Science!

I must be a very strange person, for if asked to name favorite music, They Might Be Giants are right up there with Leonard Cohen, AC/DC, The Sex Pistols, Scott Joplin and The Traveling Wilburys.

All these artists manage to scratch my brain in one or more ways. A TMBG song is something that will make you wonder if you actually liked it - and make you play it all day to figure it out. On the other hand, when they want to get down and say something important, they can do that too. Turns out they have done several children's albums, and having "taught the controversy" about numbers and letters, their latest one is about science. The intro song, "Science is Real," explains in a simple way what science is, what it's for, and how it works.

In this particular climate of ignorance, a children's song that explains rationalism and the scientific method is important.



Just think about trying to write a song that does that and which a three-to-five-year-old would want to dance to and which doesn't make adults want to scream and run from the room.

The album is called Here Comes Science and is available at Amazon and the other usual places. It makes a perfect gift - for teachers and the children of relatives who might not value that book-larnin' stuff so much. You might just want to slip a copy to the school librarian, too. :P

Dangerous Autistics? Statistics Say No

Autism Blog - » Blog Archive » Autism and Murder: "Autism and Murder"

Two stories recently made a splash in the autism community. In the first:

An 18-year-old man described as “severely autistic” is in custody on suspicion he murdered a 59-year-old Coos County woman…

and in the second:

A judge has ruled that Asperger’s syndrome cannot be used by the defense in the case of a man accused or murdering a woman after he lured her to his home in Savage in October 2007.

Three blogs carried this story, each revealing their owners particular viewpoints. In his small circulation blog, Harold Doherty said:

In recent days and weeks two severely autistic young men have been implicated in homicides. In one case, a young man with autism has been implicated in the death of his mother who publicly professed her deep love for her son and the joy that he brought to her….Neurodiversity ideologues are unlikely to change. Their views are entrenched and tied to their own public careers as professional “autistics” or “enlightened” autism parents. The truth is that they discourage society from addressing the harsher realities of autism by effective therapy, treatment or cure. They help keep members of the public from understanding the full nature of autism, particularly as it affects the most severely autistic. Theirs is a movement whose aim is to keep everyone from facing autism reality. Theirs is a movement which wants society to keep our heads in the sand and ignore autism reality.

And on their advert covered anti vaccination site, Age of Autism said:

How many stories of violent deaths allegedly at the hands of autistic teen males will we have to read before the world either A) embraces treatment for autism as a medical ailment or B) paints all autistic males as dangerous killers and locks them away a la 1955?

So you can see that Harold uses these deaths to say how silly neurodiversity is and AoA use them to say that treatment for autism is the only valid option before society is overrun with autistic killers.

Of course, the biases are clear - but irrespective of interpretive bias, are there any facts to go on? That would be a rhetorical question, folks. I AM citing Leftbrain|Rightbrain, noted for it's tiny, barely noticeable perseverance bias toward sources with an high factual content. So what does Kev find, going to the literature? Precious little, but what there is contradicts doom and gloom as a prognosis.

I found it quite difficult to get ahold of papers about autism and death attributed to an autistic person. But the few that I did get access to point to quite a different direction than the overly bleak and purposefully twisted futures foreseen by Harold Doherty and AoA.

In this study, the authors looked at rates of criminality amongst those with a Pervasive Developmental Disability (subgrouped to ‘childhood autism’, atypical autism and AS) . In the childhood autism group (which corresponds to severe/kanners/etc) 0.9% had a conviction as adults. In the control group, the rate was 18.9%. For atypical autism the conviction rate was 8.1%. The control group was 14.7%. For AS, the rate was 18.4% and the control group was 19.6%.

So, in each subgroup of PDD the authors looked at, the rate of criminal conviction was lower than controls. For the type of autism that Doherty and AoA are talking about less than 1% had a conviction compared to 18.9%. I think its clear that if this paper is accurate then we’re hardly going to be overrun with autistic killers.

In a side note, I've long observed that the real issue with these groups is that they are generally composed of authoritarian social conservatives who cannot easily cope with a child who's wetware biases them against reflexive conformity and who has a substantive deficit in making sense of emotional demands for reassurance or submission cloaked in only superficially sensible communications. I've often had interactions with such parents and frankly, I've lost patience to such a degree with that mindset that I no longer bother at all - and I find it entirely likely that "loss of language" is far more a coping strategy than a "disease process."

Seriously, I'm entirely familiar with the astounding phenomenon of being argued with over sensory issues. "You don't really feel that way" is an utterly disrespectful response to a child for whom sunlight is painful. The issue is addressed with sunglasses, not a lecture. But such sensory processing issues are often seen first and tragically, sometimes last and always as "willful disobedience," or "insufficient submission."

That's my experiential bias, at any rate, and somewhat beside the point. There's no reason to be concerned that a few exceptions prove any sort of rule, indeed, less so that in regard to "normal" adolescents.

Oh, look, a really stupid DEMOCRAT!

Rep. Conyers wants science to be secret… or you will pay | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Recently, government-sponsored agencies like NIH have moved toward open access of scientific findings. That is, the results are published where anyone can see them, and in fact (for the NIH) after 12 months the papers must be publicly accessible. This is, in my opinion (and that of a lot of others, including a pile of Nobel laureates) a good thing. Astronomers, for example, almost always post their papers on Astro-ph, a place where journal-accepted papers can be accessed before they are published.

John Conyers (D-MI) apparently has a problem with this. He is pushing a bill through Congress that will literally ban the open access of these papers, forcing scientists to only publish in journals. This may not sound like a big deal, but journals are very expensive. They can cost a fortune: The Astrophysical Journal costs over $2000/year, and they charge scientists to publish in them! So this bill would force scientists to spend money to publish, and force you to spend money to read them.

Why would Conyers do this? Interestingly, if you look at the bill sponsors, you find that they received twice as much money on average in donations from journal publishers than Congresscritters who don’t sponsor the bill — though to be fair, the total amount is not large. Still, Conyers got 4 times as much.

Interesting.

This amounts to a huge "science tax." It also forces everyone through editorial choke points. I'm all for peer-reviewed science - but not at all for a journal getting to decide whether or not an idea deserves peer review. Considering how often science, business and government become entangled, it is to be assumed that editors will have inherent conflicts of interest - aside from purely disciplinary biasas - that put the question to objectivity.

Therefore, a rich variety of alternate means of discussion is vital to a vibrant and productive scientific community, particularly in areas where political interference is not just possible, but probable.

Frankly, I see no particular way in which traditional journal publication is inherently superior to simply dumping an article onto the web for open examination - and the reaction there will certainly refine anything worth refining.

Let us also remember that science is not the exclusive province of the purely academic community. Anyone willing to do the work to accepted standards and present results so that they may be reviewed and replicated should be able to do so. After all, the costs of internet publication are negligible - as opposed to traditional journals - which are anything but. Indeed, the costs of the literature is one of the most significant barriers to participation in any given field, limiting it to the wealthy or those with access to a good academic library.

There is a great deal of science that is not being done because there is no money to do it- and some evident reluctance to allow anything done outside of accepted circles to be granted any attention.

I concur with the author that this is a damn stupid idea - and one that will impose obvious disincentives to people wishing to do serious science in the United States.

Oh, Republicans, Why do you hate Science?

Fox news decided to do a little "scientific polling" designed to prove something they knew to be true. Well, something got proved...

TPMDC | Talking Points Memo | Obama Preferred Over Reagan -- In Fox News Poll

Check out this question from the new Fox News poll: "What do you think the nation's economy needs more of right now -- the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?"

The answer: Obama 49%, Reagan 40%.

If science reliably gave you the answer you wanted to hear - it would be Scientology.

The "proof" of what was actually intended is the fox news analysis, provided by a commenter.

FOX News Poll: Obama Believes in Bigger Government
Thursday, March 05, 2009
By Dana Blanton

Majorities of Americans think President Barack Obama is meeting, if not exceeding, expectations, and keeping his campaign promises. In addition, despite Obama's claim that he doesn't believe in bigger government, a new poll shows there is widespread belief among Americans that he does.

I love it. While 52 percent believe he is meeting expectations, only 14 percent think he is exceeding expectations. And even though people really like Obama and his policies and trust him and think his economic proposals are better than Reagans, a majority think that he believes in a bigger government that provides more services. He's a massive failure. May as well start impeachment proceedings immediately.

If I had Dana's job, I'd be rather proud of myself for that spin. But that's one very significant component of why I don't have Dana's job. As much as I like good booze - I don't want to have to need enough of it to drown my conscience.

Dr. Wakefield: Don't Poke the Aspie.

The news is filled with the shocking, utterly shocking news that three special masters of the US Vaccine Court have found no scientifically credible correlation between Mercury and Autism, and further, that what slight evidence that suggested the connection in the first place, way back in 1998 - was bogus.

In a statement to be published in the March 6 issue of The Lancet, a British medical journal, the researchers conceded that they did not have enough evidence at the time to tie the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, known as MMR, to the autism cases. The study has been blamed for a sharp drop in the number of British children being vaccinated and for outbreaks of measles.

This aspect of the movement featured often truly disgusting rhetoric that brought uncomfortable memories of the legacies of the Eugenics Movement - offered in defense of behavior-mod strategies that are of debatable benefit at best and torture at worst.

Autistics themselves were instrumental in fighting back against unscientific hysteria and outright abuse of process nobably by contributing to and disseminating credible science, intervening in attempts to enforce orders that ABA therapy be paid for from the public purse and devestatingly effective responses to unscrupulous practices within the "research community" the anti-vax movement depended upon. And ultimately, the questions raised led to the right questions being asked,
regarding the fundamental research that led to this mess.

It should be noted that the questionable motivations and associations in the "pro-cure" wing have been documented and observed by Actual Real Scientists for some time. This was just the final straw, and the barely concealed outrage at the perfect storm of stupidity, incompetence and venality is manifest in the conclusions of the Special Master's report, dismissing with utter finality the claims that MMR was in even the slightest sense contributory to autism.

Conclusion: A “loving, caring, and courageous” family “misled by physicians who are guilty of gross medical misjudgment”

The record of this case demonstrates plainly that Michelle Cedillo and her family have been though a tragic and painful ordeal. I had the opportunity, in the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, to meet and to observe both of Michelle’s parents, and a number of other family members as well. I have also studied the records describing Michelle’s medical history, and the efforts of her family in caring for her. Based upon those experiences, I am deeply impressed by the very loving, caring, and courageous nature of the Cedillo family. Those family members clearly have done a wonderful job of coping with Michelle’s conditions, and in caring for her with great love. I admire them greatly for their dedication to Michelle’s welfare.

Nor do I doubt that Michelle’s parents and relatives are sincere in their belief that the MMR vaccine played a role in causing Michelle’s devastating disorders. Certainly, the mere fact that Michelle’s autistic symptoms first became evident to her family during the months after her MMR vaccination might make them wonder about a possible causal connection. Further, the Cedillos have read about physicians who profess to believe in a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and both autism and chronic gastrointestinal problems. They have visited at least one physician, Dr. Krigsman, who has explicitly opined that Michelle’s own chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are MMR-caused. And they have even been told that a medical laboratory has positively identified the presence of the persisting vaccine-strain measles virus in Michelle’s body, years after her vaccination. After studying the extensive evidence in this case for many months, I am convinced that the reports and advice given to the Cedillos by Dr. Krigsman and some other physicians, advising the Cedillos that there is a causal connection between Michelle’s MMR vaccination and her chronic conditions, have been very wrong. Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment. Nevertheless, I can understand why the Cedillos found such reports and advice to be believable under the circumstances. I conclude that the Cedillos filed this Program claim in good faith. [emphasis added]

Thus, I feel deep sympathy and admiration for the Cedillo family. And I have no doubt that the families of countless other autistic children, families that cope every day with the tremendous challenges of caring for autistic children, are similarly deserving of sympathy and admiration. However, I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analyzing the evidence. Congress designed the Program to compensate only the families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of causation-in-fact evidence, to a listed vaccination. In this case the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link. Accordingly, I conclude that the petitioners in this case are not entitled to a Program award on Michelle’s behalf. (pp. 173-174)

The Special Master had some particular words for Dr. Wakefield, et al, in an earlier section, which I repeat in full.

On “autistic enterocolitis”: “Defective or fraudulent science”

As explained above, Dr. Krigsman based his general causation opinion on the reliability of the Uhlmann study’s general conclusion that children with both developmental disorders and gastrointestinal problems are often infected with measles virus in their intestines, while developmentally normal children with GI problems are rarely so infected. However, as previously discussed, I have concluded that the Uhlmann study was unreliable. Therefore, with the Uhlmann study discredited, Dr. Krigsman’s general causation theory is simply left without any evidentiary support.

Dr. Krigsman has not pointed to any other possible basis for his theory. For instance, Dr. Krigsman did not point to examples in medical history of any type of virus persisting in intestinal tissue and causing chronic GI symptoms. To the contrary, Dr. Hanauer, an expert well-qualified concerning GI inflammation, testified that he is unaware of any examples of viral persistence in intestinal tissue causing chronic inflammation. Neither Dr. Krigsman nor any other expert for petitioners contradicted Dr. Hanauer on this point. Moreover, in constructing his general causation theory, Dr. Krigsman clearly based his theory on the “autistic enterocolitis” theory that evolved from Dr. Wakefield’s seminal 1998 article mentioned above. In his expert report, Dr. Krigsman indicated that he sees a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and a disease category that he described as “autistic enterocolitis.” And at the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Krigsman again used the term “autistic enterocolitis” to describe the disease category that he believes to be MMR-caused. Indeed, Dr. Krigsman’s use of the term “autistic enterocolitis,” along with his assertion that Michelle Cedillo’s illness is a “classic” case of “ASD-GI disease,” perhaps might create the impression that “autistic enterocolitis” is a recognized disease category, accepted by the medical community. That, however, is not the case.

To the contrary, Dr. Hanauer, very experienced in the specific area of inflammatory bowel disorders, testified that the term “autistic enterocolitis” is not utilized in any gastrointestinal textbook of which he is aware. Similarly, Dr. Gershon stated that both the terms “autistic enterocolitis” and “ASD-GI” are not recognized by “gastroenterologists as a scientific community.” Dr. Fombonne and Dr. MacDonald both testified that there exists no evidence to support such a diagnostic category. And Dr. Krigsman himself admitted that two leading textbooks on gastroenterology, which he acknowledges to be authoritative, do not use the terms “autistic enterocolitis” or “ASD-GI.”

Thus, it is clear that the diagnostic category of “autistic enterocolitis,” developed by Dr. Wakefield and adopted by Dr. Krigsman, is not a medically-recognized category. In fact, the record indicates that the term “autistic enterocolitis” evolved from Dr. Wakefield’s above-mentioned 1998 article; the term appears in several articles published over the following years by Dr. Wakefield and a small group of his followers. One such article using the term “autistic enterocolitis” was published in 2000 by Wakefield and colleagues. And it is clear that Dr. Krigsman, in developing his causation theory, was influenced by those articles. For example, Dr. Krigsman testified that his initial idea, that autistic children with gastrointestinal symptoms might be suffering from IBD, was triggered when he read that very Wakefield 2000 article. Given that Dr. Krigsman’s general causation theory was influenced by the “autistic enterocolitis” theory developed by Dr. Wakefield and colleagues, it is fair to note that Dr. Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” theory, and his credibility in developing the theory, have come under severe criticism. For example, see the discussion […] above concerning various committees of medical experts who have considered and rejected Dr. Wakefield’s causation theory. Further, respondent’s experts in this case provided much testimony relevant to the credibility of Dr. Wakefield’s procedures in developing his theory.

For example, Nicholas Chadwick in 1996 was a Ph.D. student working in a London laboratory for Dr. Wakefield, performing PCR testing for measles virus. Chadwick’s interactions with Dr. Kawashima’s laboratory, which was collaborating with Wakefield in the area of measles detection, convinced Chadwick that Kawashima’s positive results in measles virus testing were “false positives,” the result of contamination. Chadwick related that conclusion to Dr. Wakefield. Nevertheless, Wakefield submitted for publication a manuscript relying on the purportedly positive results from Kawashima’s PCR testing. Chadwick asked that his own name be taken off the manuscript, because he was not comfortable with the data. Dr. MacDonald described the Wakefield 2000 article as “deception,” in two respects. He opined that the article deliberately described normal findings in the intestines of the autistic children as “pathology”—i.e., abnormality indicative of disease—in order to create the false impression that the autistic children had much more intestinal pathology than the non-autistic children in the study. Dr. MacDonald also testified that the article misrepresented a photograph of a child’s cecum (a part of the large intestine) as being a photograph of the child’s ileum (a part of the small intestine). He opined that it was “highly unlikely” that this misrepresentation was a mistake, as opposed to deliberate deception. Dr. Rima described an interaction with Dr. Wakefield, in which he informed Dr. Wakefield of a specific contamination error in Wakefield’s measles detection efforts. Dr. Wakefield, however, did not retract his claim that measles material had been identified.

Further, as noted above, after public criticism of the “autistic enterocolitis” theory, ten of Wakefield’s twelve co-authors on the original 1998 article published a letter in which they formally “retract[ed]” the causation interpretation suggested in the original article. At the same time, the British medical journal that published the 1998 article, the Lancet, reviewed allegations of impropriety by Dr. Wakefield and his co-authors in the submission of the article. The Lancet editors noted that some of the children described in the article were also part of the legal action against the vaccine manufacturers, in which Dr. Wakefield was also involved. The editors concluded that this circumstance constituted a financial conflict of interest by Wakefield, which Wakefield should have disclosed to the Lancet, but did not. Dr. MacDonald, indeed, went so far as to opine that Dr. Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” theory was merely an “invention” created for litigation purposes. Similarly, Dr. Rust summarized Wakefield’s process of developing and disseminating his general theory, and described it as “scientific fraud.”

To be sure, the petitioners in this case have stressed that they rely upon Dr. Krigsman as their expert concerning the causation of GI symptoms, not Dr. Wakefield. Thus, they argue that criticisms of the personal integrity of Dr. Wakefield are not relevant here. However, because Dr. Krigsman’s general causation approach clearly was strongly influenced by Dr. Wakefield’s theory, criticisms of Dr. Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” theory are relevant, and criticisms relating to Dr. Wakefield’s credibility in developing that theory are of relevance as well. Therefore, it is a noteworthy point that not only has that “autistic enterocolitis” theory not been accepted into gastroenterology textbooks, but that theory, and Dr. Wakefield’s role in its development, have been strongly criticized as constituting defective or fraudulent science. (pp. 141-144)

In other words - it is the the opinion of the special masters that the case is not merely invalid on it's merits - that the science presented is factually insufficient - but that key portions of it are fraudulent - a position underscored by the public position of The Lancet and the withdrawal of names from the foundational "study" that started this mess.

It shows a fundamental contempt for justice, contempt for the best interests of autistics subjected to the highly questionable treatments Wakefeield and his co-conspiritors advocate, and should deeply trouble the governing boards of those issuing their respective professional certification. There is a reason why there is a growing lack of trust in authorities and it is because that over the last several decades, there has been a general perversion of the entire concept, various systemic and significant abuses of public trust and, of course, an entire culture has developed to claim that criticizing the perpetrators is evidence of some dark conspiracy.

I could just as easily point to climate change deniers or the people who insist in the face of all respected opinion on economics that "trickle down" economics really did work, and that more tax cuts and less regulation is the real answer to a problem that was in significant part made worse by tax cuts and absolutely made possible by lack of regulation and willful disregard for what regulations existed.

But then, you might very well ask, whom should I trust? How do I choose between two positions, founded as they are upon science that's well above my comprehension level?

Well, in all honesty, it's not easy, but there are a few principles that will allow you to avoid being easily fooled - and I learned these in nineth grade. You see, you don't usually have to dig into the technical arguments. If you do have to, than what you see is most likely a legitimate scientific or technical dispute. In which case, you may do as do I - wait for a consensus.

In the case of climate change, that consensus exists to an extent that it really absolves you from having to consider the ideas of bias or fashion. The data agree, the vast majority of scentists agree, at least in the broad strokes and of equal importance, those who dissent are not just a minority, but very few of them are dissenting from a background that permits us to be unskeptical of their motives, in some case, fairly obvious, such as researchers paid by oil companies coming to conclusions that any oil company would be happy to have. Wonders! Astonishment! You can safely assume such studies to be junk science if they oppose a general, interdisciplinary consensus AND directly benefit both the researcher and the interest group that paid him. (Now, if they should turn out differently, that's an entirely different kettle of penguins.)

In the case of Dr. Wakefield, well, Dr. Wakefield was neither particularly clever in his scientific fraud nor in concealing his connection to litigation arising from his entirely convenient "research."

Or not to put too fine a point on it, Dr. Wakefield prostituted himself in order to make a buck. He presumed upon his authority, his status, his profession and his credentials in order to fabricate evidence that would permit him and the odious lawyer he colluded with to make hundreds of thousands of dollars. All that was required was for him to not care about the consequences to society, his profession, the reputations of his colleagues or the impact upon public health.

The principle illustrated here is called "Quo Bono" - that is to say, who profits by me believing this?

Let's look at one of the still active and strident proponens of the anti-vax myth: Age of Autism. This is their sponsor's reaction to the Omnibus Decision which I quoted from above:

National Autism Association Response to Autism Omnibus Court Decision:

PARENTS AND ADVOCATES LA BEL TODAY’S VACCINE COURT RULINGS AS INSINCERE AND POLITICALLY DRIVEN, SAYS NATIONAL AUTISM ASSOCIATION

You can pretty much stop reading there, because their own summary tells you all you need to know about the level of honesty and the ethical culture of the "National Autism Association" and those willing to publish it's dubious defense. The only proper, ethical approach would have been a public statement for regret, condemnation of Wakefield, and a sincere promise to clean house. At a decent miniumum.

Oh, I could respond in kind - although it would be a lot like pushing baby ducks into a pond. I'll leave that to another aspie's perseveration. I merely wish to point you to all the various advertisements for "biomedical interventions" and "treatments" and cures on that site. Might there not be a tiny, barely perceptible financial incentive here to dissuade you to consider the merits of the scientifically credible positition?

Moreover - and this is an important point - the site relys heavily on two rhetorical techniques; emotional persuasion and anechdotal evidence.

Neither is proper when speaking of diseases and cures, for diseases and cures are matters of provable fact, with discoverable mechanisms, treatments subject to testing. But most critically, their first and primary response is to question the motives of those criticizing them.

That's a rather bizarre claim, from those who's motives are so clearly questionable. So, as I say, who will benefit, that you believe that these "interventions" will provide some benefit to your autistic child? Who will benefit if you choose to believe - in the face of overwhelming and entirely respectable science to the contrary?

Doctor Wakefield - a proven scientific fraud, will benefit. The lawyers will benefit. But the overwhelming evidence to date is that if you believe the quacks, your child will not - and if you act upon the assumption that your child is at risk from the MMR vaccine, you are directly contributing to the very real and deadly serious risk of an epidemic.

This is why we all have the responsiblity to curb our credulity, to ask the hard questions of people who claim to be authorities and expect answers that are substantial and proven; particularly when they nostrums and treatments come with substantial and obvious risks.

This is true in the Autism community, it is equally true within communities of faith, where misrepresentations of core texts have mutated into entire denominations, within the finacial and poltical communities of western culture - and it is all due to a failure to hold authorities to account; of an inappropriate, and frankly lazy willingness to inappropriately trust people on the basis of nothing more than a jutting chin and a confident seeming assertion. Donald Rumsfield seems to spring to mind, for some reason. But since he does, it is difficult to think of someone being more obviously and confidently wrong than "Cakewalk Rummie."

The simple principle here is "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." I have no problem with people having a reasonable belief that thimerisol and autism might be linked, or that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It is not reasonable to presume that someone in authority is lying when you have no basis for that assumption. But, should those assertions be true, then there are certain logical steps to be expected, certain actions, certain patterns that MUST occur IF that assertion is to be established as a fact.

Instead, in both cases, bullshit was piled upon bullshit. And really, that's all you need to know. The second shovelful of bullshit proves beyond a doubt that whatever the truth might be, it won't be coming from that source. Move along, withdraw your support, direct your attention and energy elsewhere, for nobody ever got anything but the top slot on a sucker list by believing a famous liar.


Celebrate Neurodiversity by webcarve
Warning! Science in Progress (Rocket) by dwaterfield
Memeber of PeTP, People for the ethical tr... by Philoso_tz

Science, Ethics and Truth-Testing

I Do My Own Science Mousepad by InsideOut_Tees

Way back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and line printers had to be kept in sound-proof boxes, I was being prepared for a life in law and politics as being the obvious place for such a legalistic, too-smart-for-his-own-good, arrogant little "gotcha" artist.

Neither I nor those who saw me that way had any idea that all of these attributes were in fact the manifestation of Asperger's Autism, and therefore I was being prepared for a career I was as suited for as - well, let's just say that Sarah Palin is far more suited to be leader of the free world than I to a life in politics.

Nonetheless, I managed to do well enough that I actually teetered on the edge of small town politics for a moment before coming to my senses.

And while I never did well in classical debate, I would have been one hell of a political speechwriter. Indeed, that's most likely where I'd have wound up.

Anyway, the fact that I managed to avoid debate as a competitive speech event, due to the as I am poor at thinking on my feet and it IS a sport in which winning and losing matter to other team members, I was not permitted to evade a basic understanding of the rules of engagement.

"When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. And when you don't have either the law or the facts on your side, you pound on the table."

The other observation I want to make as setup for this post is the fact that there are several angles of evaluation for a debate; style, presentation of facts, skill in undermining the credibility of said facts and of course, diversion of the judge's attention from the facts are all ways in which you may well win a debate on points, even if you find yourself defending a completely untenable case.

However, this is about as difficult a situation as you can imagine, the rhetorical equivalent of somehow managing to escape an ambush and effect an orderly retreat instead of a rout.

And debate coaches - good ones - are ruthless about finding things for you to defend that insult you to the core of your youthful, self-righteous being, or place you in a Kobayashi Maru situation.

It's a damn fine preparation for becoming Scott McClellan, I might add. I took what I thought to be the real lesson - anticipate situations in which people will be forced to speak well of how well you managed under the circumstances.

Competitive speech is a fine preparation for learning to amorally and impassively evaluate an argument on it's merits. It was repeatedly hammered into my brain that you cannot possibly expect to win an argument against any arguable proposition unless you can craft that argument yourself, as well or better than your opponent could.

This one essential leg for the perspective I have. And I suppose like everything else in my life that matters to me, It could be said to take it "far too seriously."

Indeed, it has been said to my face, many times. But in this particular sort of case, it amounts to a criticism that I'm taking the civic responsibility to attack or defend a premise with one's very best arguments and as many facts to fling into the fray as possible. I see it as deriding the entire idea of having to defend an opinion on it's merits.

It's the "ah got a gaw-damn right to mah 'pinion," which to me is the precursor to all the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, racist, misogynist, xenophobic spew that has come to replace all that used to be "conservatism."

"Let's get back to the Issues" byjenniekurono who never fails to disappoint when I wish to illustrate sincere idiocy in action. She even thinks this can be categorized as an Insulting Bumper Sticker

It's a sad day when someone who presumably has a basic grounding in civics and politics, the sort that comes from maintaining a C average through a full 12 years of school could think that "issues" are beside the point in politics. Politics is our way of discussing and settling issues, as an alternate to breaking out the pointed sticks.

People like Jenny do tend to underline the side benefit of the latter approach - people dumb enough to say things like that in public are generally the ones who volunteer to charge "over the top." Such repeated social neuterings have done a great deal for European civilization in the long view.

Properly speaking, though it is your humble Conservative nay-sayer that is historically responsible for helping us avoid our glorious martial destiny. The "negative case" is usually the Conservative case.
It is the Conservative who lives to make the Liberal defend their reasoning, their facts, their evidence, their cost-benefit analysis and most critically of all, the underlying, unexamined and quite often silly assumptions as to human nature and best outcomes.

Not that the common "conservative" assumptions are any less silly - and we have all seen those assumptions being acted on without any apparent process between, well, between knee and jerk.

It's a hell of a lot easier to criticize than it is to make an affirmative argument, much less an actual defensible policy. It's much easier to be seen as being a deep, thoughtful, critical thinker when criticizing the blue sky visions of the Left.

Of all the people I ever wanted to grow up to be, the person with the greatest influence upon my style of writing and persuasion has to be Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.

The thing I most admired about him was his ability to make reactionary thought seem reasonable.

But more important to me in practice was the example of his courtesy in conflict and his willingness to gracefully concede a point. His interviews with Noam Chomsky, for instance, should be required viewing for how to deal respectfully with opinions that offend you to the core of your being, and to bravely and openly embrace the possibility that you might lose a argument on it's merits.

That did not happen very often. It is with no little admiration that I state that he lost arguments on the merits far less often than the actual merits of the position he took would lead you to believe. I can enumerate on the dexterous fingers of my left thumb the persons of equal stature and broad-spectrum, earned respect who are still welcomed within that small and shriveled anti-intellectual tent that political conservatism has become.

I can't find a better illustration than this exchange I stumbled across today.

Yes, Virginia, There is a War on Science

I hate to confess it, but lately I’ve been feeling a bit wistful for the arguments of conservative science pundit Tom Bethell, author of the 2005 polemic The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. Granted, the “Incorrect Guide to Science” would probably have been a more accurate title, in that Bethell is just plain wrong about everything from evolution (which he tries to debunk) to global warming (which he argues isn’t human-caused) to African AIDS (which, shockingly, he calls a “political epidemic”). Yet despite such outrages, there’s something bracingly honest about Bethell’s book—he really doesn’t accept mainstream science on many issues, and so he tries, very straightforwardly, to argue that his facts are right and everybody else’s wrong.

A new wave of conservative science punditry—epitomized by an essay by Yuval Levin in The New Atlantis entitled “Science and the Left,” which was itself recently publicized by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson in an oped in the Washington Post—demonstrably lacks such candor. Setting out to debunk the idea that there really is a “war on science” coming from the right, these writers don’t bother engaging on the facts of the case at all. They don’t attempt to show that, say, conservative anti-evolutionists are right, or that conservative global warming deniers know what they’re talking about. Instead, Levin and Gerson ignore, trivialize, and even mock the very serious argument that scientific information has been systematically mistreated under this administration and by the American political right. Here’s Gerson: “There are few things in American politics more irrationally ideological, more fanatically faith-based, than the accusation that Republicans are conducting a ‘war on science.’” As for Levin: “Beneath these grave accusations, it turns out, are some remarkably flimsy grievances, most of which seem to amount to political disputes about policy questions in which science plays a role.”

Now, whether or not the premise stated above is arguable is quite beside my point. This is one of those particular cases in which it should be excruciatingly obvious that unless you bring your A team and your A game, the affirmative team will hand you your head and your ass in separate bags.

Well, someone sent in the water boy...

1. Whig says:

   In fact, it is leftists who have launched a war on science -

   just a few notes: the Union of Concerned Scientists is not a scientific body, but a lobbying organization; naturally, any `survey’ they conduct is immediately suspect, for the same reason you dismiss without argument any suggestion that leftists are engaged in a war on science.

   but again, the war leftists have launched on science - as with the idea of “feminist mathematics” or “african science”, the war against GMO’s, not to mention pesticides and plastics, etc. etc. - is far more effective than some writer or another bleating about `intelligent design’…

   also - to dismiss work by scientists just because they are `industry funded’ is in itself anti-science; regardless of where a researcher receives his funding, it is the *demonstration* itself which matters.

   by the way, are you a scientist yourself…?

   May 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

And as predicted, head and ass are neatly separated, leaving little but warm pink mist between.

1. TimV says:

   I’m, sorry but Whig’s comments are such a tub of lard, they need to be addressed. And full disclaimer, I am a fully trained and practicing scientist. Which means Whig will probably disregard this off the bat.

   Whig says:
   “just a few notes: the Union of Concerned Scientists is not a scientific body, but a lobbying organization; naturally, any `survey’ they conduct is immediately suspect, for the same reason you dismiss without argument any suggestion that leftists are engaged in a war on science.”

   Two things:

   1)The Union of Concerned Scientists is indeed a lobbying organization OF CAREER SCIENTISTS! Naturally they push for greater scientific integrity in public discourse but to disregard their polls as biased without actually analyzing their methods is just plain igornance. Show me evidence of bias in their polling methods (and I’ll hit you back with careful example of Frank Luntz’ work). Mooney disregards the industry paid scientists because he HAS analyzed their methods and shown them to be false. He’s even written a book on it if you’d care to read it.

   2) Actually, if you read the article Mooney actually cites a case where left-wing groups attack science (e.g. the biotech controversy). But this post is talking about the war on science in America, of which the left’s side of the war centers mainly on animal rights issues.

   Whig says:
   “but again, the war leftists have launched on science - as with the idea of “feminist mathematics” or “african science”, the war against GMO’s, not to mention pesticides and plastics, etc. etc. - is far more effective than some writer or another bleating about `intelligent design’…”

   Hmmm… methinks you are mixing up a War on Technology from a War on Science. The topic of Mooney’s post (and Gerson’s and Levin’s essays), is about the attack on the information conveyed by science. The methods and ideals. Not the output. You are correct, that many on the left are weary of technology (I’m sorry but “feminist mathematics” and “african science” are weak examples of radical ideals that never caught on at all or had very little influence on general discourse in America). But there is a fundamental trust in the scientific method on the American Left.

   Whig writes:
   “also - to dismiss work by scientists just because they are `industry funded’ is in itself anti-science; regardless of where a researcher receives his funding, it is the *demonstration* itself which matters.”

   Actually, if you read Mooney’s book (or the many reviews done by actual, hard-working scientists), there is ample EVIDENCE that industry funded scientists present biased or even false data. The “demonstration” is often done through abuse of scientific tests (e.g.- only presenting 1 null finding out of 10, biasing your tests to give you a null, etc). There is ample evidence of such scientific misconduct that it is worthless to point out except for the simple fact of pointing you to “The Republican War on Science” as a good reference.

   Whig says:
   “by the way, are you a scientist yourself…?”

   Actually, if you use this new thing-y they call “Google”, you’ll find that Mooney is in fact a freelance writer. So he’s independent of the story. However, unlike the zealots on the right, being a scientist does not mean we adhere to dogma. Unless you care to redefine dogma as “facts.”

   June 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

It's not that there are no reasonable people who could at least conceive of a credible argument to the premise stated. Not that I'd try. It's both easier and generally far more valid to criticize the conclusions drawn from the facts than to argue with the facts themselves, once, of course, the source, methodology and basic honesty of the process in bringing the facts to light has been established and of course doing a quick look-see to find any facts that happen to have been left sadly neglected in a corner.

For instance, The Club of Rome model described in the 1968 publication, Limits to Growth, was factually indisputable - given that you accepted that the facts presented were the only facts to take into consideration. It was well argued - and time proved - that the fundamental assumptions that went into making the study and drawing conclusions from it were simplistic. Not incorrect, precisely. Merely insufficiently correct and presented with entirely inappropriate authority and finality.

Well, that's how you go about dealing with a Left-Wing panic attack, or indeed any social panic; you go out and see what a few more reality checks will buy you, instead of foolishly arguing that the facts cannot be true.

But for asserting what I think should be clearly obvious, I'm accused of being (often in the same breath) of being a liberal, a fascist or a communist. This tells me they don't know the difference between the three, and think them all interchangeable with "poopy-head."

I always preferred taking the negative; that is to say the conservative position. In debate, it's like having the home court advantage and winning the toss, all at once. All you have to do is defend the status quo and show that the affirmative fails to make a case as to why it would be worth the expense, trouble and difficulty to make a change to, say, a hydrogen economy or universal health care.

That, of course presupposes that the "status quo" is defensible, or indeed that the present situation bears ANY resemblance to an historical Constitutional, Individualist American Status Quo Ante. Moreover, it requires that the political presumption of that the current status quo is and what the actual state of things in the real world are in some agreement.

I'm just going to assert that it's obvious those things are not at all true, and then point to why that is a reasonable assertion to make.

Remember, I've stated that the Conservative side is the easy side. It is the "Meanwhile, back here in the real world" side. It's the "And how is that workin' out for you" side. If Obama is such a wild-eyed socialist radical promising an spiral into an orgy of taxing and spending leading inevitably to cannibalism, communism and widespread paedophillic marriage, we should far FAR more coherent arguments against the Change Obama represents than what we see.

And I will tell you this; the Conservative response to an inarguable case is to shut up and walk away. If you cannot do anything else, you can at least avoid calling attention to it. Well, look around, in the blogs, in the media; how many skilled conservative speakers and writers are still in this fray upon the side of Bush?

There are other things that we should be seeing Conservatives arguing against coherently and with facts, from positions that cannot be overset with a feather of fact, if they were indeed actually foolishly liberal propositions.

For one painfully obvious example, we should see far more intelligent arguments against climate change than we do, unless we admit that the only really conservative approach to climate change is prudence. You cannot be a conservative while arguing against a conservative approach to potentially unpredictable situations. If you will not accept at least that, I don't care what you call yourself - because whatever it is, you don't belong any where near the levers of power.

Or really, ANY levers.

If being equipped and willing to do the intellectual heavy lifting required to check my preferred world view against reality is "elitist," I'll cop to it. And I'll be happy to check yours too. No charge, I'm on salary. You see, my job is to be that still small voice that calls out in the wilderness saying, "No! No! Don't touch that red..."

I refer to it as a "smoke test," the engineering term for the final test for any real world manifestation of theory; the theory is proven by the fact that it works. If you plug it in and it blows up, there is something wrong with the theory, the application or the idiot who soldered it up.

CRT-Screen-shirt Template by webcarve
(This is what I do to put off proofreading)

Now, we have had eight years for George Bush's views to pass the smoke test. All we have to show for it is smoke, and it's painfully obvious that his supporters believe that blowing even more toxic smoke and spreading bits of breadboard around the lab is the entire point to the exercise.

I think it's time to go back to at LEAST Moderately Conservative Values and the Status Quo, circa Eisenhauer, and that means Obama.

Pinhole Lenses: More than Meets the Eye; Less than I'd Hoped.

You may have seen ads for glasses with pinhole lenses. You probably think they rank right up there with the "x-ray specs" found in the back of old comic books. Nope. These suckers work.

I was approached by the webmaster of pinhole-glasses direct who flattered my ability to describe things. Well, flattery works to a point, but not to the point that I'll review a product blind. However, as a person who has nearly been blind and has always had some sort of optical prosthesis, I found the whole idea of pinhole lenses inherently interesting.

Anyway, I took a look at the sight (pun intended); was instantly beskepticled (ibid) and told them that I'd need a pair to check out and would not promise a positive review. One small thing gave me hope and pause.

Please Note: Pinhole glasses are meant to be used only for stationary viewing. It is dangerous to use them when you are moving as it affects peripheral vision of the eyes.

When there are warnings attached to something, it strongly implies that whatever it is, it succeeds in doing something.

Anyway, they came, I tried them and they work, kinda, sorta. Well enough that the concept is well worth exploring, not so well that I could use them to entirely replace my glasses. They do work better the longer you wear them, and for people with mild prescriptions, I think they are well worth trying out. If nothing else, they are an lusciously cool accessory; kind of Fellini Goes Punk and they are obscenely comfortable.

For hand crafters, I'd suggest buying three or more and hand-painting them.

The first thing these people need to do is market what they have as a fashion accessory. Coat the lenses in various colors. Have a rainbow of frames. And then, get in contact with the technical people at Zazzle.com to see about creating a product that's ideal for printing on. Here's a quick concept sketch.

There are any number of places where specialty-printed wraparounds would be popular. Sports events, for one. But consider how cool it would be to have shades that match your shoes and bag. Totally boutique! And right now, it's becoming possible to stock a boutique with art-printed originals. I think the existing material really lends itself to that application; it has a stiffness and conformability that should make it possible to create a single-piece printable product. It will probably require a simple frame, but that should be straightforward.

I wrote large parts of this review while wearing them. I'm extremely astigmatic and have artificial fixed focus lenses in my eyes after developing cataracts. Well, these do actually correct my astigmatism, and I can see the downside to moving your head - your vision blurs suddenly. I found that my brain compensated very quickly, both for the oddly spotty (literally) vision (referred to on the site as "the honeycomb effect") and the drastic reduction in the total amount of light. (Not a downside here in Nevada, I should add.)

I've never really had peripheral vision that I can recall until I did get my new lenses installed. I used to be so extremely near-sighted that the world was a blur without my coke bottles, and my brain is used to relying on peripheral vision for motion detection alone. Your mileage may vary on this point, but AS a point, it could be easily addressed by making a wraparound style.

I think it may also enhance the brain's ability to detect motion - I think it would be a great idea to get some data on this; if so, these might be of use in sport protection goggles.

I did try wearing them over my bifocals and found that suddenly my entire field of vision was available with full sharpness - indeed, sharper (if dimmer) than my corrected vision alone, and without the annoying search for a "sweet spot." It's very difficult to tell exactly, how well it would work with the pinhole layer actually integrated with a prescription lens - but my intuition and crude experimentation says that it's well worth finding out.

From the site:

Pinhole Glasses are special tools

In Pinhole glasses, holes of 1-1.5mm are spaced regularly using laser technology.

Yeah, that would probably be better. These pinholes are molded sheet plastic and I suspect that it's a stock sheet that is not really designed for the task. Nonetheless, it certainly does work. And the fact that the holes are actually conical in cross section may be a feature. It may not be. More data is required, and I've no way to go further along these lines.

Standard boilerplate continues, likely cribbed from some wiki. It's also clear that the English version of the site is written by someone who is quite sure they write fluent English.

Alas, no.

They may not be suitable for use in some instances.

Wearing pinholes affect your peripheral vision. They should not be used when you are driving or while moving about. It reduces the amount of light entering your eyes. Therefore, it cannot be used in environments having dim light. Wearing pinhole glasses does not prevent harmful UV rays from entering the eyes. So, do not use them to view the sun. It is also not useful for people measured as requiring lens of more than 6 diopters. Other eye problems like diffraction will prevent them from experiencing any significant benefits upon wearing pinholes.

It is always advisable for young people to avoid using any visual aid. Working on their eye muscles can improve their vision considerably.

As I said, the entire site comes across as a scam; this is not aided by their promotion of expensive "acupressure goggles."

As it happens, I'm not at all skeptical about acupressure; what I am skeptical about is the ability to automate an intuitive art, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

To say that the links to supporting science for these products is sketchy is charitable. But leaving the accupressure goggles aside completely, there is a great deal of science, history and experience behind the use of pinhole lenses and the application of some real optical science to the matter would result in a better site and a far, far better product.

Guys; Go thou forth and find ye an optician and an optical physicist!

Meanwhile a set of these plus a workbook on the optical effect is well worth marketing to science classes - with various editions for college, middle schools and lower grades. It's possible to directly observe the physical principles at work far more clearly than by other means.

I'd suggest connecting with education writers and publishers. That could nicely fund further R&D - or indeed, produce the same results for free from fascinated bespectacled minds.

I wish I understood the physics better myself, but I have a few questions based on what little I do understand, and I hope someone will contribute answers.

Would smaller holes in a tighter array work? Because it they would work, they would work better. I did a quick experiment using a flyswatter that has square holes much more closely spaced. It worked, but not as well. However, it worked in such a way that it was easier to bring a line of text into focus.

Does the plastic have to be opaque? Because if the plastic were sun-glass lenses, that would definitely improve the experience.

Would a thin film with ideal sized holes (laser drilled, perhaps) work if applied to ordinary clear or tinted lenses? Could the film be printed instead of drilled?

And would it make sense to consider creating pinhole/slit arrays specifically for individuals?

The advantage would be that you might be able to literally PRINT lenses, or use any number of inexpensive Computer Aided Machining tools to produce something that would work well enough at a very, very low cost per unit - and this could make a huge difference in the third world. Heck, it would be pretty darn cool right here. But this needs to be stated strongly: What exists right now is good enough to make a huge difference in the third world.

Finally, if you took a hologram of an ideal constructed pinhole matrix and lens combination and put it in a frame - would that work? I seem to recall something to the effect that hologram lenses were used in satellite cameras, to save weight, and I've always wanted my glasses to be as light as physically possible.

pinhole glasses - http://www.pinhole-glasses-direct.com/

pinhole glasses - http://www.pinhole-glasses-direct.com/order.html

pinhole glasses - http://www.pinhole-glasses-direct.com/faq.html

pinhole eyeglasses - http://www.pinhole-glasses-direct.com/alternativeprescriptioneyeglasses.html

Light Speed Barrier Broken ?- Science and Scence Fiction Communities Reel.

Even physical laws are made to be broken, or so new insights into physics seem to imply.

'We have broken speed of light' - Telegraph: "'We have broken speed of light' By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007 A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time."

In a related bit of disturbing news - for science and science fiction alike - there comes the revelation that the speed of light itself may vary.

It came as a shock, then, for astronomer John Webb, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, when he discovered that light could be fickle. Webb analysed light from super-bright quasars and found that 12 billion years ago, the fine-structure constant or alpha - an amalgamation of constants, including the speed of light - seemed in fact to be inconstant, being lower long ago. "I was surprised and had expected a null result," says Webb.