Category: Uncategorized (Page 50 of 52)

A few nights ago, my wife and I hitched up the wagons and headed in to the big city to pick up the in-laws at the airport. On the way back, she was complaining about the lack of crappy 80s hair metal on my iPod. We started naming off as many crappy 80s hair metal bands and their crappy songs as we could. After a while, I had one song painfully stuck in my head: Kix’s “Don’t Close Your Eyes.” We dropped off her parents. As we approached our own house, I said, “That stupid song is playing at home right this very moment.” As soon as I walked in the door, I turned on the TV and looked for the appropriate channel.

The screeching of “Don’t Close Your Eyes” immediately sounded through the living room. On the one hand, it was somehow like victory. On the other hand, it sort of bugged me. I can readily see how some people would look at this as something more than a funny coincidence. In this case, it was something of no consequence whatsoever. If it had been some “intuition” of great consequence, this sort of thing could make someone a believer in the paranormal. Worse, it could reinforce the already deluded. Of course, if I had the time, I could run through the stats: How many iconic songs are there in each little niche genre? How are the playlists made for those music channels on DirecTV? Would we still call it a “hit” if it had come up as the next song, rather than the first? I think the combination of these could give us a double digit percentage probability.

It all comes down to one truth, though.

Weird stuff happens.

The Spanish Inquisitor had up a recent picture of Newt. With that expression, I got it stuck in my head that he looked a lot like Uncle Arthur from the 60s TV show “Bewitched.”

For some reason, I wasn’t able to find an Uncle Arthur (actor Paul Lynde, by the way) picture with just that expression.

An unfortunate practice has come to be an inescapable part of modern journalism. This is the introduction of “false balance” to any subject. I have written about that before, but I have only now really figured out a reasonable counter for it. During this morning’s drive to work, I was listening to the Point of Inquiry podcast. The host, Chris Mooney, was interviewing the head of the National Center for Science Education, Dr. Eugenie Scott. The topic was the recent decision of the NCSE to begin focusing on Climate Change Denial.

As the two discussed the overlap of Climate Change Denialists with Evolution denialists, I wondered about the lack of a means of identifying those individuals who are considered cranks by their peers. There certainly must be a reasonable means for doing so. Absent anything in the literature, I will take a first stab at it (I will call the individual under scrutiny the “test subject”):

First, the field of the test subject should be a recognized field of study. That is to say we should not need to proceed any further once we realize the test subject is a homeopath or astrologer. The bar for this should be fairly low. I say that since there are such pursuits as chiropractic wherein a fairly sizable fraction are non-cranks.

Second, we find whether the test subject is working in his own field. A number of true experts within the bounds of their own fields become crackpots when they leave those bounds. Linus Pauling was a brilliant scientist who became an advocate of curing cancer with vitamins. An unfortunate number of medical doctors and engineers fall victim to extrapolating their abilities into foreign fields of study.

Third, the test subject should be an expert in his subject. He needn’t be particularly well-known, but he should be recognized as an expert by other experts. Note that it often happens that a single instance of apparent crackpottery is enough to damage one’s “expert” credentials for life.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the test subject should not be considered a crackpot by his peers. This one is important. If colleague thinks you’re crazy, maybe it’s him. If you think everybody else is crazy, maybe it’s you.

If such indicators inform a journalist’s treatment of her subject, she will be doing a service to her profession and to her audience.

In all my readings, I only know of two individuals who were “laughed at” yet turned out to be correct.

Alfred Wegener was a respected geophysicist with notable contributions in meteorology and climatology. In his studies, he noticed similarities between creatures, living and fossil, in facing coasts. After much research, he wrote The Origins of Continents and Oceans. Despite his reputation, many reacted negatively to his claims. He would continue to contribute to the the fields of meteorology and geophysics as a professor at the University of Graz until his death during field work. It was only matter of time before geophysics caught up enough to provide a mechanism for Wegener’s continental drift.

The other was a real crank, whose lack of understanding of basic physics proved to be a boon. Guglielmo Marconi’s failure to grasp that electromagnetic radiation travels in straight lines (and thus generally require line-of-sight for transmission) caused him to attempt over-the-horizon transmission by simply increasing the power. Given that he was using spark-gap signal, the power involved was phenomenal. Unbeknownst to himself or competent electrical engineers however, signals may be reflected off atmospheric layers.

I don’t watch much football, but I did catch the latter part of the Denver-New England game. It was painful. I found myself feeling sorry for Tebow. He may be a religious loon, but probably no worse than a number of professional athletes. The fact that he is also a reasonably good-looking clean-cut white kid made him the toast of the religious right. It is they, and not he, that I hope can stew on this for a while (from USA Today):

With the Broncos passing game so inept (Tebow completed nine of 26 passes for 136 yards, with a 52.7 efficiency rating) that they were calling option runs in the second half despite trailing by four touchdowns at the intermission, Brady put on a clinic.

Ouch.

I saw this at Crooks & Liars:

In April, Congressional Republicans extracted $600 million in cuts from the IRS in return for a spending deal with President Obama, reductions which at the time were forecast to cost the Treasury $4 billion in lost revenue.

From whom would the money collected through improved enforcement come? Not wage slaves. Republicans (and, to a lesser extent, Democrats) know on which side their bread is buttered. This is just an overt case of “trickle down” theory working exactly as planned. That is to say, it is working as planned, but not as marketed. The people who sell these bills of goods are not now and never have been under the delusion that what they are saying is true.