Nerds Make Science Fun!

So I’ve written a new bit on why science education matters. It’s alot clearer than the previous one. It’s cliché, but every time I look back at the archives, I shudder at the shoddiness of some of my work.

Anyways, here’s the edited work:

We often hear people talk about the importance of science education. But why does it matter? Most people do not use scientific knowledge on a daily basis. They do not need to know information such as the processes of meiosis, or the electron configurations of elements. In fact, the National Science Foundation estimates that only two percent of the entire workforce works in a job that directly involves science. Given the relatively low percentage of people who will end up in a scientific field, why is it necessary for everyone to study and understand the scientific process and scientific knowledge?

The answer is simple: a situation in which only those who use science understand it, is simply untenable at best, and dangerously irresponsible at worst. In a world that runs on science, a scientifically ignorant public undermines the progress and safety of society. On the other hand, the promotion of science education ensures humanity’s advancement and safety.

The smallpox virus killed half a billion people in the 20^th century alone, and was one of the most dangerous diseases in human history. But the discovery of a vaccine by Edward Jenner in 1796 eventually paved the way for the eradication of the disease in 1977. Although vaccination was initially a controversial procedure, the general public was kept well informed about the science behind vaccination and eventually rallied behind the process, giving enough political will to eventually eradicate the disease. This is a powerful example of the benefits of science education and a scientifically literate public.

But there are also examples of the dangers posed by a scientifically ignorant public. In 2007, a celebrity named Jenny McCarthy started a campaign against the use of the measles vaccine on the grounds that it caused autism. Since then, numerous studies have shown that this claim has no basis in fact. But because the general public was not educated with these results, many began to decline the vaccine for their children. This has lead to an increase in the occurrence of measles and threatens the lives of hundreds.

Vaccination demonstrates why it is important for the general public to be educated about science and its issues. In the case of the smallpox vaccine, having a scientifically literate public led to the eventual eradication of one history’s most dangerous diseases, improving the lives of untold numbers of people and making the world a safer place. In the case of the anti-vaccine movement, the opposition to vaccination has created needless suffering and has endangered thousands for no good reason.

By promoting science education, one promotes human progress and helps ensure the safety of the general public. It ensures that there is a scientifically literate public that will be supportive of new solutions, and prevents the undermining of progress and the endangerment of the public. In other words, science education matters, because it helps ensure the safety of the public and the progress of humanity.

William

So today, I discovered something awesome. You know how we always hear about how certain books are written at certain grade levels, correct? Well, today I learned exactly how these levels are assigned: the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. It uses a formula that relies on the ratio of the number of words in the article in relation to the number of sentences in the article, and the syllables of the words. It’s pretty cool.

This is the table for how easy it is to understand a particular piece of writing. Usually, the more difficult it is to understand, the higher the grade level.

For example, my previous “climate change” article had a readability score of 34 and a grade level of 13.

This particular piece has a readability score of 40 and a grade level of 11.

Now, this doesn’t indiciate whether or not your writing is any good, in terms of its ability to convey ideas clearly or have a logical structure.You could have a grade level of 20 and your writing can be an absolute piece of shit, or it can have a grade level of 7 and   be the most brilliant piece of writing since To Kill a Mockingbird. It really doesn’t matter. It just calculates how easy it is to read.

Anyways, here’s a link to a calculator if you want to give it a shot.

William

I want to try something new today. I’m going to post an article below this introduction that contains a major flaw in mathematical reasoning and convention, and I want you to tell me what the flaw is. Think of it as a small exercise to justify your time reading a blog when you could have been doing real work.

“Take a look at this SAT math problem:

How many ordered pairs of positive integers (a,b) can make the statement
5a+7b < 20 true?

A)    1
B)    2
C)    3
D)    4
E)    More than 4

Now this is a fairly simple problem. All you have to do to solve it is constantly plug in numbers for (a, b) until the statement becomes untrue. In this case, the sets of positive numbers that make the statement true are (1,1), (2,1), and (1,2). Indeed, the SAT itself says this, and the answer given is three.

However, this is blatantly wrong. There are two ordered pairs of (a,b) that make this statement true, as (1,1) does not count.

Here’s why: the key bit of information here is the parentheses, (a,b). Because it is written as (a,b), it is implied that the two numbers that make up the ordered pair are distinct, since a does not equal b unless explicitly stated to do so, which implies that the set is made up of  two distinct positive integers. This means that while a and b can switch values, they cannot share one value at the same time, meaning that (1,1) cannot be a set used for the statement, thus making the statement true for only two ordered pairs (a,b).”

So, what’s the flaw? Post it below in the comments!

William

The integral z squared dz,

From 1 to the cube root of 3,

Times the cosine

Of 3 pi over 9

Is the log of the cube root of e.

Bill and I spent an awkward couple of minutes verifying this, and it took longer than it should have because the thing is a bit vague.

So I’ve been browsing the comments sections of our blog, O tiny readership, and I’ve noticed something. There are alot of Russian posts. For some reason, this blog seems to attract a disproportionate amount of Russian, especially Russian spam.

So here’s to you, Russia! Purveyor of spam, Putin, and humiliating hockey defeats! Thanks for increasing the traffic of our tiny project!

William

The hour of judgment is upon us. As I stated earlier in this article, it is important that those who support science and its products must not only study it, but they must help the general public understand it as well, or else the public will not generate the political will needed to help fight powerful problems because it lacks understanding. Well, the problem has arrived. It has arrived in the form of climate change, and because of public misinformation and the lack of education, our response has been absolutely pathetic.

So what now? It seems as though science and facts are being overridden by a wave of bullshit spouted from conspiracy theorists and denialists. Public policy is no longer made on the basis of reason, but on the basis of “I-can-shout-louder-than-you”.  Nowhere is this clearer that climate change, where every attempt to produce rational, evidence-based debate is replaced with claims of conspiracy and bias. The suppression of reasoned discussion is not only idiotic; it is dangerous. To deny the public critical information on such an important issue is not only unfair to the public, but threatens everyone by creating an illusion in which everything is dandy, when it obviously isn’t. It is very clear that the denialists have to be shut down, but how? Many people in the scientific community have openly stated that scientists should not debate with denialists, because the very act of staging a debate gives them an undeserved semblance of credibility.

I vehemently disagree. Those who advocate silence and quiet work have completely misunderstood the fundamental nature of the enemy. They do not care about credibility. They do not care about truth, facts, or intellectual honesty. All these people care about is spreading their agenda. In other words, they are mirror copies of creationists. It is because of their similarity to creationists that I advocate the engagement with climate deniers.

Although engaging the deniers will give them a semblance of credibility, it also puts the kibosh on their agenda in three ways. First, a public debate is a great way to teach people about the facts and science of climate change. In a debate, facts are exchanged and explained, and the judgment of who “wins” the debate is usually decided on the quality of the explanation of said facts. Second, a movement of active engagement would immediately silence all claims of “bias” and “censorship” in the scientific community. They would no longer have the option of falling back to these claims whenever it becomes clear that things are not going there way.

Finally, a series of open debates will show the general public that the deniers are fundamentally wrong and rely on outdated assumptions, fallacies, and lies. Again, I will draw a parallel with creationism. After their defeat at the very public Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the intelligent design advocates were forced to withdraw from the mainstream and abandoned efforts to get intelligent design taught in school. Although part of this was because of the legal ruling, their public humiliation meant that they did not have the face to go out and continue advocating their agenda. Given the fact that climate change has a body of evidence similar to evolution in terms of quality and size, a victory like Kitzmiller v. Dover is very likely.  Once the denial movement is dealt several public blows in a fair and open arena, they will be exposed for the frauds they really are, which, hopefully, will drive it to the same fate as the intelligent design movement.

Bad news for climate change activists: you are now on the same side as Osama Bin Laden.

While this has absolutely nothing to do with the science of climate change at all, it will probably have a moderate-major effect on the political will to deal with it.

So, how long do you think will it take the right right to begin using reductio ad Bin Ladenum on climate science? My bet’s the next time the issue comes up, some rightie will use it within days.

William

As I’m sure you all have heard by now, Google is leaving China for a multitude of reasons, including Chinese cyberattacks and Chinese censorship of searches. However, to the great amusement of Chinese bloggers, Google has given a final “Fuck You” to the Chinese government in the form of its recommended search terms. Below are some pictures of the results:

If you type in the first half of the word “China”, in Chinese, you get a recommended list of search terms. But since yesterday, the first of these search terms has changed from “China”, to what you currently see. To those of you who can’t read Chinese, the first recommended search term is now “Destruction of the Chinese Communist Party”.

The fun doesn’t stop there:

This one has been removed by now, but yesterday, if you typed in the letter “f” into Google search, the first recommended search term is “free Tibet”. The free Tibet movement has been a pain to the Chinese government for many years, and so it’s no surprise that Google has chosen to do this.

And finally, there’s this:

Look at the second result. I’m sure I don’t need to explain this one. Immature and rascist? A little, yeah. Funny? Definitely.

William

Understanding the Times

Wanted for:

Indoctrination
Bias
Misquoting
Straw Men
Hypocrisy

Our school is currently using this book for lack of a better one. It was either this or Chuck Colson, who bored me to tears. Even though it’s the Bible curriculum for a Christian school, it has an unbelievable amount of bias. First off, it presents the fundamentalist Christian worldview as the only rational one, and essentially likens anyone else to heinous criminals. Supporters of gay marriage are made out to commit beastiality, incest, pedophilia, and so on. Anyone who doesn’t think abortion should be illegal in all cases is instantly a murderer. Theistic evolutionists are instantly copouts to atheism. Media is lying to us about stem cells. And so on, and so forth.

The misquoting comes from its citations. One of my larger complaints about Chuck Colson was that he did not cite his sources. If you can’t tell, I use Wikipedia a lot and support their stance of verifiability over truth. However, this book cites incorrectly and cites poor sources. There are several hundred pages in the book, but leafing through the first dozen pages or so, I found a citation to Jonathan Wells’ “Icons of Evolution,” which actually makes up a large part of the “biology” section. To give you an idea of the quality of this source, a single google search of “Icons of Evolution rebuttal” turned up a web site whose sole purpose was  linking to multiple pages, each carrying a point-by-point dissection of the paper, revealing that Wells didn’t actually know what he was talking about. I found another error, where they seemed to have incorrectly attributed the author of a source, but I didn’t look into that too deeply. The worst part about it is that since they actually provide sources, though they may be incorrect, I can’t take the hilarious route and bring a sign with “citation needed” printed in giant font.

As for the hypocrisy, this book also carries a section on identifying logical fallacies. A number of their examples were vague and incorrect, but that’s tangential to the point I’m making. The main problem is that the authors of this book resort to numerous logical fallacies, mainly the straw man. I have noticed that they have rarely, if ever, provided a fair analysis of more than one side of an argument. Of course, this is to be expected, as this book is, after all, intended for a Christian audience.

Now, if you skim my writing, you’ll find plenty of bias and fallacies in various places, since I am a sub-par writer who can apparently imitate the style of a professional pundit, as well as the fact that I am simply too lazy to go back through my articles to hone my arguments to perfection. The biggest difference here is that while the book and I both commit fallacies, I acknowledge mine, while the book preaches against fallacies as they are commiting them. This is hypocrisy, and Jesus does not like hypocrisy.

This book is not without its uses, however. In an extensive course with willing students, this book could be easily paired with an opposite source, say, anything by Dawkins, to fuel debates. However, in my class, about a quarter of the students either pay no attention or sleep through class, and some of them lack basic knowledge of the subjects involved - one did not know that the Koran came centuries after the New Testament. Additionally, the class follows the curriculum of the book, so that any time that could go toward debate is instead allocated toward showing lectures delivered from the book’s accompanying DVD. Combine these with the fact that I attend a Christian school, so that the proverbial choir being targeted by the preaching (both figurative and literal) consists of about three-quarters of the class, and the result is that this book is nothing more than a pile of indoctrination with no place for a dissenting opinion.

Yes, I know that makes no sense whatsoever.

I went online and looked into Climategate (not really, it was just something that popped up on Youtube). It turns out that of about 13 years of emails, there are exactly two passages that the media honed in on:

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

and

“We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

So either these are the most noticeable frauds, or these are the only frauds and this entire story is a giant load of bovine feces. As it turns out, both “evidences” can easily be explained as the aforementioned bovine feces.

For the first one, it turns out that the “Nature trick” doesn’t refer to fraud, but to a technique, as in “Substitution is a great trick for solving systems of equations.”
Also, the decline mentioned is actually the apparent decline in temperatures shown by tree rings. The issue that the quote is from is whether or not tree rings should be used as a guide for constructing temperature models from before the industrial evolution, as they are known to vary with temperature but are also unreliable.
The only potential problem here is the word “hide,” which might indicate fudging, but regardless of what it reflects, it will have no effect on the veracity of global warming itself.

The second quote is only talking about the past one or two years, and it is common knowledge among scientists that the Earth has cooled slightly over the past few years due to the influence of an eleven-year cycle, at the nadir of which the Earth’s temperature drops from the factors responsible for El Nino/La Nina. In fact, the given quote actually appears in multiple emails, from different climatologists, who disagree with this claim, made by another climatologist, Tremberth.
In fact, Tremberth wasn’t expressing this privately; he even wrote a paper - and was kind enough to provide a link to it - expressing these same doubts. Additionally, this is his personal opinion, not that of the scientific community.

And let’s face it, this entire story violates common sense. Remember the 9/11 “conspiracy”? The fact was then that for the President, Congress, the military, the firefighters, the state of New York, the police, the construction crew, the salvages, the bloggers, the political hopefuls and all the families to be coerced or convinced into such a conspiracy would be completely ludicrous.

Likewise, which of these three scenarios seems the least likely?
The right-wing news stations are perpetuating a story without fact-checking, as they have been known to do?
The hackers faked a few thousand emails?
The entire scientific community, in unison, faked millions of data points across twenty years, keeping them consistent with each other and cross-referencing them so that they tell a story completely contrary to reality?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

For an internet blogger, or a layman to spread this story without looking too far into it is understandable thanks to the daily grind, but for a news station? Especially Fox News, one of the largest in America? I wouldn’t say it’s preposterous, but at the very least, it demonstrates horrible reporting, inconsistency, reckless disregard, and pure incompetence. At worst, it is lying, propoganda, and fraud.

Dangit Fox.

-T