Having a hard time reconciling the title, Countering Radiation Fears With Just the Facts, with this quote:
He believes that even low doses increase the risk of cancer, and that there is no “safe” level or threshold below which the risk does not rise — even if that risk cannot be measured statistically.
If you can’t measure it and objectively establish it as true, how can it be a fact?
The fraudulent invention debunkifier
The Crackpot Flowchart(TM) will let you know in an instant whether the invention being touted is not only earth-shattering but whether it will rock the very foundations of modern science itself. No more worrying that you missed out on a Pulitzer, kick the frauds and the deluded into a cracked pot and save the real breakthrough for a sneaky call to the newsdesk at Science and Nature.
A case of never letting the source spoil a good story
Of course, this is a problem that generalises well beyond science. Over and again, you read comment pieces that purport to be responding to an earlier piece, but distort the earlier arguments, or miss out the most important ones: they count on it being inconvenient for you to check. There’s also an interesting difference between different media: most bloggers have no institutional credibility, so they must build it by linking transparently and allowing you to double-check their work easily.
But more than anything, because linking to sources is such an easy thing to do and the motivations for avoiding links are so dubious, I’ve detected myself using a new rule of thumb: if you don’t link to primary sources, I just don’t trust you.
Desmogblog: Are Liberals Science Deniers? Now’s A Good Time to Find Out
A centerpoint of this “nuclear counterargument” was that the left used fears of reactor meltdowns and the escape of radiation to unjustifiably scare the public. And if that’s true, then this is certainly the ideal moment for such misuse of science to occur again. So the question is, will it?
It’s almost like a natural experiment in the politicization of science.
You’re never going to eliminate denialism from either side of the political spectrum, but unlike global warming (the GOP members of the Energy and Commerce Committee just unanimously rejected an amendment acknowledging global warming is even occurring), we have the president already backing nuclear power.
As for the citizenry, I think it will break down the same way — some will throw whatever argument they can find into the breach, because they’ve already made up their minds and facts don’t matter, but most of the others will assess the situation rationally. I agree with Chris here — I think there will be measurably less denialism on the left. In case you couldn’t tell already, I’m not squeamish about nuclear power (up to the point where some tea-partier decides that it should not be regulated by the government because regulation is bad.)
Spaghettification and the problem of scientific jargon
Can’t use jargon, because people don’t understand it. It sounds like advertising mumbo-jumbo, so they don’t trust you. But if you explain the jargon, it sounds like you’re trying to con them.
Short version: damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Short, short version: we’re effed.
I think it means we have to attack the problem from another direction — raise the level of scientific literacy. (Or if you’re James T Kirk, rig the system)
Sunday (Settled) Science: Is that woman really your mother?
You think that the woman you regard as your mother gave birth to you. But it’s an open question; there’s still debate, and it’s definitely not an open and shut case. Right?
No, no, I’m not being silly. I mean it. You need to prove to me that she’s your mother. You’ve got a birth certificate? Just a bit of paper. You look like her? Coincidence. DNA test? Useful, but not 100% accurate. She’ll swear that it’s true? Well, she might be lying, or was duped at the hospital. A photo of her holding you as a baby? Doctored. You don’t have a leg to stand on!
In the absence of conclusive evidence that she’s your mother, you should suspend contact immediately, examine the evidence more carefully and make a decision about whether you continue the relationship at a later date. By investing in a relationship with your supposed ‘mother’ now, you’re wasting time and energy that could be better spent earning money or having fun.
If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong
The ridiculousness of the global-warming-scientists-are-corrupted-by-the-money argument. OTOH, if you can’t find all that cash coming from Big Wind and Big Photovoltaic, maybe it’s because they’re really good at covering it up.
Here’s how explain xkcd works.
1) We post the cartoon on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays with our attempt to explain what is going on in the cartoon.
2) You comment on the cartoon and explanation and tell us what we have missed.
3) Others vote up or down your comment to help us pick out the best explanation.
xkcd is funny as hell (which is an odd saying; I imagine hell isn’t all that funny which makes this a pretty low hurdle, or so one might think) but can be quite obscure if you aren’t “in” on the topic of a particular cartoon.
h/t to J
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the “science should be used to improve life” argument
As of writing this I have watched only the second half, which is linked in the link, to see the part about how the desire to improve life isn’t what drives basic science, it’s a byproduct. Scientists generally aren’t looking that far ahead, even if they could. You’re driven by curiosity which is aimed at the problem in front of you. Others can (and do) take discoveries and apply them.
I liked the “utility belt of understanding” metaphor, and since it’s Neil deGrasse Tyson, there’s a lot of good stuff (except for the part where he’s confusing Millikan with Michelson)
Call it fate, call it luck, Karma, whatever. I was thinking about the topic of the effort needed to do science, and then see that Doug Natelson has a post up on the subject (Battle hymn of the Tiger Professor), and Chad has already responded to it (Physics Takes Practice). Which just leaves me with the tired sports metaphor. In light of the recent Packers victory in the Super Bowl, perhaps it’s fitting to use a quote from Vince Lombardi:
Most people have the will to win, few have the will to prepare to win.
So it is with science, or any profession. It’s not enough to want to be good at something if you aren’t willing to do the work needed to perform at a high level. Is anyone really surprised to find out how much time professional athletes spend training? Or that the physically gifted ones who don’t have a good work ethic tend to fall short when they reach the professional level? Anyone who has played sports has probably had the realization that regardless of their initial skill level, getting better required doing drills and more drills, and mastering the basics was required before moving on — you can’t dribble a basketball between your legs if you can’t dribble at all. The approach to learning physics really isn’t any different.