Science | 1st Feline Battalion

Archive for Science

Scientist Predicts Evolution Debate Will Soon Be History

May 26, 2012 Amir Evolution/ID, Science, Theology

Richard Leakey, who is clearly oblivious to the fact that macro-evolution is no closer to being open and shut than it was in Darwin’s time, boldly predicts a great acceleration in discoveries that have proven elusive to date.

So let’s see…the High Church Atheists–Dawkins, Dennett, the late Hitchens, Harris, PZ Myers–have whined and wailed about the greatness of evolution, insisting that there is plenty of proof, without offering any.

Now Leakey has entered the fray, insisting that discoveries will accelerate to the point that the evolution debate will be open and shut, in favor–of course–of the evolutionists.

This in spite of the fact that these “discoveries” have been quite scarce for 150+ years post Darwin.

I’ll grant Leakey this much: while I have my doubts here, it is quite possible that the debate may go away in a few decades, although the nature of that outcome may very well be at variance with what he hopes.

One comment

More Stem Cell Advancements

February 14, 2012 Amir Health, Pro-Life, Science

ADULT stem cells, that is. In this case, patients’ own heart cells were used to re-grow heart tissue.

2 comments

It is Science!!!

November 1, 2011 Amir Christian Life, Evolution/ID, Global Warming, Medical/Science, Science, Technology, Theology

Well, not really. Vox, however, illustrates a point that I spent no small amount of time making during my tour of duty at Southern Baptist Theological Cemetary::

Clearly, a bright line needs to be delineated between scientific evidence that has been independently replicated by experiment, scientific evidence that could be independently replicated but has not been, and scientific evidence that cannot be independently replicated by experiment. And furthermore, it is necessary to stop giving the latter two types of scientific evidence, or more properly, potential scientific evidence, the same level of credence that is given to actual scientific evidence that has been reliably and independently replicated.

I recall a spat I had with one of the leftists who clamored that anyone contesting the anthropogenic global warming dogma was either ignorant or stupid. I pointed out to him that, when you cut through the B.S., there are basically three types of scientific “information”:

(1) Scientific fact: that which has been demonstrated and replicated experimentally;

(2) Scientific opinion: hypotheses which have not, but potentially (key word there) could be–experimentally verified;

(3) Scientific opinion that gets reported as fact: hypotheses that have not been proven through experimentation, but nonetheless get reported as Holy Writ.

Examples of (1): Newtons Laws of Motion; the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Examples of (2): various theories regarding the behavior of subatomic particles. On one hand, there are observational bases for the hypotheses; OTOH some of those hypotheses are yet to be conclusively verified through experimentation.

Examples of (3): anthropogenic global warming; various theories of evolution; premises that embryonic stem cells hold the promise for the cure for everything from jock itch to the deadliest cancers.

When arguing on such matters on this space, I have a simple warning: don’t bother coming over here spewing opinion and then telling me “it is science” if you have no experimental basis to show.

I will call BS every time.

Whether you are arguing for macro-evolution, global warming, or even young earth creationism, we require honesty here:

(1) There is a huge difference between that which has been demonstrated by experimentation versus mere opinions about observations. We will never begrudge you for your opinion, but don’t come over here telling us how “scientific” it is if it is not.

(2) We must be honest about the limits of science. Science is great for understanding natural phenomena that can be duplicated via experimentation. That understanding has driven the development of no small number of technologies. If you can read this, you are enjoying the fruits of science.

OTOH, there are things that science CANNOT do for you.

Science cannot prove there is a God, let alone which model of God–Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc., or even no God–is valid. I can point to science to make a rational case for faith in a higher authority, but it would be less than intellectually honest to give you an article of faith and then tell you it is scientific.

Science cannot establish the veracity of miracle accounts, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Again, those are articles of faith.

At best, archaeology can help establish facts, but even that has limits: you are limited to what has been discovered to date. 150 years ago, Biblical skeptics touted the lack of archaeological evidence for Biblical accounts. Since then, archaeology has been quite favorable–rather than destructive–to Biblical accounts. In the world of Biblical scholarship, conservatives have made advances that liberals never thought possible 50 years ago.

Even then, archaeology is not science. What you are dealing with is observable data of varying quality, not experimental data that is reproducible.

2 comments

Is Science “Self-Correcting”?

January 24, 2011 Amir Academic Funnies, Education, Science

On Vox Day’s blog space, he is engaged in a trialogue with two scientists–one a physicist and the other a biochemist–over the validity of the premise that science is self-correcting. I’ve been following from a distance. It is a very good discussion.

The physicist recently had this to say:

However, the the character of the corrections in accounting and science are somewhat different. The rules of accounting are set by accountants, lawyers, and legislators. Errors and corrections happen within that known framework, which can itself be adjusted. In science the framework is the laws of nature, which are not known a priori and can’t be adjusted. (Citigroup can rewrite accounting law, Virgin Galactic can’t rewrite gravity.) So sure, you could say accounting is self-correcting. That description might not be as useful as it is for the scientific study of natural laws, but it wouldn’t be wrong.

While the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) can (and does) indeed revise Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), there are some differences in the comparison that the physicist provides:

(1) If a non-accountant questions the integrity of the changes, he or she is not dismissed for not being a CPA. This is because accounting, among other things, involves assessing the integrity of the operations of an economic entity. And almost anyone–due to disclosure laws–can do this.

If you can read a 10-K, which includes a balance sheet, income statement, cash flow statement, and retained earnings statement (in addition to material disclosures in footnotes), you can make an educated assessment for the condition of a business, irrespective of (a) the marketing efforts and (b) the GAAP rules.

(2) For that reason, if FASB redefines or reclassifies certain items–or, as they have recently done, change rules to allow banks to improperly value their assets–it does not change the nature of what is being done. People who denounce that tactic–such as Denninger–are not likely to be dismissed for not being CPAs.

Instead, their ideas are allowed to be tested in the free market. Denninger has made truth claims, as has Vox Day. (For the record, I agree with them most of the time.)

If their truth claims don’t come to pass, then they have to answer for this in the free market of ideas.

For scientists, the rules are somewhat different. They have made truth claims which include bald assertions, misrepresentation of data (sometimes intentional), doomsday predictions for the world and for civilization, and proclamations of fact that were based on known fraudulent “research”.

And yet (a) the very system that ought to be holding them accountable does not do this–largely because they are comprised of fellow scientists who are dependent on government largesse for their career paths, and (b) they attack critics–who point out obvious errors that call their very hypotheses into question–for “not being scientists”.

This is not to say that all scientists are so intellectually dishonest; the problem, however, is that the system itself is one that economically encourages–and in some fields requires–such.

The larger question is how to reform the scientific community to ensure that they are more vigilant about the integrity of the scientific method.

I would submit that breaking the government-academic complex will go a long way toward that end.

This is because without the gravy train–which foments the existing paradigm of obfuscation and demonization of critics who recognize the naked emperor–there will be no economic incentive for the naked to go unclothed.

No comments

The Bedbug Dilemma

August 31, 2010 Amir Science, Technology

As I read this story, I checked Wikipedia for more info. I found this a bit interesting.

Largely eradicated as pests in the developed world (largely through the use of DDT) in the early 1940s, bedbugs have been resurgent since about 1995

Why not bring back DDT?

9 comments

Too Many Scientists

June 24, 2010 Amir Education, Science

And yes, Vox Day is correct: this is a consequence of government-stoked malinvestment.

One of the interesting things about the problem with American science is that those reviewing the situation are entirely forthright about the way the best and brightest have avoided pursuing scientific careers for decades now. To put it simply, the smartest students are not dumb enough to fail to notice the way in which the supply of science degrees considerably outstrips the number of jobs available in the various scientific fields or that there are far more remunerative and intellectually satisfying fields in which to pursue employment.

And yet, those who weren’t smart enough or aware enough to consider their future employment possibilities are the very individuals who tend to claim that those who were are less intelligent and their opinions about scientific and non-scientific matters alike are less valid because they do not have science degrees. (Never mind that I do, in fact, have a Bachelor of Science, that’s beside the point.)

So, this tends to suggest that in addition to whatever structural changes are being proposed by the various parties that are interested in solving the problem, a course or two in logic would not be amiss. And for a group of people who claim to be better educated and more highly intelligent than the norm, they do tend to expose a shocking ignorance of some very basic economic concepts that were solidly established more than 200 years ago. The reality is that the problem is simply a variant of the conventional one of malinvestment caused by credit expansion; the huge and unsustainable government allocation of financial resources to the scientific sector in the thirty years from 1940 to 1970 clearly sent a false signal about the market’s demand for scientists to students pursuing science degrees over the subsequent three decades.

This is true in other fields, but especially science. The glut in science funding during the Cold War–for good or ill–set in motion a funding apparatus that handed us our current dilemma: far more trained scientists than there are available jobs at the prevailing wages. Many scientists are going to be faced with some awful choices: (a) be willing to settle for less money and job stability than you hoped for, (b) switch professions, (c) hope something opens up while you languish in postdoc hell.

When I started college in 1985, I majored in aeronautical engineering. The future looked bright: Reagan was President, the Cold War was on, defense spending was high, morale in the military was outstanding–I was aspiring to go either Army or Air Force ROTC–and EVERYONE was hiring aeronautical engineers. I saw those graduating seniors going on to careers as Air Force pilots, Army engineers, and private-sector engineers for Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglass, Rockwell International, Grumman, Northop, and Martin Marietta. (Many of those companies have merged since then, but you get the picture.)

When I graduated in 1990, Reagan was no longer President, the Berlin Wall was rubble, the Cold War was over, the Soviet Union was one year away from extinction, defense spending was heading south, and aerospace engineering jobs were quite scarce. Many ROTC scholarship grads were being given the option of walking away–with an all-expenses-paid education, courtesy of Uncle Sam–with no military obligation. (This is because the number of graduating Second Lieutenants exceeded the Army’s need for them.) Two weeks before I graduated, Northrop had flown many of us to Los Angeles to interview for positions with the B-2 program. All but two of us received rejection letters. Right before my final exams, I received an offer from EDS, and I jumped on it.

I was leaving engineering–which I enjoyed–for IT, which I would learn to enjoy.

My career has nothing to do with my chosen fields of study. At the same time, I might be the only person working in my venue where I can answer a wise ass who asks me, “What do you think you are, a rocket scientist?” in the affirmative.

My point in all of this: in the economy we have, we all gots decisions to make. No one said that life was fair. Sometimes, we must make adjustments. College degrees are all well and good, but the bottom line is earning potential. You either need to go where the jobs are, or find a way to create the job of your choosing.

But if you are willing to spend at nearly 20 years in undergrad, masters, doctorate, and postdoc studies, just so you can get a tenure-track position in a higher-ed system that is teetering on the verge of financial collapse, you go right on ahead.

Just don’t say you weren’t warned.

No comments

String them Up by the Toenails

February 2, 2010 Amir Global Warming, Govt Funnies, GWOT, Science

They attempted to foist a fascist governmental system on the world, all under the pretense of saving the planet. They did it with fraudulent, cherry-picked data. They deliberately hid the truth from governments, as they sought hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, which they used to promote a socialist agenda cross-dressed in scientific veneer.

The truth is out, now it’s long past freaking time to demand accountability.

4 comments