First Blog

  "Settled science" refers to scientific theories and principles that are widely accepted by the scientific community because they are supported by a substantial body of evidence and have withstood rigorous testing over time. While no scientific knowledge is ever considered absolutely final, certain fields and principles are regarded as highly reliable. All of the examples below are rather solid within their scope.  Five hundred years ago, none of these existed*. 1. Newtonian Mechanics (in most everyday contexts - not at quantum level) 2. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (but it is a process as much as a science) 3. The Germ Theory of Disease (yet other forms, e.g. prion have been found) 4. The Structure of DNA (as the key component of life) 5. Heliocentrism (the Earth revolves around the sun) 6. Plate Tectonics (originally rejected) 7. The Big Bang Theory (foundational in cosmology, but questions remain – big ones) 8. Conservation Laws (Energy, Mo

Politicized science and research did not begin in the United States. It began much earlier. For example, during the Black Plague of the 14th century, politicians together with doctors created a causation for the plague from 1347–1351. It was decided that the plague was caused by contagion and was attributed to public bathhouses, then very popular. Bathhouses everywhere were closed. The consequence was from that time on, for centuries, people were reluctant to take baths, except rarely. The cause of disease even into the 19th century was said to be caused by “malaise” and this, supported by the government and physicians, implied little care could be given. At the time of the American Revolution, bloodletting was a prescription for fever. It worked by reducing the fever, but unhappily it killed many patients. This was supported by science and the government. Without giving more examples, let’s fast forward to the 20th century with the development of the atomic bomb. This was co-produced

Ah, yes.   Causality.   We love it and hate it.   We seek it for resolution, but sometimes we don’t want to find it. ·         Advertising causes sales. ·         Fear causes flight or fight. ·         She dumped me because I flirt. ·         Vaccinations prevent disease. To my understanding, causality is fundamentally difficult or impossible to prove. It is a truth. Causality seems to be a consensus of experts, claimed by countless experiments and observations - sometimes by an authority. In centuries past, causality was the domain of religion, philosophy, and God. Permanent. Yet, today’s cause may become tomorrow’s fantasy. Now, causality is mostly an aspect of science. Rushing to causality is a modern consequence of ubiquitous models, each establishing, in part, a correlation or correspondence. Personal causality is always a risk, always subject to emotion. Think of causality as a working solution to a problem, a pathway to finding a cure, or leading to deeper unde

Skepticism is important in every subject.  It functions as a governor for the runaway bad theory, bad idea, or erroneous method.  It often gets a bad reputation because it tends to go too far as to restrict, restrain, and retard good theories, ideas, and methods.  Skepticism is important in your life. It regulates against rumors and gossip, for example. It regulates against miracle cures.   In psychology, it was Freudianism that went too far with incorrect interpretations of sexuality. It was a runaway and was only brought back after it failed too many times.   In geology, the theory of plate tectonics was thoroughly defeated by skeptics for a long time - until clear proof was offered.  In cosmology, skeptics and theorists overlap, with one theory slapped down by another, with one skeptic scewered by another.  Don’t get me started on bloodletting, vaccines, gravity, educational theories, origins of life, and more. Skeptics still reign on some of these. Quiz: Which of thes

Not good science? Bad science? Bad advice? Now published is one of these. On what? Red meat. A report has just been released that all that hype about eating less red meat and pork was bad advice. Said the report, the evidence is just too weak. So goes the latest on one of the largest studies of meat consumption. Big science says this will result in distrust of science, a loss of authority, and harm the credibility of nutrition science. So, we have a new study that contravenes established authority. Didn't Pasteur face the same problem with his theory of immunology? Flying in the face of authority, he won that one. See,  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html The moral here, as has been the case in physics, chemistry, biology, earthquakes, tectonics, and others, there is just no such thing as settled science.

When I was much younger, like an undergrad, I’d go out with friends for maybe a pizza and the discussion would be enjoined.   We’d argue this way and that, about one view or another.   We’d argue on and on until the pizza was long gone and bedtime or study time was upon us. Few feelings were hurt by the other. After all, it was just opinions shot back and forth.   The critical value of an opinion is in its flux of belief . It can or could be changed. Today, it’s different. When venturing onto websites of columnists, especially those of contributors, opinions are no longer changeable.   They are fixed, hardened, even cast as metal. Modern students are about the same, most with cast-iron views, not to be changed by anyone, any way, anyhow. The point here is you can’t call it an opinion unless you can cite something that someone can do or say to change it.   It rare we see this. What is slapped down on the page is not opinion but absolute truth in the mind of the contributor

If North Korean (NOKO) dictator Kim jong un cared about his people, he would feed them, not go about launching expensive missiles which can do his country no good, except court the enmity of his neighbors and the world. Kim wants his own life more than anything, but I fear if he senses his end is imminent, he may do anything, and I mean anything.  USA and even China should be careful here.  The only possibility to end Kim’s regime is a sudden coup from within. Kim knows this well. What NOKO wants .  Attention, benefit deals, a place on the world stage for Kim.  Possibly a screen for China. What China wants .  A distraction.  As long as NOKO is being the bad boy, outrageous, and blustering, who pays attention to what China is up to – such as building military islands in the South China Sea?  Banking sanctions?  Phooey.  Just move the money around.  China is already prepared for this.  The only peaceful recourse for the USA is to exact tariffs on imported Chinese produced go

June 24, 2016 The Constant Conundrum of Science - and Lately for Us A ll Most scientists envision the world where their theories are taught to all children at the appropriate time in their education.   They believe in standardized instruction of their theories.   To most, this is the ultimate affirmation of truth; such theories are carried to the next generation increasing their likelihood of survival in the test of time..  At any rate, this seems to be current thinking among practitioners and researchers in many subjects – that their accepted theory has reached something of an ultimate maturity – that future changes will not be revolutionary but at most mildly evolutionary – that we are within only a few discoveries of the final truth. Remarkably, it is an artifact of our modern era for scientists to believe that we have the final and ultimate theory.   We are there, they believe, with just a few more details to fill in. Indeed, the entire 18 th and 19 th cent

The Halo Effect There is in psychology a phenomenon called the halo effect . For the teacher it essentially comes to this: if a student does well on the first few exam problems graded, the teacher will normally grade higher the remainder of the problems.  The counter to this is to grade the first question of all exams, then the second, and so on.  It takes more time. But it erases the effect.  Of course, it is important to not know student names, to try not to remember handwriting, and other clues to whose paper is being graded.  But the halo effect applies to many other phenomena. Now suppose I was going to talk about science, like to tell you things that are generally new and mostly unknown.  How would you receive it?  If you knew me and trusted my words are carefully measure, you would look more favorably toward what I say, and vise-versa. Again, the halo effect.  On the other hand, if you didn't know me, you would read the words with a more questioning outlook and decide well i

A. If you try to squeeze too much blood from a turnip, you'll end up with a truly pissed off turnip. B. If what you crave most in life is politics, you will surely receive it. C. What is the most resilient substance on earth?  Kids.  It seems that no matter how terrible the parenting, many kids grow up just fine.  There is a counterpart for good parenting. D. I like the dawn - the dawn of a bright day.  I think because dawn is a state of becoming.  It is fleeting and changing and harbors good things to come.   From Marcus Aurelius (121-186 AD) we have "Each day provides its own gifts ." E. Ok, you have a piece of bread.  You want to make toast.  For my toaster, it takes about three minutes, golden brown and tasty.  The question is at what point does the bread become toast.  Certainly before the three minutes elapse, but certainly now right away.  But when?   F. We can count - better than ever - but are rapidly forgetting what to count and why, what is worth coun

Inconsistency and Impossible Problems Definition of INCONSISTENCY from the American Heritage Dictionary. 1. Displaying or marked by a lack of consistency, especially:         Not regular or predictable; erratic: inconsistent behavior.         Lacking in correct logical relation; contradictory: inconsistent statements.         Not in agreement or harmony; incompatible: an intersection inconsistent with the road map. 2. Mathematics. Not solvable for the unknowns by the same set of values. Used of two or more equations or inequalities. Inconsistencies in problem solutions seem to be correlated with the social competence of students.  Remarkable but apparently true. Impossible problems also arise from inconsistency.  This implies a type of conflict at the systemic level. When we have a system with inconsistent truths within, we are naturally led to impossible problems.  This can occur from regulations that are contradictory.  These can come from government agencies or industry leaders who

From the Huffington Post.   The latest Pew research poll has established   that American teenagers aren't doing as poorly on international science tests as adults think.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/american-teens-science-tests_n_3134326.html?utm_hp_ref=@education123   In fact most adult American adults think that teenagers science knowledge are far lower than they actually are.   Indeed,   12 countries had higher scores and nine countries had lower scores.   There were another dozen with scores comparable with Americans.     Even still, only 11% of surveyed adults thought that science should be given a greater emphasis in the schools.   In keeping with our paradigm of the PSA (Polarized States of America) Democrats and Repulicans disagreed significantly on whether there should be a greater emphasis on science.   You got it.  The Democrats thought more, the Republicans thought less,   17% vs 7%.   One question not asked was and it never is:   “With the curricul