

Sometimes science, like life, requires a little patience. Sometimes science, like life, doesn’t give us all the answers. Rush Limbaugh tries my patience, and provides me with no answers whatsoever. Is he simply ignorant or is he the one doing the lying?

Does Mr. Limbaugh think that radio is magic? Or does he think that the science that allows him to do his job every day is lying to him?

If Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin wish to return to the Dark Ages, fine. I refuse to follow them.

Political Action And Scientific Result

Can political action change the outcome of a science experiment? Can ‘scientists’ get away with lying and faking the truth? Correct me if I’m wrong, but Sarah Palin seems to believe that these things are true. I do not believe that either one is true.

We all are participating in one of the largest science experiments that has ever been undertaken. The stakes are enormous. The worst case scenario is the eradication of all life on earth. Sarah Palin seems to think that some petty infighting among some scientists (and yes, perhaps some data fudging and lies) means that global warming is a hoax. She seems to think that because some scientists lie, that means that all scientists must lie. (Makes me think of politicians, for some reason.) Palin also seems to be arguing that the economy trumps all, even science. I wonder how the economy will be doing when we are all dead?

I have a proposal. It could even be a new reality TV show. Would Sarah Palin be willing to participate in a science experiment? How long does she think she could sustain her life if she were put in a sealed enclosure which had a constant source of carbon monoxide being pumped into it. She could have some plants, trees, salmon, and polar bears in there with her to make her feel at home. I know that this is an oversimplification, however the reality is that we put all kinds of bad things into our air, atmosphere, and water. Why is Sarah Palin not concerned about this? I know that I am. Why does she think that global warming is a hoax? I know that I don’t.

From Copenhagen's political science by Sarah Palin:

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

What “trustworthy science” is Palin basing all of this on? Why isn’t what she is saying and doing “politicizing” the issue? Is it even possible for a political issue to not be politicized?

Palin doesn’t want Obama to go to Copenhagen. I want him to go. Does my wish cancel out hers? The president should not boycott Copenhagen. There. That settles it.

Palin bases much of her outrage over ‘Climate-gate’ (as she calls it) on emails that some hackers discovered. I’m still outraged over these emails. Is she?

Political scandal seems never ending. Scientific scandal always seems to lead to the truth eventually. Is global warming a hoax? Do we want time to tell?

Whether or not global warming is a hoax or not seems to be irrelevant to the argument that Sarah Palin is trying to make. She seems to be in favor of air and water pollution. Does she not think these things are bad for us?

Update:
Here is more on all of this. There is also this and this.

Update:
Only right wing Republicans use the phrase "cap and tax." The rest use the term "cap and trade." To use the phrase "cap and tax" means that one is making a "political move."

Some Cool Stuff

Hubble sees most distant galaxies

Seagate enters solid-state drive market

First, Furthermore, And Finally

From A Life With Religion, and Without by Owen C. Thomas:

First, if you follow John Dewey in his assertion that “whatever introduces genuine perspective is religious,” then there is no such animal as the nonreligious. Furthermore, historians of science now know that biblical religion was a major factor in the rise of the empirical side of modern science.

Finally, since following Dewey and many others, if everyone has a worldview, whether implicit or explicit, and none can be proved to anyone else who does not share it, then we all “walk by faith, and not by sight,” as Paul put it.

First, what if you don’t follow John Dewey and his assertion? (Or perhaps the better question is: what if you don’t follow the Owen C. Thomas interpretation of John Dewey and his assertion?

Furthermore, how many ancient scientists were burned at the stake for being heretics? What effect did these murders have on the development of the “empirical side” of modern science? (Is there a non-empirical side to science?)

Finally, faith in one’s own worldview does not equate to faith in God.

Doing It

From Science!

If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong. If you don’t correct those mistakes, you’re doing it really wrong. If you can’t accept that you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.

I think that this applies to life in general… and religion… and playing the stock market… and sex…

Hot Air

It seems to me that we could solve our energy problems if we simply found a way to harness all the hot air that comes out of politicians’ mouths. And unlike oil, there seems to be a limitless and ever increasing supply of it.

From Science Questions for Would-Be Presidents by The Editors of Scientific American:

Both candidates oppose Yucca Mountain, the controversial proposed nuclear waste dump. McCain has advocated an “international repository” instead. What is the difference? Where does Obama propose to put the waste? The U.S. has spent 30 years studying Yucca; switching sites will restart the clock. What will nuclear plants do with all their spent fuel in the meantime?

Beyond these generalities, the candidates diverge. McCain would subsidize the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors, costing upward of $270 billion and taking 20 years to complete. Why invest that much public money in nuclear rather than solar or wind power, which could start pumping out watts much sooner? How would offshore oil drilling, which McCain has urged, help wean the nation off fossil fuels?

Obama has spelled out intermediate milestones for emissions reductions and specific targets for biofuels and other renewables. How would these goals be enforced? He has promised $150 billion over 10 years for energy research and development as well as a $10-billion-a-year venture capital fund. What would stop that money, as in so many past efforts, from being allocated by lobbyists rather than engineers? Does the energy industry really need more venture capital? Oddly, he has promised to “fight the efforts of big oil and big agribusiness to undermine” corn-based ethanol. How has agribusiness sought to undermine corn ethanol? If anything, it seems rather the opposite. And why sustain support for corn ethanol when it is the most ungreen of all biofuels?

Read more here.

Do You Know What Synaesthesia Is?

If you don’t. Let Professor Funk explain it to you:


I originally found this video at Of Two Minds.

One Reason Why I Am Anti-Religion

In the jargon of the blogosphere, PZ Myers nails it.

From Will we ever stop running away from the source of the problem? by PZ Myers:

This story about the struggles of a high school biology teacher in Florida is depressing. David Campbell, the teacher, is a hero — but it's the kind of hero sent off to suffer and fail in a misplaced struggle, who dutifully falls in battle, a victim of bad leadership and poor strategy. It's the same old tactics the educational bureaucracy has been pushing for 50 years or more: tip-toe gently about the subject of religion, never challenge the idiocy students bring into the classroom with them, always strain to allow them to accommodate science to their personal superstitions…which means pretending that science doesn't directly contradict their cherished myths. It doesn't work and has never worked, and the problem gets worse and worse every year.

Throughout the story, the teacher is striving to be respectful to religion (he's an Anglican himself) while the students are being arrogant dumbasses who refuse to listen to this evolution stuff. There is a villain here, but the article doesn't point a finger directly, nor does David Campbell place the blame: but the willfully anti-science students are victims of church and dogma. It's gotten so bad that it's not just parents and students who are opposing good science education, it's some of the teachers themselves. One of Campbell's fellow biology teachers is busily inculcating students with stupidity, too.

Animals do adapt to their environments, Ms. Yancey tells her students, but evolution alone can hardly account for the appearance of wholly different life forms. She leaves it up to them to draw their own conclusions. But when pressed, she tells them, "I think God did it."

Mr. Campbell was well aware of her opinion. "I don't think we have this great massive change over time where we go from fish to amphibians, from monkeys to man," she once told him. "We see lizards with different-shaped tails, we don't see blizzards—the lizard bird."

That that woman is a public school science teacher is an indictment of the educational system in this country. We can tell right away what has made her stupid, though: I think God did it. She's been infected with religion.

Read the rest here.

Religion, by definition, stomps on the smoldering embers of critical, factual thinking of the youngest among us until the embers are dead. It is not always possible to ignite them again, and most of those among us spend their lives in the dark. They become “sheep” following some of the most insane “shepherds” the world has to offer.

Why does this trouble me? Because I must live in this world with them. They undermine our educational system, as PZ Myers points out. Also, they are responsible for violent leaders like George W. Bush coming to power. How many atheists do you suppose voted for Bush? My guess would be none.

Religion is a dangerous disease.

Is Our Children Learning?

This is taking religious wackiness to a whole new level. It is a dangerous thing when religious belief supersedes logic. Of course religious belief always supersedes logic, so it is always dangerous.

From Teacher accused of burning cross on student's arm:

School administrators in Ohio voted Friday to begin the process of firing a middle school teacher accused of burning a cross into a student's arm and refusing to keep his religious beliefs out of the classroom.

The Mount Vernon School Board passed a resolution to terminate the employment of John Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher for the past 21 years.

Freshwater, according to an independent report, used an electrostatic device to mark a cross on the arm of one of his students, causing pain to the student the night of the incident and leaving a mark that lasted for approximately three weeks.

According to the Ohio Department of Education, the student's family has filed a lawsuit.

Freshwater was also reprimanded several times for refusing to move his Bible from his classroom desk and teaching creationism alongside evolution, according to the 15-page independent report. The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."

Read the rest here.

And this guy was a science teacher? For 21 years?

Didn't Jesus Tell George W. Bush To Kill People?

…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. Ben Stein

How Will Becoming More Ignorant Help Us Solve Our Problems?

Teacher Fired Over Religion:


What a great question Christine Comer asks: “How can I remain neutral over something that is not science?” Creationism is not Science. Creationism belongs in a Theology class taught by a qualified Theology teacher. It does not belong in a Science class taught by a Science teacher. If we were to apply the same logic to what the Creationists want us to do to our schools then it follows that teachers trained in Physical Education would teach Math, teachers trained in Biology would teach History, teachers trained in Computer Science would teach Theology, etc. Is this what we want? Let our Science teachers teach Science. Their job is hard enough already. In many cases it is life threatening. They don’t need the Creationists and Intelligent Designers making it harder for them. I don’t understand why there is even a debate about this. The whole issue is so idiotic.

The United States is rapidly imploding and destroying itself because of stupidity and ignorance. Other countries have better savings habits, better birth rates, better health, better healthcare, better education, etc. Terrorist are not the biggest threat this country faces. We ourselves are the biggest threat this country faces. We elected an immoral idiot as our president and have suffered the consequences every day since. George W. Bush has managed to put our great country into crisis mode. We need smart people to help us solve our problems. Teachers help make people smarter, if they are allowed to teach properly. Let’s keep religion out of our Science classrooms. It does not belong there.