Daily Non Sequitur

God, I love Non Sequitur. Sometimes Wiley just nails it.

Bad publicity better than no publicity??

It appears as if I've named my site after a Trojan horse: From the Symantec Security Response Database, Trojan.NetBuie.A is a Trojan horse that comes disguised as an XBox emulator. According to Symantec,

Its only purpose is to produce periodic hits on a specific Internet Web page. (At the time that this write-up was published, the Web site had been removed.)

Truthfully, I registered my domain long before this virus appeared, but nobody will care about that. All that will matter is that my site has the same name as a documented Trojan horse.

That's just great. Thanks to the losers that wrote the thing. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before my site is blocked by URL filters everywhere. My company uses Webwasher, so I'll know the reason when I won't be able to access my own site from work.

Nuts.

Science Friday on Science and Religion, and other topics

Yesterday's Science Friday dealt with issues between science and religion, as well as Mars, Titan, and who knows what else:

Science and Religion Part 1: Physical Sciences
Science and Religion Part 2: Biological Sciences

I'm listening to the first part right now, and about the only comment I'll make is that I love listening to Steven Weinberg. He's just a no bullshit kind of guy. The other guest I'm finding fascinating to listen to is Varadaraja Raman, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Humanities, Rochester Institute of Technology. Oddly, even with the other two guests representing the "religion" side, there hasn't been much disagreement among the guests so far other than some relatively minor differences in religion's personal significance to each of them. Then again, this crew isn't exactly representative of the population in general... I feel certain once they start taking calls from listeners we'll hear some disagreement.

I'm looking forward to listening to the second hour (see link above) with Susan Jacoby.

Update! I knew it wouldn't last. The very first caller in Part I complained about scientists actively trying to disprove "religion," and that she, as a Christian, had arrived at a belief in Intelligent Design via application of logic. When questioned, she confirmed that really the only science she has a problem with is evolution.

Now this is just silly, and intellectually lazy. If evolution gives you problems, you should be honest and apply the same criteria to other areas of science. You'll quickly find many other things that give you problems. Again, this kind of honest comment reveals that evolutionary theory is being singled out by the proponents of Intelligent Design, and that it's not really about "balanced treatement" despite their claims to the contrary.

Realclimate.org

I've found RealClimate.org, a weblog started by several actual climatologists to combat the politically-motivated PR machine that questions the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. One of the primary authors of the site is Dr. Michael Mann, from the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences. One of the most vocal critics of anthropogenic climate change (ie, "global warming") is Dr. Patrick Michaels, also of the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences. I wonder what they say to each other at the department coffee maker each morning...

Anyway,RealClimate.org is an interesting place to visit. A recent post is an in-depth critique of Michael Crichton's new fictional novel State of Fear. There's another lengthy post taking political columnist George Will to task for a recent column in which he enthusiastically and uncritically endorses the views contained in State of Fear.

Read it all and make up your own mind. Most of the critical comment seem to be along the lines of "You are all just a bunch of tree-hugging dumbass liberals." Not very helpful. One individual commented that she (?) thought George Will probably knows more about science than the scientists know about politics, so the scientists should just shut up and leave George alone. This comment only reinforces my personal opinion that the global warming debate is rooted more in politics than science; the science, while not entirely indisputable, is broadly supported within the scientific community in general and within the discipline of climatology in particular. The notable opponents seem to be motivated by a political agenda rather than the desire for "good science." Not that they will come out an admit it...

Climatologists vs Michael Crichton

I found some interesting reading regarding this whole Michael Crichton business. I'll try to post them tomorrow. Right now I'm tired and sick of staring at the computer screen, so I'm going to bed...

Georgia anti-evolution stickers

An amicus curiae brief has been posted by TalkOrigins.org. The brief was filed in support of the challenge to the anti-evolution stickers in the Selman v. Cobb County School District case.

Law Evolution Science and Junk Science has an excellent legal analysis of the brief.

Intelligent Design in the NY Times

The New York Times recently published an Op-Ed piece on the latest dust-up between biologists and the religious right. It's worth reading (free registration required).

If the link doesn't work, it was authored by Susan Jacoby and published on 19 January, 2005.

Scientist vs O'Reilly

I just don't even know what to make of this one. Actually, I do know what to make of it; there's so much wrong I don't know where to begin.

So, I'm not going to go into detail why this whole exchange depresses and outrages me, you'll have to follow the links.

Bill O'Reilly defended Intelligent Design recently on his nightly show, here's the transcript.

Evolutionblog has a detailed treatment of the exchange, as does The Panda's Thumb.

The only comment I'm going to make on this whole mess is in regard to this statement by the author of Evolutionblog:

As I said yesterday, these chat shows exist for the sole purpose of aggrandizing their hosts. What O'Reilly understands that many of his guests do not understand is that talking to his viewers is like to talking to babies: It doesn't matter what you say. All that matters is the tone you use. You will never be able to nail someone like O'Reilly because he works completely unfettered by any regard for the truth or the facts. All that matters is that he is the one talking most of the time and that his tone is one of complete confidence.

All of cable news and all of talk radio is like this. The only comforting aspect of this I can think of is that O'Reilly is by far the most successful cable host and he only gets about three million viewers a night.

Three million viewers a night?? While that might not be very many in the world of TV, that's a hell of a lot of people watching this guy shout down people who dare to disagree with him. "Only" three million viewers a night watching Bill O'Reilly does not make me feel any better.

Fat lazy Americans

Of which I'm clearly one. Like most of us, I know what I need to do, I just find reasons not to do it.

I've been arguing the (apparently) losing side against fad diets (including the Atkins Diet) for years. I have been telling anyone who would listen to me (and many who wouldn't) that wierd diets aren't necessary for most people to lose weight. You do not have to jettison entire food groups from your diet, whether it's fats or carbs.

It's really very simple: to lose weight, burn more calories than you eat. This translates into an overall weight loss strategy of eat less and exercise more.

Yes, yes... carbohydrate metabolism is different from fat metabolism which is different from protein metabolism. The body is very complicated and all that. Yada, yada, blah blah. I am not saying fad diets don't work, that the Adkins diet won't result in weight loss. What I'm saying is that I do not believe low carb diets are the best solution for the average person who is otherwise healthy, but would like to lose 20 pounds.

If, on average, you require 2000 calories per 24 hrs to maintain body mass, then averaging 3000 calories per day over some period of time will have only one result. You will gain weight. If you average fewer than 2000 calories per day over some period of time, you will lose weight. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but it's an adequate enough axiom for most of us. Unless you are an athlete in training or a body builder, or suffer from a medical condition, keeping track of your food intake to that level of detail is simply unnecessary. Keep rough track of the calories you've eaten, and the calories you've burned, and go from there.

Obviously, if you drink 4 sodas a day, you've already consumed 1000 calories without eating a bite. This will make it much more difficult to limit your calories to 2000 per day. Beyond the oversimplification of reducing all foods to their caloric content, 1000 calories per day of mostly pure sugar has other consequences.

From the perspective of weight loss/gain, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is a unit of energy. Which is not to say carbs, fats and proteins are all equal in terms of calories per unit mass.

I think fad diets catch on because we are all looking for a way to lose weight without doing either of the things I recommend. People don't want to eat less, and they don't want to exercise. They want to lose weight without doing much of anything. If they can lose weight by eating nothing but hamburger patties and bacon, they'll sure as hell try. Instead, they should be eating a smaller hamburger, perhaps a salad instead of french fries, and either water or at worst a regular-size soda.

What I know about diet programs like Weight Watchers supports my position, I think. Values or points are assigned to various foods reflecting their caloric equivalents. What Weight Watchers does is provide a framework for you to keep track of what you eat, perhaps even allow you to justify a milkshake now and then (but you are accountable for the calories!), and even more importantly, a support group to help you not eat as much.

But, again, this is too hard. Nobody wants to keep track of what they eat. Nobody wants to eat peach slices with flaxseed instead of french fries. We expect to be able to eat 4000 calories of crap per day, not exercise, and still lose weight.

But, hey... it's not just my opinion...Looks like the Feds agree with me.

more intelligent design, plus michael crichton bashing!

Salon.com has a lengthy article discussing the latest skirmish in the evolution vs. creationism battle in educational districts. You have to click-through a brief ad to read the whole thing, but it's worth reading.

Fundamentally, the problem is summarized by this excerpt:

This past December, Republican strategist Jack Burkman appeared on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" to back creationism in terms of populist democracy. "Why should the state and the federal government have a monopoly on defining what constitutes science?" he asked. "I see no problem with presenting a creationist view in the schools, given that 70 percent of Americans want that. The law should reflect democratic desires. It should reflect public desires."

Of course, public desires don't determine the physical facts of the world. "The best argument that the creationists have got is that it's only fair to teach both sides," Matzke said. "The problem with that argument is that science is not a democracy and a lot of times there aren't two correct sides. There are people who believe that the sun goes around the earth. They're called geocentrists. That doesn't mean we should teach that."

In other words, there is a common misperception that all opinions and ideas are equal. Every issue has multiple equivalent viewpoints.

This is utter horseshit. Wishing won't make it so. You can close your eyes and pretend the world works differently, but that has nothing to do with whether bacteria cause disease, it will not make the universe 6000 years old, and it will not make evolution false. Some opinions are, in fact, just wrong. In the words of Scott (Dilbert) Adams, "Since when did ignorance become a point of view?"

This "balanced treatment" stuff is a crock. We might discuss the flat earthers in historical context, but we don't give their views equal weight in a science classroom. Because they are wrong. Like it or not, evolution is as true as gravity.

Science works because it ultimately rejects concepts that do not accurately describe the data. Yes, science is a human interpretation of the world, but it makes an attempt at predicting future events rather than just wishing things were so.

And now the Michael Crichton bashing!

Also of note on Salon.com is an interview with Jared Diamond. Diamond is a brilliant scientist, and an uncommon writer. His writings are universally reviled by right-wing reactionaries who deride anyone who disagrees with them as tree-worshipping Liberal weenies. Which should be enough of a reason for anyone with half a brain to want to read them.

To facilitate the Michael Chrichton bashing, an excerpt from the interview with Jared Diamond:

Have you heard of Michael Crichton's new book, "State of Fear," and its premise that a bunch of environmentalists are upset that their cause isn't getting the attention it deserves so they go around staging environmental disasters? Crichton has said publicly, as well as in his heavily footnoted book, that global warming is bunk -- which would be laughable were not the print run of his book one and a half million copies.

Everything you say is true. There are a couple of things to be added to it. One is that my previous book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," has sold more copies than Michael Crichton's one and a half million, so I think my new book will get to more readers. And the other thing is that Michael Crichton is a very skilled writer of fiction. And fiction is, by definition, the telling of stories that are untrue. He's very good at that. And I'm a writer of nonfiction, which aims to be the telling of stories that are true.

Except Crichton thinks he's a scientist. He thinks he can interpret extremely complex climatological data using sophisticated statistical techniques better than the world's brightest and most highly-trained climatologists. Crichton thinks the world's brightest and most highly-trained climatologists are so crippled by unstated political motives that they are, in effect, lying about the data. Either overtly, or without even knowing it. They don't know how to interpret their own data.

But not Michael Crichton. He knows better than all of those guys. He is, after all, a medical doctor. He's much smarter than those scientists, who just have PhDs.

No doubt his ideas on climatology will have as much effect as "Jurassic Park" has had on genetic research. Useful as a plot device, but of no actual scientific value. Just because he's rich and thinks he's smart doesn't make him right.

republic vs democracy

Well, guess what... I'm already talking about politics. Sort of.

A friend of mine sent me a link to a brief essay that discusses whether the US is a democracy or a republic. Walter Williams is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University; he concludes his essay by asking the following:

Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

I have to say I agree with Dr. Williams, only I think it's worse than that. I think not only do we generally want the kind of tyranny he suggests, I think there are many who are actively working to ensure it. They know exactly what they're doing.

Quiet month

I haven't felt much need to post anything in the last month or so. I decided to stop with the daily political comments, mainly because it was taking so much time, and because there are so many other political blogs it just didn't seem like it was a great way to spend what little time I have...

Which isn't to say this site will be politics-free. I have no love for Dubya, or the Republican Party, or much of the Democratic Party, for that matter. I just won't bitch and whine every day in writing. I have more or less imposed a political news "embargo" on myself, for the sake of my own mental health. I was too pissed off too much of the time, and that's just not healthy. I'm in bad enough shape without the added stress of being constantly pissed over events I can't control directly.

So, Happy New Year. Same as the old year.