February 29th, 2008 The Lone Beagle
HOLY HOT DOGS batman, it’s the bottom of the ninth and the Mighty Casey is coming up to bat.
Grab your popcorn folks, pop your beer and come witness the spectacle that is Casey Luskin as he gracefully falls flat on his face in his attempt to hit one out of the park.
The fun all happens below the fold.
Posted in News | No Comments »
February 20th, 2008 RWA
Both Sean Carroll and Lubos Motl have written great posts thoroughly debunking that popular paranormal phenomenon known properly as “telekinesis”, and more popularly as “spoon bending”. James Randi and Martin Gardner, of course, are old hands at this, but as physicists, Carroll and Motl bring their own expertise and perspective into explaining why it is impossible. It all boils down to the two basic objects that physics studies and tries to explain: matter and the forces acting upon them. Ordinary matter, such as that which makes up you and me or a spoon or a fork, is very simply made up of three basic particles: up quarks, down quarks, and leptons, with gluons holding the first two together. That’s it. There’s nothing special about a spoon, a brain, a rock, a Toyota or a Norah Jones CD beyond the way the fundamental particles are arranged. If there are other particles which are constitutive of matter, they must be fiendishly difficult to detect and ultimately, inconsequential to its observable properties, and so cannot be invoked to support the spoon-bender’s arguments.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in News | No Comments »
February 19th, 2008 RWA
Over at NRO’s The Corner, the indefatigable John Derbyshire has been on a roll critiquing the trailer to Expelled (read the DC thread here). Another Cornerite, Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute, expressed some skepticism about whether or not ID is really that much of a menace to science. Needless to say, that’s a statement only a non-scientist could make, but instead of letting it pass, I decided to explain Mr.Hayward just why it is indeed a danger not just to science and rational thought, but everything else we hold dear (or at least should hold dear). I haven’t heard back from Hayward yet, but I’m reprinting my letter here, in the hope of persuading any other laypeople who may be reading about why it is such a big deal to us scientific types.
Dear Mr.Hayward:
The question “why worry about unreason in science” is almost rhetorical. Science is the complete antithesis of unreason. It is one of the most beautiful products of men’s minds and civilizations, and is dependent on the careful use of reason and empirical data in order for it to work properly. The imposition of unreason on science is far worse than in the humanities, because it completely sabotages its primary functions of helping to best understand the external world. The humanities are not, by and large, dependent on the scientific method, and in fact, precede it. They make use of their own methods of interpretation and analysis and specific standards of judgement whic are far different than those in the sciences. Moreover, the irrationalism within the humanities comes from its own practioniers; the people trying to impose ID and other forms of unreason on the scientific community are outsiders, bent on imposing their theology on a community which neither needs nor wants it, and properly recognizes it as being harmful to the scientific enterprise. The scientific community is indeed beleagured at the moment, as the irrationalists, fed up with being (rightfully) ignored, are now resorting to legal recourse to force their nonsense to be taught in school. As a member of the AEI, you should be concerned about what will happen to America’s standing if its students grow up believing a false theory-especially since the biological sciences will be driving much of the economy in the next century.
But Intelligent Design is not just bad for science and bad for America-it is bad for conservatism. Every time a conservative advocates intelligent design or creationism, my heart drops, because it means that person has proved him or herself incapable of understanding the scientific method or thoroughly researching the facts. It also means that for the unpersuaded, when they see so many ostensiable conservatives advocating pseudoscience and biblical idiolatry over true science and rational thought, will impulsively run away from anything tainted with conservatism, because conservatism itself is now perceived by them as being tainted with unreason. We cannot win wars against academic or media bias if we insist that lies and falsehoods be taught in the schools and universities, or be given equal time in the public discourse. Creationism is NOT conservative. True conservatism, like true science, deals with the way the universe is, not how we wish it to be (a quote coined by a friend of mine who is both a conservative and a scientist-a physicist, to be precise). Conservatism desperately needs a new Bill Buckley, who will divorce it from the Discovery Institute the same way Buckley divorced it from the John Birch Society if it is regain any relevance or credence.
I leave you with the following blog post. It is from a site I belong to, called Darwin Central. We are a loosely-knit coalition of conservatives, libertarians and moderate Republicans who regard commitment to science and informed thought to be a patriotic duty. Please read it, and I hope I will leave with you a greater understanding of the importance of fighting for science and against unreason-for the future of our country and our culture.
And that (with apologies to both Bill O’Reilly and Lubos Motl) is the memo
Posted in News | 1 Comment »
You are currently browsing the Darwin Central weblog archives for February, 2008.
