Stephen Colbert was very impressed with Rick PArry's debate performance. But like most of us thinks that Rick PErry is a douche.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

I have watched  a lot of pundits address Perry's ridiculous comparison of climate science to the imprisonment of Galilei Galileo, but I really think that only Colbert has put it in the proper perspective.

Plus he made it funny.

I don't think Rick Perry and his Evangelical friends are praying hard enough.

Courtesy of Collective Vision:

The meanest drought in modern Texas history looks different out here, away from the cities.There are no emerald swaths of St. Augustine lawns, no blooming shrubs, no misters cooling bar patrons as the sun goes down on another cloudless, 105-degree day. 

The disconnect between what rural Texans are experiencing and sheltered urbanites are seeing has never seemed greater.Out here, the brutality of the drought is measured not in annoying water restrictions or water pipes bursting in the dessicated ground — all now commonplace in Texas cities and towns — but threatened livelihoods, and the waning of life itself.

 So tell me again Governor Perry what are your thoughts about global warming?

"There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."

No serious candidate for President should have so little respect for science, and so little ability to see the evidence that surround him in his very own state.

Al Gore calls "bullshit," quite literally, on climate change deniers.

(Adult language. Might not be safe for work, or to played around young children.)


Here is the link to Aspen Journalism who first reported on Gore's remarks:

"Former Vice President Al Gore spoke Thursday at a communications and society seminar at the Aspen Institute (FOCAS). 

He primarily addressed the subject of how citizens can exercise their democratic duties in the networked world, although he also gave a long overview of media and communications history. 

Gore spoke off-the-cuff for about an hour and then took questions from the seminar attendees.During the discussion, Gore addressed the issue of what happens when citizens are fed information that is meant to derail rational debate on complex issues."

Personally I do not blame Gore for expressing frustration at how the corporations have spent millions of dollars working to discredit him, and convincing the low hanging fruit that the evidence that they read about, or see out of their windows, every day is not reality.

It  is at times like this that I have to fight the urge to fantasize about how much different our country, and the world, would be if George Bush, the Supreme Court, and Fox News had not colluded to steal the 2000 election. Nothing to be gained by that kind of thinking, except to reignite that barely forgotten ember of anger that burned in the pit of my stomach and caused me so many sleepless nights lo those many years ago.

(H/T to Progressive Alaska.)

Perhaps all is not lost for Texas after all.

Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education:

Pop the champagne corks. The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In an 8-0 vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers--and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC.

"This is a huge victory for Texas students and teachers," said Josh Rosenau, NCSE programs and policy director, who testified at the hearings this week. In his testimony, Rosenau urged the board to approve the supplements--recommended by a review panel largely composed of scientists and science educators--without amendments, and to reject International Database's creationist submission. The board did just that, and asked for only minimal changes to the approved supplements.

In hearings yesterday, NCSE members and allies showed up in force. At least four times as many people testified in favor of the supplements as written, versus those opposing the supplements or demanding significant changes.

Ultimately, the board approved the Holt supplement, and directed Commissioner of Education Robert Scott to review the list of supposed errors, and to develop amended language for Holt to incorporate. NCSE and Texas education groups are confident Scott's revisions will reflect the current state of evolutionary biology, and not any creationist alternatives.

Dr. Eugenie Scott, NCSE's Executive Director is celebrating the decision. "These supplements reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is the core of modern biology, and is a central and vital concept in any biology class. That these supplements were adopted unanimously reflects a long overdue change in the board. I commend the board for its refusal to politicize science education."

Well I guess this is a glimmer of sanity in a state which still has Rick Perry as it Governor and whose abstinence only sex education program causes it to have the highest teen birth rate in the nation.


Oh well, at least now that Texans understand that evolution is fact they might soon realize that Rick Perry is somewhat further down that evolutionary trail than one might expect for the Governor of their state.

I mean seriously, is this guy even able to use rudimentary stone tools yet?

Your moment of geek this Monday morning.

Seriously this is the COOLEST video you will see all day.

I promise.



What an amazing time to be alive.

Judge rules to protect Alaskan polar bears, choosing science over the objections of Sarah Palin.

From Think Progress:

In 2008, the U.S. government placed the polar bear on the threatened species list because of the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, becoming “the first to be designated as threatened because of global warming.”

But in 2008, media mega-star Sarah Palin was still the governor of Alaska. Fearing that protecting the polar bear would “cripple oil and gas development” off Alaska’s coasts, Palin — a well-worn climate science denier — sued the government to remove the species from the list. Palin pointed to the high population of polar bears in 2008 and dismissed climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice as “unreliable,” “uncertain,” and “unproven.”

But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan backed the government scientists’ finding this week “that global warming is threatening the survival of the polar bear.” In a 116-page opinion, Sullivan dismissed Palin and hunting groups’ arguments as “nothing more than competing views about policy and science” and ruled on the side of science:

"Notwithstanding a handful of references to uncertainty that appear in record documents, Joint Plaintiffs have failed to persuade this Court that FWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] implemented the ESA [Endangered Species Act] “haphazardly.” Accordingly, the Court concludes that FWS did not act arbitrarily in relying on and drawing reasonable conclusions from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports and climate models in making its listing determination for the polar bear."

Hard to believe that almost two years to the day that the batshit crazy loon quit her job, we are still cleaning up after the mess she left behind. Gee, I wonder how much THIS frivolous lawsuit cost my state?

I am very glad that at least judges can understand basic science, even if politicians subsidized by the oil companies cannot.

(By the way, this case is actually rather historic here at IM, as it is over Palin's response to the Federal governments decision to put the polar bears on the Endangered Species List that angered me enough to write my first post criticising her.  And I have not looked back since.)

THE BUTTERFLY EXPERIENCE: Officially The Last Post About The Hungry Little Caterpillar That's Now Miss Monarch

We had a great day, yesterday, observing the Monarch Butterfly emerge from it's chrysalis & then watching it as it's wings dried and straightened out! The Monarch is positively breath taking! Absolutely 100% beautiful and there is just something peaceful about them too!

Here are some pictures we took yesterday before we let the Butterfly go...

If you ever have the opportunity to scour patches of milkweed, be looking for a little pearl looking dot on the bottom side of the leaves and then your family can experience the chances that the Monarch butterfly egg goes through to become a beautiful butterfly! I can guarantee you, that our family will never be able to pass up another patch of milkweed without thoroughly examining it too! LOL! This "free" science experiment was just way to much fun!

THE BUTTERFLY EXPERIENCE: OMG...We are Mommies Again! Our Hungry Little Caterpillar is now...

An amazing, beautiful, glorious MONARCH BUTTERFLY!

GOOD BYE "Hungry Little Caterpillar" and HELLO "Miss Monarch"!

Seriously, I walked away for fifteen minutes and when I came back to peek at it, here is what I saw:

Isn't it breath taking?

We have to wait for it's wings to dry and then we'll let it fly off...

But what an amazing experience for me & my girls. I was almost moved to tears. Thank you Lord for our Beautiful Monarch Butterfly!

THE BUTTERFLY EXPERIENCE: Look What Happened to Our Hungry Little Caterpillar Over-Night

So, yesterday, we could see inside of the chrysalis, but it was still a greenish color. Now have a look at what it looked like this morning when we got up:

I am guessing that we will be seeing a butterfly emerge in the next couple days and I am so excited! I hope I don't miss the actual happening! I'd love to catch it on video or get some great pictures of it.

The kids and I have had such a great time watching this little tiny pindrop, pearl colored egg turn into something beautiful and amazing! GOD IS GOOD! It's so fastinating to watch & think about. I'm so grateful that our pastor's wife brought us the milkweed with the egg for us to have this experience. Such a fun "free" science experiment!

THE BUTTERFLY EXPERIENCE: Our Hungry Little Caterpillar Has Changed It's Look...

So, a few days ago, I noticed that our Hungry Little Caterpillar had stopped eating and was hovering the top of the butterfly cage...when I looked closer, I noticed that it was actually releasing silk on the top of the plastic...building itself a place to hang from (securing itself). So, I got really excited, because we were going to get to watch it turn into a chrysalis. It went back and forth, back and forth, back and forth on the top of the cage until finally, it settled in one place and started to direct all the silk in one spot. The next morning, it was hanging in a "J" shape, and was wiggling around. I thought we were going to actually get to see it transform into the chrysalis...but had to run an errand.

When I got home, found it it had already "HALF" formed it's chrysalis already. A little bummed...I continued to watch the rest of the afternoon as it transfored itself completely into a tiny little coccoon of sorts. SO COOL!

The Chrysalis is beautiful! It has little golden (they are actually even sparkly) golden jewels on it's casing. So...now we wait and see how long it takes before the Chrysalis starts to become sheer and a Monarch Butterfly emerges. YAY! I can't wait to share with you all when it happens!

Keep checking back for updates on our Hungry Little Caterpillar, soon to be a Monarch Butterfly.

THE BUTTERFLY EXPERIENCE: The Hungry Little Caterpillar's Progress...

Ummm...he keeps eating and eating and eating! Our "Hungry Little Caterpillar" is HUGE now! I was shocked this morning when I flipped the leaf over to find him, he's seriously doubled in size since yesterday. AMAZING how fast he's growing!

We are going to get him some fresh milk weed this evening after football practice and we'll see how much bigger he gets before it's time for him to cocoon and change into a butterfly. Since this is our first experience with it, every step is something new and amazing...and 100% free! YAY!

THE BUTTERFLY EXPERIENCE: Science is Wonderful, Amazing & Totally Free...THANK YOU MONARCH BUTTERFLY

Okay, so I know this is kind of off topic, considering that lately I've been doing mostly reviews & giveaways...but since the kids are heading back to school...I thought maybe this could come in handy for some parents who are homeschooling this year. Our family loves things that are "free" and "fun" and also things that educate our children. Plus, I just think it's really amazing & fastinating and something that everyone, from every walk of life can appreciate!

Our pastor's wife, who has become a personal friend, told us that when her girl's were young, they used to watch a Monarch Egg turn into a Butterfly. Of course, my 5 year old was totally intrigued by this idea (since we purchased a butterfly kit that turned into a disaster...another story for another time).
One day a few weeks ago, she dropped off a piece of MILKWEED that had a little teeny tiny Monarch Egg on it. I mean...seriously, this little egg was so LITTLE...you could have missed it unless you were really looking hard. It was smaller than the head of a pin.
We were so excited to take part in this experiment...to watch the stages of the Monarch Butterfly develop. So...I put the milkweed in water and we watched this little creamy colored egg for a few days. One evening, it appeared that the egg was changing into a darker color...and the next morning...when I woke up...there was a TEENY Tiny Caterpillar in it's place. The egg was completely gone (they eat what is left) and this little guy had already eaten a chunk of the milkweed as well. SO CUTE & LITTLE...
About a week has gone by now and we have a little tiny caterpillar that is pratically growing before our very eyes. He now has stripes and is really starting to look like a "real" caterpillar. LOL! So I am going to share our journey...the journey of the monarch, on this blogspot...because this is a project that any family could do with their kids. It's free, it's amazing to watch, and it's a fantastic way to teach your kids about science (without putting any money or thought into it at all).

The Hordes of Unreason

¡Hola! Everybody...
I had meant to post after the holidays, but it needed airing out. Sorry for the lackadaisical editing and for making it so long... For those who don’t read me regularly, please be careful and enjoy the holidays.

* * *

-=[ The Age of Unreason ]=-

in Times of Uncertainty

An open mind is a valuable thing, just not so open that your brains fall out.

My friend Will (Astranavigo) likes to point out what he feels is a sad but true reality: our nation (USA) has gone dumb. The nation is full of idiots, he states, and I would be hard-pressed to argue that position. However, I think the issue of ignorance in this country is little more nuanced. It’s not so much that people are dumb, or stupid. Rather it has more to do with a tendency toward unreason. Too many people are attached to what historian Susan Jacoby calls “unreason” and mistaking that dysfunction for skepticism or critical thinking.

In her work, Jacoby surveys the anti-rational landscape from reality TV and “infantainment,” videos for babies, to a pseudo-intellectual universe of “junk thought.” This vast realm of junk thought reaches from semiliterate blogs of all political persuasions to institutions of so-called higher education that offer that do not require students to obtain a thorough grounding in American and world history, science, and literature. Throughout our culture, contempt for logic and evidence is fostered by the infotainment media from television to the Web; aggressive anti-rational religious fundamentalism; poor public education; the intense politicization of intellectuals themselves.

The consequences are numerous and far-reaching. If you’re wondering how junk science such as creationism and the deniers of anthropogenic global warming get traction, look no further than this unreason posing as “skepticism.” I recently posted a blog that mentioned the consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. One respondent called it a hoax, others chimed in that the science is “uncertain” and “subjective.”

Let me be clear about this: nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific consensus on AGW is almost as unanimous as the science can get. Certainties are rare in science. Even the appearance of the sun over the horizon tomorrow morning can be reduced to a question of probability. On the question of climate change, scientists say they are more than 90 percent sure that it’s happening and that humans are responsible. If you knew anything about science, or ever worked on a research project, that last statement would awe you.

Sure, you just never know, but scientists embrace that kind of skepticism. It’s through doubting certainties of the world (the flatness of the earth, the utility of bloodletting) that scientists advance human knowledge. But no serious scientist will stand up and denounce a widely accepted scientific theory without making a verifiable argument to the contrary. Yet, that’s what some participants in this forum are doing. They are not scientists; are not experts on climate science, nor have they been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but they will tell you that I am a bully because I shove this scientific consensus in their face.

I just don’t abide quackery, nor those who would promote it. While it may be true (but highly improbable) that someone might come out disproving evolutionary theory or show that the world is flat, I don’t see that happening any time soon and if deferring to scientific knowledge is a form of “hero worship” or “bullying,” then, yup, that’s me!

Scientists -- real scientists -- bind themselves to a strict set of standards, setting out their theories and experiments carefully, subjecting them to review by other credible scholars who are knowledgeable in their field, and publishing their findings in reputable journals such as Science and Nature. The people who approach the science of climate change with that kind of integrity have agreed on its underlying premise for years.

The French physicist Joseph Fourier first postulated the greenhouse effect in 1824. In the 1850s, the Irish physicist John Tyndall figured out a way to test and measure the capacity of various gases to absorb and transmit radiant energy. By 1858, he effectively proved Fourier’s theory. At the end of the century -- the 19^th century -- the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius advanced the theory even further. Arrhenius, considered the father of physical chemistry, was the first to predict that humans might actually increase the temperature of the earth by burning fossil fuels and increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Over the last two hundred years, humans have been digging fossil fuels and setting fire to them, reintroducing the carbon to oxygen and releasing the resulting carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase Earth’s temperature by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This is a remarkable bit of science considering that the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide will increase global temperature between 3.6 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit. What is unnerving is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen since 1850 by more than one third and we’re on track of reaching Arrhenius’s doubling by sometime the middle of this century.

The science progressed on through the 1960s and by the 1970s, scientists were getting nervous, beginning to speak as one voice. In 1979, a National Academy of sciences report said, “A plethora of studies from diverse sources indicates a consensus that climate change will result from man’s combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use.” It was also becoming clear that even a small increase in climate warming could disrupt a balance that has existed before humans. They began warning of melting ice glaciers and collapsing ice caps, of floods and droughts and rising tides. They began to envision a change in living conditions more dramatic than anything that has happened in hundreds of thousands of years.

I offer all this as a way of contextualizing the subject matter. I am neither a scientist nor a historian, and I have no intention of jumping into the “scientific debate.” Someone on my previous post mentioned that attaining a grasp of this issue is almost possible, but that’s patently untrue. You can go online and read the Assessment Report of the IPCC, a scientific collaboration of unprecedented breadth, depth, and reputation. You can Google Elizabeth Kolbert’s brilliant New Yorker series, The Climate of Man. Alternatively, you can pick up one of the great populist science books on the subject: scientist Andrew Weaver’s (Canada) Keeping Our Cool; Tim Flannery’s (Australia) The Weathermakers; Kolbert’s later book Field Notes from a Catastrophe; and yes, even Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Any one of these will give you solid enough grasp of the science to leave you at least somewhat shaken about the state of our world.

My point, however, is that no one seems to be confused about climate change. As far as the scientific bodies of the world are concerned, as in the theory of gravity, the question of the flatness of the earth, and evolutionary theory, the consensus exists, not because a band of wild-haired pencil-necked academics want to take over the world on some presumed conspiracy, but because the science has answered the question.

With each new experiment, each new report, with each new article published in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals, the science community became more certain. Naomi Oreske tested the question of consensus in a paper she published in the journal Science in 2005. Oreskes searched the vast ISI Web of Knowledge for refereed scientific journal articles on global climate change that were published between 1993 and 2003. She analyzed them on the basis of whether they supported, contradicted, or took no position on the consensus that the human release of greenhouse gases was causing climate change -- and not a single study took exception with the consensus position.

Not one.

So, while there are those here who claim otherwise, the fact of the matter contradicts their statements. I don’t know about you, but if I want a medical opinion I don’t go to the shoemaker down the street.

What has happened in the last 20 years is that the mainstream press has presented the issuewith a false sense of “balance.” The brothers Jules and Max Boykoff, published an article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Environmental Change in 2003 titled “Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press.” they searched the libraries of four “prestige” newspapers in the United States -- The New York times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times -- and analyzed their coverage of climate between 1998 and 2002. They found that while the scientific press was coming down to 928 to zero in accepting climate change, in 53 percent of their stories these four newspapers quoted a scientist on “one side” of the issue and spokesperson on the other.

I say spokesperson rather than scientist for legitimate reasons. First, the deniers were very often not scientists, but rather political ideologues or self-appointed “experts” (not unlike some here) from think tanks. Secondly, even when the experts had scientific credentials, in most of the cases those cred3entials were not relevant to the topic at hand. The experts were geologists or economists commenting outside their field of expertise, not climate scientists reporting on up to date peer-reviewed science.

In matters involving social policy, such as abortion or economic strategies, this isn’t such a bad thing. Science, ion the other hand, is a discipline in which there legitimate experts, people whose knowledge is weighed and measured by their scientific peers. This is the process people use, for example, to decide a surgical procedure or the structural strength of a new alloy. If I were to come to you and suggest that inserting my penis into your rectum is a good surgical procedure for your sore throat, would you accept my theory? If not then why are we accepting the nonsense being thrown around by public relations entities, pundits, and bloggers who know nothing of the subject, let alone the process of the scientific method?

And if I refuse to listen to pointless diatribes about “democracy in science” (science is beholden only to the truth), or to read the contents of websites proclaiming a “climate gate” (conspiracy!) does that make me an “authoritarian,” or a “bully” or closed-minded?

If it does, then I will state here unequivocally that I am proud to wear those labels. Just go argue against creationism, evolution, or AGW somewhere else. As far as I’m concerned (and the science agrees) the relevant discussion is not whether AGW is real, but about finding effective solutions for it. When and if there is an equal, credible body of knowledge that refutes AGW, or that world is round, I will be the first to own up to it. Until then, the shoemaker? He doesn’t get to tell me the earth is flat.

Ciao,

Eddie

Right Wing-nuts vs. Science

¡Hola! Everybody...
Stupid is as...

LOL!

* * *

-=[ The Right Wing War Against Science ]=-

To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

-- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799–1888)

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist-Tin-Foil-Hat-Brigade as a propaganda windfall. To these quacks, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial “smoking gun”: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

I am blessed with a talented and intelligent son, my only child (as far as I can tell). He is now 25 years-old. I treasure many memories from his childhood. Early on, I sold him on the notion of training to become a “scholar/ warrior.” Basically, I wanted to give him the best education possible. That education included learning in many different disciplines, from art and music, martial arts, poetry, philosophy, the healing arts, and so on. Luckily, for me, he bought my sales pitch, completely.

Today, he is a talented as a musician, as well as having received a degree. He was also born with a natural aptitude for drawing and painting, something we tried to support as soon as we discovered his childhood doodles were actually accurate portraits.

When he was around 8-9 years-old, we all joined a martial arts (Wing Chun) school. There he learned the trick that gave him some expertise in the art of self-defense. Please note that I am deliberately choosing the word trick. Our sufi (instructor) used it often in our martial arts training when guiding him in the trick of mentally registering attacks before they became dangers, aiming his focus ahead, learning to anticipate. I also showed him the trick of avoiding unnecessary confrontation. He once told me that he was especially proud of learning that trick. It helped embolden him and gave him confidence.

I recently posted a link exposing of how quack Climate Crash deniers (Beck, Rush, Drudge, Faux news, etc.) have had some fun with stolen emails. Essentially, the piece showed how these Climate change deniers have taken lines from these emails out of context in an effort to refute decades of scientific research. If you go there, you will find one individual who calls himself “weinerfest” posting outright fabrications.

He stated, for example, that one scientist admitted purposely excluding data from previous warming periods. I then posted the full email showing the scientist never said anything of the sort. There were several more attempts to pass off disinformation and each time, I used either the emails themselves or citations from scientific bodies to show he was posting, at best, falsehoods. I would say he was intentionally lying, but that’s just conjecture (LOL)!) His stance, like the rest of the clowns on the right, is that these emails prove that decades of basic research in climate science has been one elaborate hoax. One such email, out of thousands hacked from a public research university in Norwich, England, has attracted a lot of attention. The line reads thus:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Utilizing “neoconservative logic,” the word “trick” and the word “hide,” you see, prove that all this “research” and “data” about climate is phony and the GOP Clown Car headed by Beck & Co., know better than the scientists! Of course, the fact there is isn’t one scientifically recognized body in the world that disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity has no bearing in this “discussion.”

Almost every scientific organization from almost every scientific discipline has issued statements that agree with the scientific consensus. Not one internationally recognized scientific body has refuted the consensus. For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, this is indeed a rare occurrence.

There are some groups, consisting mostly of unpublished scientists, individuals, as well your local weatherman and bodega owner (and possibly Ms. Cleo), that have signed on to a public statement saying they disagree with the scientific consensus, but few have been able to submit a rigorously researched study that can pass academic muster.

In fact, empirical studies show that among scientists that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, the consensus is overwhelming.

Now, back to the word “trick.” Trick is used in the sense of “method” as in... “the trick to blocking a punch... ” “Hide” refers to a well-known (to scientists) anomaly in reconstructing climate after 1960. Tree ring density is reliable before then, but diverges later, due to human-caused environmental reasons unique to the last 50 years. Meaningful graphs omit or hide that part of tree ring based measurement in favor of more scientifically reliable and direct measurements.

Science is based on evidence and re-examination. That is why “cold fusion,” having initially created a excitement, fell so fast. Outright fraud is found very quickly. Ask DNA falsifier Hwang Woo-Suk, who caused a stir in cloning research and was quickly debunked. Scientists love to disprove flawed research. It makes them famous.

It comes from the Scientific Method.

Back to the Tin Foil Hat Brigade. To them, anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is a hoax. Why? Because of a few emails, taken out of context, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there’s been a hoax!

Yeah right...

The impressive thing about this so-called “conspiracy” is that the scientists managed to convince the planet’s glaciers, sea ice, and hydrological cycles to play along.

Deniers from the right, like Weiner, who have waged war on science on many different fronts, should consider the methods of science sometime.

Love,

Eddie

Coming to Terms [Theory of Science]

¡Hola! Everybody...
Something short today. It seems many people just don’t understand some basic definitions. Here’s one...

* * *

-=[ Theory of Science ]=-

Evolution is just a theory. It is not a fact.

::sigh::

Many, many people tell me that we live in a nation of idiots -- an Idiocracy, if you will. As much as I love people, I can’t argue too well against this assertion. Take the denial of the scientific consensus on global warming and the above statement as two prime examples...

The word theory, in its scientific context, does not imply an opinion or an uncertainty. It means, “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.” In other words, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things that can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations that correlate and interpret the facts.)

In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

• Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
• Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
• Species are related via common descent from one or a few ancestors;
• Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and many other areas. It is by far the most influential and important theory of the biomedical sciences.

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory, the theory of evolution explains the fact.

If the rationale, “only a theory,” were a valid objection, creationists would be also be issuing disclaimers about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity receives serious challenges. Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

Creationism, a sham science, is neither theory nor fact; it is, if I’m generous, merely an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless. Please note how people of different political persuasions align themselves with theories and facts. Of course, facts are facts, regardless of denial. Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. Creation “scientists” are merely biblical fundamentalists who cannot accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.

Reagan asserted that facts are stupid things, when in reality facts are stubborn things...

That’s it for today’s lesson...

Love,

Eddie

Monday Mythbusters [Salt and Hypertension]

¡Hola! Everybody...
As a New Yorker, the best thing I can say today (sports-wise) is that the at least the Yankees don’t suck... LOL

* * *

-=[ Bacalao con Viandas ]=-

The other day, I had the pleasure of ordering one of my favorite dishes: bacalao con vianda. Viandas are vegetables: yautias (taro root) malanga (root vegetable with brown skin and white or purple flesh), papas (potatoes), plátanos (plantain bananas), yucas (cassava), ñames (root vegetable with brown skin and white flesh), batatas (sweet potatoes). These are mixed with onions sliced into rings, Olive oil, sliced hard-boiled eggs, aguacates (avocados), and sliced tomatoes. I love this dish! My dear departed grandmother ate a plate of this everyday of her life and she lasted until her mid 90s -- a vibrant, ass-kicking old lady. LOL .It’s a very West African-influenced dish.

Anyway, I love smothering the vianda with olive oil and sal5t -- lots of salt! As I covered the various toot vegetables with salt, my friends immedat5ely pounced, admonishing me for using so much salt and reminding me that high blood pressure (hypertension) runs in Latino/a culture.

I didn’t want to argue, but the connection between salt and hypertension is overblown, to say the least... plus, if I want to use salt, muthafuckas, I’ll use salt! LOL

This claim remains controversial in the medical community. Well, at least according to my research. The more researchers delve into this issue, the more difficult it becomes to justify. In fact, a 1988 editorial in the British Medical Journal, after reviewing a slew of studies, concluded that, “the evidence that salt is [an] important [contributor to high blood pressure] is weak... [and] the more complex the analysis the weaker the relation.”

The body of literature regarding this issue is so vast, that no one could successfully synthesize all the findings. What happens usually is that one camp will select studies that favor their position. However, more recent studies show that there never really was a connection between salt and hypertension. And when you look at the studies, you begin to get a picture of why. The way it was explained to me is that the subject has been studied in three basic ways. The first searches for a connection between salt consumption and hypertension within a given society. Such research has been fruitless. In one of the largest such studies, which tested 7,000 residents of Scotland, it turned out that weight and age were much moiré reliable predictors of hypertension than salt consumption was. “The true association between sodium and blood pressure is extremely weak,” the researchers surmised.

The second approach is to look at many different countries to see whether the places where hypertension is common are also places where people consume a lot of salt. The results from one huge study of more than 10,000 subjects at fifty-two testing centers around the world did find an association between sodium in the urine and systolic blood pressure. However, upon close examination, the link turned out to be far less impressive. Once adjustments were made for the subjects’ age, weight, and alcohol consumption, the relation was statistically significant in only eight of the fifty-two centers. And when the results from four nonindustrialized societies (where salt consumption was extremely low) were set aside, the relation vanished.

Of course, even if high salt consumption and high blood pressure did go hand in hand, that wouldn’t prove that one causes the other. Something else could be at work -- a third factor that might be associated with certain eating habits and hypertension. That would explain the paradox of Japan, where salt usage is high, but blood pressure is not.

In the last type of study, researchers ask people to eat less salt and then watch to see what happens to their blood pressure. One review of twelve such studies found that sodium restriction was a useful strategy for older patients with hypertension. However, there wasn’t any reason to think that using less salt would lower the blood pressure of people who are hypertensive to begin with. In addition, such studies have nothing to say about whether salt caused the hypertension -- an idea that has become increasingly doubtful as the studies have become more sophisticated.

I always say that a little moderation in is always a worthwhile goal when it comes to diet. In the meantime, I will slather my bacalao con vianda with lots of salt and olive oil!

Love,

Eddie

The Big Lie

¡Hola! Everybody...

I am tired and tapped out. The following was posted a couple of years ago...

***

-=[ The Beauty Myth ]=-

I remember having to take a class on gender and politics during my undergrad years and I really wasn’t feeling it. Not that I didn’t identify with women’s causes, I did, and always have, but a part of me felt that the class had no real relevance for me.
Jeeez, was I ever wrong!

That course would change my worldview in significant ways and would open the door to other avenues to explore academically. I can’t get into all that without losing my friends who have some form of attention deficit, but I will say that I learned a lot in that initial course. Later, I would take more advanced courses and eventually work with two leading female researchers in the field of developmental psychology.

Three works stand out for me during this time. The first, “The Egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles,” (Martin, 1991) taught me that medical and scientific research reinforces gender stereotypes by presenting “facts” that reflect social biases about gender. In other words, just because a person puts on a lab coat doesn’t mean they leave their cultural mindset behind. This may not sound like a lot, but it was huge in influencing how we think of research and science. I’ve written about the second work, In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan (1982), previously. In a Different Voice stood the scientific world on its head and created a revolution.

The next work, The Beauty Myth, by Naomi Wolf (1990) I will address today briefly. Controversial, critically acclaimed, and wildly popular, The Beauty Myth helped usher in what some call the third wave of feminism. I find that its thesis is even more relevant today than it was when it was first published.

After a lot of jerking off and even more reading, what follows is my synopsis of this work. Please! Because I’ve had to simplify and cut down this work, there’s a lot missing. I would strongly recommend it as reading material.

Simply put, Wolf argues (quite successfully) that our culture judges women (and women judge themselves), against an impossible standard of the “Ideal Woman.” Wolf calls this “beauty pornography.”

Magazines are full of images of impossibly underweight models, for example, that are between fifteen and twenty years old. We rarely see a picture of a woman who is not wearing make-up applied by an artist, hair and clothes professionally styled and designed. A professional artist airbrushes all flaws and wrinkles out.

This is a form of social conditioning that keeps women competing against each other in and out of the workplace. In truth, it has been going on for years, but the recent availability of cosmetic surgery encourages a form of female self-loathing and disgust when achievement that standard look is not possible. If you are not tall, thin, and under twenty you have little chance of success, the message goes.

Now, before I get the pat “Well, not me, Eddie… ” comments, let me point out that this is not about you per se. It’s a social issue and before commenting, you have to think about this issue beyond your individual mindset. Personally, I feel the high incidence of eating disorders among all women, and specifically young women, is a direct consequence of the beauty myth.

References

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Martin, E. (1991). The Egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(3 ), 485-501.

Wolf, N. (1990). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Random House.

The TGIF Sex Blog [Sex & Science]

¡Hola! Everybody...
I got my new phone. I hated the Blackberry Storm, and now have the Blackberry Tour. the IT guy is on vacation, so it won't be connected to my desktop until he gets back, but at least I can receive calls and not answer them, as I usually do... LOL! If, however, you desire to have sex with me, please call (women only need apply LOL!).

It’s Friday, so it’s all about s-e-x...

* * *

-=[ Sex, Science & the Egg & the Sperm ]=-

The theory of the human body is always a part of a world picture. The theory of the human body is always a part of a fantasy.

-- James Hillman

It has fallen on science to sort through language and culture to arrive at an “objective” truth. but I have always been intrigued on how culture and language shape science. Since ancient times the feminine has been depicted as creative and fruitful but needing to be dissected, shaped, and controlled by “male” reason. The 17^th century English philosopher and inventor of inductive reasoning, Francis Bacon, writing against a background of widespread persecution of witches, described a scientific process that included images of nature as female, to be restrained, tortured, and probed by mechanical inventions. “Never ought a man to make a scruple,” he wrote, “of entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his whole object... ”

Whew!

Sexual difference became an obsession of science during the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, with an exploration of the differences between the sexes, based on anatomy. In contrast, older, more traditional cultures had used ritual to link the social and natural worlds, so that rituals were the authority, and in a similar way, the rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment claimed nature set down social laws that should be followed. In 1735, for example, the Swedish botanist Linnaeus published his classification of plants, describing them in terms of their sexual parts. The males were the dominant, defining parts; the females were secondary and submissive. Examples such as these were used as a “natural” justification of the subjugation of women. In other words, men and women were not equals.

Sound familiar?

In this way the identification of women with nature and emotion, men with culture and reason was created. This association of women with nature defined as motherly and physical -- so that their ideal role was in the home as nurturers -- but it was also used to link them with superstition, making them an obstacle to progress. Both men and women were defined biologically, but while men were free to engage many different parts of the public sphere, women’s roles were tightly controlled and limited by their “natural” function.

In 1759, Linnaeus came up with the term Mammalia, naming an entire class of animals after a feature lactating mammary glands (or “tits” in the vernacular), that only half ever possess. Linnaeus could have chosen external body hair, for example, as a better defining characteristic. However, he was embroiled in a propaganda war against wet nursing, and was more concerned about emphasizing how “natural” it was for a mother to suckle her own child. According the scientific community of the time, the breast was a symbol of the natural bond between mother and child, and in that way, women were limited in their role in the home at the center of the family. It was therefore seen as biologically normal and morally good and the emphasis on breastfeeding was another way of limiting women to domestic roles and keeping them from the public sphere and away from political power).

Lest you think this is some ancient way of thinking, please note that this bias still exists. Take note that today language and gender roles continue to confound science. Anthropologist Emily Martin wrote a thought-provoking essay on this issue called “the Sperm and the Egg.” In order to shed some light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology, Emily Martin pointed to major scientific textbooks’ depiction of male and female reproductive organs as systems for the production of eggs and sperm. Therefore, within the female cycle, menstruation is clothed in the language of failure. The sloughing of the uterine lining is termed as “debris,” for example. On the other hand, male reproductive processes are described in positive terms such as the “maturation” or the immense manufacturing of sperm.

She noted that scientific descriptions served to reinforce gender stereotypes and in that way, functions of the egg and the sperm were misunderstood. For example, the egg was seen as passive. It does not move, but “is transported” along fallopian tube. In contrast, sperm are active: they “deliver'' their genes to the egg and, '”activate'” its developmental program. Some researchers likened the egg’s role to that of Sleeping Beauty: a dormant bride waiting for her lover’s magic kiss, which brings her to life! This language is in line with the tradition started by Linnaeus and Bacon. A tradition that has as its roots a form of misogyny.

Recently the researchers at Johns Hopkins University concluded that the sperm and the egg stick together because of adhesive molecules on the surfaces of each. The egg traps the sperm and adheres to it so tightly that the sperm’s head is forced to lie flat against the outer layer of the egg. In other words, the egg isn’t “passive” it is proactive in the reproductive process. The trapped sperm continues to wiggle ineffectively. If the digestive enzymes released by the sperm start to soften the zona just at its tip the fragile sperm can get oriented in the right direction and make it through the zona.

Yet, even this new version of the role of the egg and the sperm helped little in changing the narrative on the cultural level. Researchers who made the discovery themselves continued to write papers using the same stereotypical metaphor of sperm as the “active” party who “penetrates” the egg.

And there you have it, how even science is confounded by language and culture.

Love,

Eddie

Ghost in the Machine

Hola Everybody...
I am gone all day today. Those around make sure the village idiots don’t burn down my house?

Thanks in advance for your attention in this matter.

We finally have a reasonably intelligent man in the Oval Office who’s actually going to allow science to do--- well -- science! In light of the recent hoopla around scientific research, I thought the following pertinent...

I miss you, Latina.

* * *

-=[ Ghost in the Machine ]=-

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

-- Philip K. Dick

“Few are those who can see with their own eyes and hear with their own hearts.”

-- Albert Einstein

Most people see philosophy as something pointed-headed nerds do in academia – as something totally divorced from reality and anything of practical value. However, the fact is that we’re all philosophers at some level. We all have assumptions that guide our perception of reality.

The difference, I guess, is that some people have never questioned the assumptions they inherited from their family of origin or culture. Others, more cynical, choose to shrug their shoulders as if saying it doesn’t matter. Still others, the more skeptical among us, have questioned our assumptions and come away with a clearer, or at least more conscious sense of direction. Whatever the case may be, the basic definition of a philosopher is lover of knowledge. And almost everything you do or use today has as its origin a philosophical assumption.

Everything we do, every action we take, is a response to a question. The difference between those that sleep walk through life and those that are awake is that former have lost sight of the questions while the latter not only are conscious of the questions, but are asking newer ones.

You probably know the work of Philip K. Dick through the various films that have been adapted from his science fiction novels, including Total Recall and Minority Report. One of the best-known (and best made), Blade Runner, was based on his novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? As is most often true with literary works, the movie, while being one of the better adaptations, does not do justice to the strange but subtle thinking that drives the novel.

So why am I writing about a science fiction writer if I’m discussing philosophy? Well, while Dick wouldn’t be considered a philosopher in the strict sense of the word, the philosophical questions he addresses in his novels cut to the heart of philosophy and shows that philosophy is not just merely academic papers and theory. Many writers of fiction -- especially science fiction – address profound philosophical ideas.

Dick was a prolific writer who initially set out to become a “serious novelist” but because he first found success within science fiction, he became categorized in that genre. He was clearly fascinated the early pre-Socratic philosophers who claimed that all reality is in constant flux.

His books, often featuring spaceships, aliens, and probable futures, are vehicles for his exploration into questions such as whether or not we can ever know the world we live in is real; what would happen if time ran backwards; the nature of alternate realities, and the roots of our self identities. He created societies where humanity is organized into tribes according to their mental state, or where each character is forced to experience the world through the consciousness of others, or in which all the characters are dead, but haven’t realized this (I know people like that on 360 LOL!). The really fascinating thing about Dick’s novels is that he rarely answers the philosophical questions he poses, allowing instead the absurdities of those questions create and play out through his plot. It also forces us, the readers, to attempt to think about these questions for ourselves.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? asks a simple but deceptive question: what makes us human? In the novel, Dick imagines a future society in which organic androids, so advanced that they are indistinguishable from humans, are used as laborers and slaves for “real” humans. He makes us question whether we can tell the difference between androids and people, and more radically, if there is a real difference. To make matters more interesting, this debate takes place against a background of a radioactive future world, where humans who stay on earth can at any time be downgraded to the non-person status of “specials” if they become too contaminated.

One of the main relationships in the novel is between an android and a “special,” two very different types of “non-person.”

The idea of a soul is central to religious philosophy and the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle coined the term “ghost in the machine” to argue against Descartes’ contention that the soul is something non-physical. The idea that we have no soul, that everything can be reduced to physical explanations was extremely threatening

The work directly addresses some of the most fundamental questions of philosophy. What is a person? Do humans have souls? As imagined by Dick, an android possesses the same physical make-up as a person, made up of artificial flesh and blood, with an artificial brain. So does this make them “human” or not? The hero of the novel, Deckard, has the job of hunting down and killing runaway androids. Humans have developed increasingly more complex methods to identify androids as they in turn evolve and become more sophisticated. The idea being that while an artificial intelligence might eventually give the impression of being human, if put to the test, emotions such as empathy would be missing.

Eventually, Deckhard questions whether a bounty hunter like him can really be human since he feels no empathy for the androids he kills. He is also challenged whether he could pass an empathy test himself, when an android asks him to take one, although he ends up realizing that he actually does feel empathy for androids, if only for the pretty female ones. *grin*

All these questions are never fully resolved creating an intense and dark reflection of the nature of identity and the soul. The fact that all this takes place in a genre, sci-fi, that was considered lowly, should not detract from the fact that Dick was one of the most thought-provoking writers of the last century.

Love,

Eddie

Anthropology

¡Hola! Everybody...
This will be one of those lonnnnnng work weeks...

* * *

-=[ Anthropology ]=-

“When the missionaries first came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land.”

-- Desmond Tutu, South African Bishop

When I attended university, I was in my late 30s, married, and was actually exceedingly well read. I would say, without conceit, that you will probably not meet many people that have read more than I have.

I went to school not so much to "learn" in the traditional sense of the word, but to become a part of a community of scholars. I didn’t attend school to “get a career,” or make more money, but because I wanted to engage with like-minded individuals and test what I had learned previously and in that way, learn anew. I learned many things, chief among them that learning in the context of a community is quite different from learning in isolation.

I learned that my notions of science, or rather, how knowledge is gathered and accepted (or not accepted) is not as logical as I had thought previously. I quickly wanted to explore the origins of knowledge, and how culture impacted what we accepted or didn’t accept as knowledge. It has become part of my life’s work, to research the researchers, to focus the light of my curiosity on those who study others.

It led me to a completely new body of work called cultural studies and into the realm of the philosophy of science. It started innocently enough: I was taking a class on counseling and there was a section on cross-cultural issues and I learned that how people describe their ailments have a deep connection to cultural values. I learned Western “medical science” wasn't so much a science as it was an art, deeply influenced by cultural mores and a body of research conducted mostly by privileged white men.

In addition, much of the research I was coming across regarding Latino/as, for example, seemed to me to be deeply flawed -- not congruent with my own experiences growing up Latino in the US. Then while working as a research assistant, I came across Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions and I discovered that the history of science wasn’t one that marched in a straight line, with newer innovations replacing older ones as they became known or discovered. Kuhn wrote about paradigm shifts in a way that demonstrated that the history of science is one of fits and starts, rather than a linear evolution.

Then I came across anthropology and in reading earlier anthropological works, I came to see clearly that culture is an inescapable equation when it comes to “science.” Some of this science history is sad, tragic even. As part of a class assignment, I came across the following piece written by an American Indian poet. See if you get its message:

Anthropology (excerpt)
Chrystos. (1991). Dream on (1 ed.). Vancouver, BC: Press Gang Publishers.

We have been conducting an extensive footnoted annotated indexed and complicated study of the Caucasian culture hereafter to be referred to as the cauks for ease in translation.

The most important religious ritual, one central to all groups, is the mixing of feces and urine with water. This rite occurs regularly on a daily basis and seems to be a cornerstone of the culture's belief system. The urns for this purpose are commonly porcelain, of various hues, although white is the most frequently used. The very wealthy rulers have receptacles of carved onyx or malachite with gold plated fixtures. We have been unable to determine what prayers are said during this ritual because its solitary nature & the fact that the door to the prayer room is always shut.

The main function of the majority of non-city dwellers is the production of an object called a lawn. Numerous tools for the cultivation of this lawn are sold in the market places. It appears also to have a sacred character, as no activity occurs on it & keeping it short green & square is a constant activity.

The main diet of the culture is available from push-button machines or orange plastic small markets and was found by our researchers to be completely inedible. It is truly amazing what the human animal can subsist on.

Another prominent feature of the cauks is the construction of huge monuments built in clusters in the villages. These are not living quarters but are used about five days a week for a ritual involving papers which appear to be sacred, given the life or death quality with which they are handled. The papers are passed about, often with consternation and eventually cast away when the spell is complete.

The mechanisms for healing disease appear to our eyes to be woefully complex & at the same time, inadequate. People who are seriously ill are quarantined in jails of pale green or white and often used to feed machines which appear to run on human blood.

Children who are born deformed in any way are usually confined to jails built for this purpose. The elderly are also jailed, there being no value system of respect for them. Those passing through transitions are called "crazy" and also jailed. Animals from distant lands again are jailed. In fact, there is some discussion of an alternative theory of central religious belief -- that the actual spiritual purpose of the culture, is to jail as much as possible. Extensive use of fences is the key argument to this theory.

Our data is yet incomplete. We hope by 1992 to have a more comprehensive overview, at which time a traveling exhibition of artifacts (including exhumed bodies to illustrate their burial practices) will tour for the education of all. Their attitude toward all non-cauk peoples is extremely hostile & violent. Many of our researchers have been massacred & yet, in the interests of science, we persevere.

* * *

Love,

Eddie