Another Republican speaks

From Andrew Sullivan:

"Several recent studies have found that 95 percent of climate scientists are convinced that the planet is rapidly warming as a result of human activity. But a George Mason University-Yale University poll in May found that only 13 percent of the public realizes that scientists have come to that conclusion. You would expect conservatives to stand with 95 percent of the scientific community and to grow the 13 percent into a working majority. Normally, we deal in facts, we accept science and we counter sentiment," - Former Congressman (2010 Tea Party casualty) Bob Inglis (R-SC).

95% - that's as close as it ever gets to consensus.

I've always suspected this

And now David Brooks draws our attention to a recent study:

Classic research has suggested that the more people doubt their own beliefs the more, paradoxically, they are inclined to proselytize in favor of them. David Gal and Derek Rucker published a study in Psychological Science in which they presented some research subjects with evidence that undermined their core convictions. The subjects who were forced to confront the counterevidence went on to more forcefully advocate their original beliefs, thus confirming the earlier findings.

This I already knew, or at least suspected, based on my experience with two close friends.

one was struggling to not believe he was gay, the other that his political beliefs made no sense by his own values.

.

New Frontiers in Science!

Scientists are closing in on decoding the DNA of chocolate.

Actually they are sequencing the genome of the the cacao tree. If successful it may pave the way for new, improved, more fruitful trees thus insuring a constantly increasing supply of chocolate as Civilization as We Know It collapses.

With that, and enough red wine....

When Conservatives fight

It can look pretty nasty. Not, I must admit, as nasty as when liberals like Hilary and Barack go at it, and at it, and etc. But still, it's nasty enough for some genuine entertainment [btw: Hilary just got her clock cleaned here in North Carolina, and Barack is about to lose it in Indiana, even as I write]

Where were we? Oh yes. Over on National Review Online Derbyshire panned Ben Stein's movie Expelled without ever having seen the movie. Purely in the interest of science, I posted his review. And because I thought it was hilarious.

But the Steinians (Steinists? Steinistas?) aren't going to take this laying down! David Berlinski has fired off a post claiming that the Derby's effort "is an exercise of striking vulgarity" in which he "writes foolishly." Well, I must modestly admit that I have been pointing that out about the Derby for some time. But do I get any credit from the Creationists?

He then goes on to show that the Derby has his facts wrong, wrong, wrong about the movie: They did SO create their own cartoons and Yoko Ono did NOT have to give her permission for the use of a John Lennon song! What those two points have to do with the central thesis of the Derby's writing, or of the movie, I will leave to your imagination. Read the whole thing here.

Not to be outdone, a staunch supporter of the Derbyist Side, one Jim Manzi, also posts a defense of science called "Show me the science." Manzi doesn't waste any time leveling the meanest put down of all in his very first lines:

Expelled seems to me to be the right-wing analog of Fahrenheit 9/11. Stylistically, it is almost an homage to Michael Moore:

I don't think I've enjoyed reading NRO so much since D'Souza claimed that liberals caused the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Darwinism, Science and the Holocaust

Yes, Darwinism was used by the Nazis, as we were discussing on an earlier post. So, for that matter, was medical science (think Dr Mengele), and even automotive engineering (think Volkswagen). Along with history and archaeology. To argue that because science or medicine or engineering were used by the Nazis therefore there must be something suspect about them seems a logical fallacy. Not that the creator of "Expelled" isn't willing to go there:

"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you," - Ben Stein.

It also leads to the polio vaccine, airplanes that don't fall out of the sky (usually) and computers.

Of course, that last one may actually be evil.


in fact, computers are keeping me from reading half a dozen papers about medieval Spain even as I type! So, good-night folks, for a few days perhaps.

The Anti-Darwin crowd and Derbyshire

I thought that Dinesh D'Souza's last book had been savaged by the more rational of the folks over at The National Review, but John Derbyshire's rottweiler review of Ben Stein's movie Expelled is in a class by itself. It's not often you get to watch one conservative savage another with such heartfelt venom.

Here is one of the Derby's concluding paragraphs, which gives a hint at the tone:

The “intelligent design” hoax is not merely non-science, nor even merely anti-science; it is anti-civilization. It is an appeal to barbarism, to the sensibilities of those Apaches, made by people who lack the imaginative power to know the horrors of true barbarism. (A thing that cannot be said of Darwin. See Chapter X of Voyage of the Beagle.)

You can tell he's worked up butyou should read all of it to truly appreciate it. Though I can't say I disagree with him.

.

Common Conservative Sense

Sometimes Conservatives make perfect sense. Sometimes Liberals don't. Like most things in life it's one of those "we'll see" situations.

Today Jim Manzi, one of the guest writers for Andrew Sullivan (who is taking a week long nap apparently), has this to say about Conservatives and Science. It is not the science they should have a problem but the conclusions reached from empiracal data.

Here's the core of the post:

The debate about evolution is a great example of the kind of sucker play that often ensnares conservatives. Frequently, conservatives are confronted with the assertion that scientific finding X implies political or moral conclusion Y with which they vehemently disagree. Obvious examples include (X = the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary biology, Y = atheism) and (X = increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will lead to some increase in global temperatures, Y = we must implement a global regulatory and tax system to radically reduce carbon emissions). Those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have recently developed the habit of responding to this by challenging the scientific finding X. The same sorry spectacle of cranks, gibberish and the resulting alienation of scientists and those who respect the practical benefits of science (i.e., pretty much the whole population of the modern world) then ensues.

In general, it would be far wiser to challenge the assertion that X implies Y.

In general.

Those Clever Canadian Scientists

From "Science Now" (via Andrew Sullivan) comes this startling experiment performed by our death defying neighbors to the north:

Jeffrey Mogil of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and his colleagues noticed that male mice spent less time licking the site of a painful injection--indicating that they had less pain--when a scientist was present. To investigate whether it was the sight or smell of a human that caused the effect, the researchers acquired a promotional cardboard cutout of [Paris] Hilton from her television show The Simple Life ("A special order," says Mogil's collaborator Leigh MacIntyre).

As in humans, Paris's effect appears to be gender-specific. Male mice spent less time licking their wounds when fake Paris was in sight, but females showed no such effect, the researchers reported ... When the team put up a screen to block the rodents' view, the effect went away. Following a Paris Hilton encounter, male mice--but not females--also had lower-than-usual expression of a gene called c-fos in a part of the spinal cord that transmits pain signals to the brain, suggesting reduced neural activity in this pain pathway.

Mogil suspects the analgesic effect has something to do with stress.

I wish that I had made this up, but I am not that clever.

About those misquotes

[see last post]

A quote from a reputable medical article by reputable medical experts!

"Heartworm is an infectious life-threatening cardiovascular disease spread by misquotes."


Hmm. Think I'll go back and check all those quotes I have in my just-now finished article on the Master of the Temple. I didn't know being a writer could be so dangerous.

Conservapedia and its antidote

I really thought that Conservapedia was a put-on by some clever liberal, but apparently its the real thing, put together by Andrew Schlafly. Andrew Sullivan has the link, and the antidote: a conservative web page defending Science, real Science. Hurrah.

Global Warming: Far left, far out, and the Woo-factor?

[Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan]

A delicious send up of the cranks on the Left, who are at the very least as, well, crank-like, as those of the Right, at least when it comes to Global Warming. In this case it is a deconstruction (as in 'demolition') of Alexander Cockburn's bizarre tirades (aka 'lunatic ravings') against the science of global warming. The key conclusions to a very long post:

It's important to remember both the left and the right have anti-scientific tendencies, the left's just tend to be less religious, less world-threatening and more woo-based. My brother recently told me about moving to California, "they don't believe in Jesus here, just bullshit" in reference to the woo-based beliefs of large portions of the population. The risk of unscientific tendencies is when people with potential to become cranks see a scientific theory as a threat to some overvalued idea they hold dear. Sometimes the over-valued idea isn't even a bad quality, it can be compassion - but taken to an extreme. If the left starts to see global warming policy as a money-grab by the elites, expect to see more left wing crankery and climate denial based on conspiratorial beliefs about carbon markets.

I suspect this is what has happened to Alexander Cockburn, a lefty who has gone over the deep end, on what appears to be suspicions of a conspiracy to further defraud and hurt poor countries using global warming science.

This leads me to three questions:

1) Since both the Left and the Right can be completely crockers, who can I, the founder and president of the Hezbollah wing of the Uncommitted, trust on anything?

2) Why does The Nation publish such nonsense?

3) What the hell are 'woo-based' beliefs?