Too often I hear phrases like "you have to respect people's opinions" or "let's just agree to disagree." No and no.
Let me take a step back for a moment with a comment that will inevitably go through your head, everyone has an opinion and you can't stop that. No kidding. We are all well aware that everyone is capable of forming their own opinion on any given subject, but just because you have an opinion, does not make it good, correct, morally superior, or deserving of respect. This blog is fundamentally about my opinions and views, and the same criticisms apply.
With the Supreme Court hearing 2 different cases related to same-sex marriage in recent weeks, opinions having been flying back and forth and those absurd phrases, listed at the top, are being spouted off at record-breaking speeds.
Phrase 1 ("you have to respect people's opinions") is something we all recognize to be complete and utter BS, but we dare not say that too loud less we offend someone. Well, fuck that. You DO NOT have to respect other people's opinions. Hell, you don't even have to respect your own, but I suspect you won't hold that opinion for much longer if that is the case. We all know this. That is why we have collectively agreed on laws, rules, and regulations to live by. We understand that an adult wanting to have sex with a young teenager is wrong, the opinions of either party be damned. The opinion of the child is not respected or honored because they are too young to make their own decisions, and the opinion of the adult is not respected or honored because we know the ramifications of his/her actions and the detrimental effects they will inevitably have on the child. We recognize that we do not have to respect either individuals opinion on the matter because it is not good, or wise, or moral, and we are all okay with throwing the adult in prison for acting upon his/her opinion.
And when it comes to marriage, the same thing applies. Some people certainly feel that their opinion for the opposition of same-sex marriage should be equally as respected as the opinion of those advocating for same-sex marriage. No. Just flat-out, NO. The opinion in opposition to gay marriage is not a respectable one. It seeks to control someone else's life by claiming that the marriage of 2 people of the same sex, somehow hurts the relationship between two people of opposite sex. No. Someone else's marriage, does not impact you. In the same way that the marriage of two people of different race was once looked at in the same way, the opposition to same-sex marriage is absurd, backwards, and divisive.
It should also be noted that many will also claim that either A) marriage is solely about reproduction, and gay people can't reproduce (apparently) B) marriage is about raising kids, and kids only function as adults with a mother and a father (apparently) and C) marriage is a religious institution and the bible says no so...no marriage.
For point A, my wife and I did not have to prove our fertility to get married. It is not a prerequisite for marriage, ask any senior in a nursing home looking to get married to another senior, if they plan on marrying to reproduce. And plenty of younger couples also marry with no intention of reproducing so...say it with me...that opinion is complete BS. And it should also be noted that getting married as a same-sex couple, does not immediately induce sterility. They can indeed reproduce, just not with one another. A surrogate mother or sperm donor are perfectly viable options, or adoption. And wait a minute! Straight couples do all of that too! So...say it with me again....that opinion is BS.
For point B, I was not raised by gay parents, so I don't have any direct experience, but every study to date has shown that while having both parents is preferred, a single parent can indeed raise a child to be a healthy and fully functioning adult. Oh, and did I mention that the sex of the parents is mute? That's right, a gay couple raising a kid, affords the same benefits as parents of the opposite sex do. So, kids can be raised just fine with one parent, and can be raised just fine with both, irregardless of their parents sexual orientation. So...say it with me again....that opinion is BS.
As for point C, marriage is a religious institution and/or a secular one. Religion does not own the rights to marriage, as people of any religious opinion are perfectly fine to marry whomever they so choose, and it has been that way for centuries. For the Catholic Church, it is a religious institution, but they only recognize Catholic Marriages, so most of us are not married in their eyes anyways. Man, it is a good thing they don't run the world or our government, otherwise their opinion might matter. So, they should not be opposing same-sex marriage, they should oppose state-recognized marriage to anyone. Let's see how well that goes over for them. For the rest of us non-Catholics, we were not asked what our religious opinion was when applying for our marriage licenses either. That is because in this country (the good ol' USA for any not in the states), marriage is a state-recognized commitment with certain social benefits. You know the line..."by the power vested in me by the state of __________, I now pronounce you husband and wife." Yea, "power vested in me by the state..." is not a religious phrase. It is also why (as a Dudeist Priest of the Church of the Dude) I can marry people in some states and why any captain on a ship or certain public officials (like a judge) can marry people too. It is not a religious concept, or instituion. So...say it with me one last time....that opinion is BS.
As for that last phrase that some reading this may be thinking ("let's just agree to disagree"), no. I do not agree to disagree. I do not agree to draw a line in the sand and each of us stand on our designated side to yell at one another. How can we ever expect to come to rational and logical conclusions on any given issue if that is the view we take? It is basically saying "let's agree to argue with one another while agreeing to never see the other person's side on the issue. Let's agree to just be contrary for the sake of me not saying something that might make me uncomfortable but makes other people happy." Some won't agree with me, and that is perfectly fine, because that is their opinion, but, in my opinion, that opinion is...
Monday, April 1, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Bad "Science"
Two years ago I was surfing the web looking for interesting science articles. It's a nice break from reading technical papers on subjects you like to be able to find a shorter, more laid-back article to get lost in for a few moments. I came across one that peaked my interest for 2 reasons, 1) it was not only an article about trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite) but canabalistic agnostid trilobites (http://www.trilobites.info/ordagnostida.htm) and 2) it was about a talk to be given at the Geological Society of America Annual meeting that fall in Denver, a meeting I planned to attend. The article was on DiscoveryNews and although I fancied myself a bit of a skeptic, I was taken in and grew more and more excited about seeing this talk and the evidence for cannibalism in the fossil record. I mean, fossils themselves are rare enough and amazing, but preserving this type of behavior in enough detail to recognize it as cannibalism? It must be good!
I went to GSA with only one talk that I HAD to see and...I was duped. The talk was by a man named Mark McMenamin (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/geology/mcmenamin) and I was just green enough as a student of paleontology to not know of his reputation. A reputation for giving talks about complete and utter nonsense and trying to pass it off as science. He has given talks on mind-control in the fossil record, evidence for aliens throughout geologic time, and a talk on the supposed existence of a giant Kraken that made murals of itself out of the bones of its dead prey. He seems to be accepted into GSA most every year because people fill the rooms to hear his talks because...well...although they may not be science, even we humble geologists like a good laugh every now and then. What harm could it do?
Unfortunately, it makes a mockery of us all when national and international news organizations pick it up and report it as fact. Bad science like the above example, undermines the fields of paleontology and geology. It peeks the interest of some and maybe gets them to read into these fields more than they would have otherwise, but they don't go for the credible science, they go for the junk. They turn off the critical thinking side of their brain and start to just accept whatever is written down because...hey, it is supposed to be science. And then you end up with schools teaching that the Loch Ness monster is real and that it is a Plesiosaur. You get people devoting hours to paranormal investigations and shows about bigfoot and aliens throughout history. All under the guise of being science.
It feeds our curiosity. We want to know more and we want to ask questions and we know that science can lead us to good answers with credible evidence to support those answers. But most don't actually look at the raw information or critically review anything being reported. So people assume that because someone invented a machine that can measure whether or not a tomato feels pain when sliced (L. Ron Hubbard's e-meter), that it must be legit. That the heat cameras used in those paranormal shows must be showing signs of ghosts. That the obscure hieroglyphs on Egyptian walls must mean aliens and advanced technology. These things are believed because they are developed to tell people what they want to hear (or what the writer wants them to hear). Somewhere along the way, people were told a story that made them think that the truth is mundane. That truth is boring. That real scientists just sit in labs with petri dishes. Something is wrong if you think that obscure stories based on anecdotal evidence about giant krakens and aliens is more interesting than the fusion occurring in every star. The fossils we actually have of organisms that are so bizarre, we did not even know which phylum to put them in at first (http://astrobio.net/albums/origins/agb.jpg). The evidence of giant bolide impacts bringing about the end of a 200 million year reign of the dinosaurs. An event called 'Snowball Earth' around 700 million years ago when our entire planet was one big ball of ice!
I went to GSA with only one talk that I HAD to see and...I was duped. The talk was by a man named Mark McMenamin (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/geology/mcmenamin) and I was just green enough as a student of paleontology to not know of his reputation. A reputation for giving talks about complete and utter nonsense and trying to pass it off as science. He has given talks on mind-control in the fossil record, evidence for aliens throughout geologic time, and a talk on the supposed existence of a giant Kraken that made murals of itself out of the bones of its dead prey. He seems to be accepted into GSA most every year because people fill the rooms to hear his talks because...well...although they may not be science, even we humble geologists like a good laugh every now and then. What harm could it do?
Unfortunately, it makes a mockery of us all when national and international news organizations pick it up and report it as fact. Bad science like the above example, undermines the fields of paleontology and geology. It peeks the interest of some and maybe gets them to read into these fields more than they would have otherwise, but they don't go for the credible science, they go for the junk. They turn off the critical thinking side of their brain and start to just accept whatever is written down because...hey, it is supposed to be science. And then you end up with schools teaching that the Loch Ness monster is real and that it is a Plesiosaur. You get people devoting hours to paranormal investigations and shows about bigfoot and aliens throughout history. All under the guise of being science.
It feeds our curiosity. We want to know more and we want to ask questions and we know that science can lead us to good answers with credible evidence to support those answers. But most don't actually look at the raw information or critically review anything being reported. So people assume that because someone invented a machine that can measure whether or not a tomato feels pain when sliced (L. Ron Hubbard's e-meter), that it must be legit. That the heat cameras used in those paranormal shows must be showing signs of ghosts. That the obscure hieroglyphs on Egyptian walls must mean aliens and advanced technology. These things are believed because they are developed to tell people what they want to hear (or what the writer wants them to hear). Somewhere along the way, people were told a story that made them think that the truth is mundane. That truth is boring. That real scientists just sit in labs with petri dishes. Something is wrong if you think that obscure stories based on anecdotal evidence about giant krakens and aliens is more interesting than the fusion occurring in every star. The fossils we actually have of organisms that are so bizarre, we did not even know which phylum to put them in at first (http://astrobio.net/albums/origins/agb.jpg). The evidence of giant bolide impacts bringing about the end of a 200 million year reign of the dinosaurs. An event called 'Snowball Earth' around 700 million years ago when our entire planet was one big ball of ice!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Statistically, your point is dishonest.
Mark Twain once said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Twain is someone I greatly admire but this one of the few times his short quotes fails him. It is certainly true that people use statistics to mislead, manipulate, and...well...lie. But the point is that if you know what to look for and question what is being put in front of you, it is possible to tease out the reliable numbers from the subjective interpretation. The statistics don't lie, the people using them do.
I have pondered how to best present this argument and I realized it might be best to do it with this video on gun rights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0
I'll start off by saying that whatever your opinions and views are on this issue, the point is to analyze what he is saying and how. You can make up your own mind as whether or not to amend our current set of laws, but using arguments like those he makes are going to put you in a position of being a manipulative and dishonest individual arguing partial truths so as to further an agenda.
So, here are the basic points of what I have found wrong with what he is saying.
First off, he starts off with points I can agree with. That there are other factors that must be considered, but he digresses quickly.
Comparing 2 years, rather than trends. He compares 1992 and present. Only comparing 2 years worth of data is misleading because crime rates can spike and drop on a year to year basis. What matters is the overall trend over the course of several years. There is a reason no one just looks at 2 years worth of data when making comparisons between other countries and between states. The same is true for comparing other sets of data like temperature and climate in the climate change debate. If you only compare averages, maxes and mins for 2 years of your choosing, you could make an argument for no change, decreasing temperatures, increasing temperaures or indeed anything you want. The point is the trend itself that exists more than just on a year to year basis.
Metropolitan areas are high concentration areas of people where crime rates should be expected to be higher. It is not just gun violence and it is not just the US where this is the case. Or indeed only modern times.
This is for 2 reasons-Increased frequency of people means more opportunity. There are more people alive today with Parkinson's than in 1900 because there are more people alive. Basically what I am saying is that when there is more opportunity, there are more occurences of some rare thing. If you only go out into the forest for an hour looking for a rare species, you may never see it. But if you set up a camera and leave it out for a year, your chances increase exponentially.-Poverty level. Low-income areas are also larger in Metropolitan areas.-Disparity between incomes. In rural areas, there are fewer high-income families and fewer low-income families. It is more of a middleground and is also connected to-Overall wealth of the area and price of basic commodities. Basically, your money goes farther in rural areas than in metropolitan areas. $20,000 in New York City is really low income and not feasible to live off of because of the price of commodities like gas, milk, bread, transportation,rent, etc. But in rural areas (like where I grew up in TN), the price of these commodities is lower. Getting a cheap car is pretty easy. Wal-Marts are frequent. And living off of $20,000 is much more reasonable (rent is ridiculously low in areas like that whereas you may not be able to find an apartment in New York for $20,000 a year)
The "true trouble spots" when looking at a neighborhood by neighborhood basis is also not surprising. Bet it is highest in low income areas. And there are more of those in metropolitan areas. These are ignored by everyone because there is no quick fix for them. It can only come from improvement of those areas from within. Basically what I am saying is they need better access to better education.
"Who is working on improving that." That is why people want universal healthcare in the US. Reducing the cost of basic commodities is highly valuable to these communities and improving the quality of the education can have a big impact too.
How do you improve the lives of the lowest income portion of the population? Man that's a tough question. I have already said education twice, but what else could you do? I don't know the answer to that.
Can you even do it in the short-term? Quick-fixes rarely work for any extended period of time, and we need long-term fixes.
Education is key. Improve education overall and you improve the ability for these people to get jobs that are not blue-collar. The white-collar jobs are more stable, pay better, and have better benefits.
I don't know of anyone that has said the US has a lower crime rate than England. He is cherry-picking what he is saying here and building a bit of a straw-man.
The murder rate is still lower in the UK. He seems to want to dismiss this. Isn't that what he is criticizing everyone else of? He is not giving a suggestion as to why their murder rate is lower, but I have a guess I will get to in a second.
Gun crime is lower. I think this is what most people are saying instead of just crime overall.
Yes, the UK has more violent crime, but that may be due to something I have already mentioned, and that is:The UK has fewer metropolitan areas, but it also has a lower population and...
Percent of Americans living in Urban and suburban areas = 82%
Percent of UK residents living in urban and suburban areas = 90%http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/...ing-cities
Crime occurs in metropolitan areas at a higher perceived rate than rural areas (something he said too) and more UK citizens live in metropolitan areas, so it would be expected for crime rates to be higher, irregardless of gun laws. But murder rate is lower even though that too should be higher in metropolitan areas. So, the UK seems to have that figured out. Basically, less access to instruments of death means lower murder rates. So the total number of metropolitan areas is not what is important, he is cherry picking again.
Crime rates in European nations have dropped too over a similar time frame. That means that the global economy is likely a major contributor, so nothing happening in the US is unique as far as dropping crime rates.
Gun crime has gone up 4-fold since they amended their gun laws, but that is a false positive in a way. It is true that those numbers have gone up, but they have gone up in the same way you would expect to see crime rates go up because you hire more cops. There is not really more crime, just more people getting caught. Think of it like this, you live on a road where the speed limit is and has been 35 mph for as long as anyone can remember and then one day, it is changed to 15 mph. Are the number of speeding tickets going to increase or decrease? They will increase because the restictions have been tightened making it easier to be considered in violation of the law and you have a generation of people who are not comfortable with the recent chances yet.
Another part of the puzzle that needs to be addressed is the frequency of mass shootings. The US is a statistical anomaly there too with a rate higher than other European nations.
Yes, the politicians have an agenda. So do the politicians on the pro-gun side. The point is that it is important to look through that agenda. I don't have cable. I don't watch the pundits. I would have been right on his side pretty much right up to the Newtown incident. Having a kid and being an hour away from something like that will quickly change your perception of such issues.
When has the media been honest about anything anyways? They over simplify on pretty much every issue because the people watching are not smart enough to understand all of the metrics.
He cherry picks data at the very end of his own video, committing something he is accusing everyone else of. He uses 2011 only, not the 2000's or some longer period of time. Using one years worth of data is misleading (again). He also only uses rifles in homicides. The point is not just that rifles are a problem.
Solving violent crime? Who is under the delusion that they can solve violent crime? Better education can help, but it won't eliminate it. He is building a pretty big straw-man here. I don't know of anyone who is saying that better gun laws will cause violent crime rates to drop, but if murder rates drop and mass shootings drop, that will be a huge step forward.
Basically, he makes all the same mistakes he is accusing everyone else of. None of his arguments actually support less or no gun restriction. The US does not have a crime rate or murder rate that implies more guns equals less crime. So, what exactly is he trying to say? It can't hurt to have this many guns and this few laws? The mass shooting statistics and murder rate say otherwise.
So perhaps Twain would have been better off having said that there are three different ways of lying: saying nothing, telling an untruth, and telling only the partial truth. This last part is concurrent with statistics in his original quote.
I have pondered how to best present this argument and I realized it might be best to do it with this video on gun rights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0
I'll start off by saying that whatever your opinions and views are on this issue, the point is to analyze what he is saying and how. You can make up your own mind as whether or not to amend our current set of laws, but using arguments like those he makes are going to put you in a position of being a manipulative and dishonest individual arguing partial truths so as to further an agenda.
So, here are the basic points of what I have found wrong with what he is saying.
First off, he starts off with points I can agree with. That there are other factors that must be considered, but he digresses quickly.
Comparing 2 years, rather than trends. He compares 1992 and present. Only comparing 2 years worth of data is misleading because crime rates can spike and drop on a year to year basis. What matters is the overall trend over the course of several years. There is a reason no one just looks at 2 years worth of data when making comparisons between other countries and between states. The same is true for comparing other sets of data like temperature and climate in the climate change debate. If you only compare averages, maxes and mins for 2 years of your choosing, you could make an argument for no change, decreasing temperatures, increasing temperaures or indeed anything you want. The point is the trend itself that exists more than just on a year to year basis.
Metropolitan areas are high concentration areas of people where crime rates should be expected to be higher. It is not just gun violence and it is not just the US where this is the case. Or indeed only modern times.
This is for 2 reasons-Increased frequency of people means more opportunity. There are more people alive today with Parkinson's than in 1900 because there are more people alive. Basically what I am saying is that when there is more opportunity, there are more occurences of some rare thing. If you only go out into the forest for an hour looking for a rare species, you may never see it. But if you set up a camera and leave it out for a year, your chances increase exponentially.-Poverty level. Low-income areas are also larger in Metropolitan areas.-Disparity between incomes. In rural areas, there are fewer high-income families and fewer low-income families. It is more of a middleground and is also connected to-Overall wealth of the area and price of basic commodities. Basically, your money goes farther in rural areas than in metropolitan areas. $20,000 in New York City is really low income and not feasible to live off of because of the price of commodities like gas, milk, bread, transportation,rent, etc. But in rural areas (like where I grew up in TN), the price of these commodities is lower. Getting a cheap car is pretty easy. Wal-Marts are frequent. And living off of $20,000 is much more reasonable (rent is ridiculously low in areas like that whereas you may not be able to find an apartment in New York for $20,000 a year)
The "true trouble spots" when looking at a neighborhood by neighborhood basis is also not surprising. Bet it is highest in low income areas. And there are more of those in metropolitan areas. These are ignored by everyone because there is no quick fix for them. It can only come from improvement of those areas from within. Basically what I am saying is they need better access to better education.
"Who is working on improving that." That is why people want universal healthcare in the US. Reducing the cost of basic commodities is highly valuable to these communities and improving the quality of the education can have a big impact too.
How do you improve the lives of the lowest income portion of the population? Man that's a tough question. I have already said education twice, but what else could you do? I don't know the answer to that.
Can you even do it in the short-term? Quick-fixes rarely work for any extended period of time, and we need long-term fixes.
Education is key. Improve education overall and you improve the ability for these people to get jobs that are not blue-collar. The white-collar jobs are more stable, pay better, and have better benefits.
I don't know of anyone that has said the US has a lower crime rate than England. He is cherry-picking what he is saying here and building a bit of a straw-man.
The murder rate is still lower in the UK. He seems to want to dismiss this. Isn't that what he is criticizing everyone else of? He is not giving a suggestion as to why their murder rate is lower, but I have a guess I will get to in a second.
Gun crime is lower. I think this is what most people are saying instead of just crime overall.
Yes, the UK has more violent crime, but that may be due to something I have already mentioned, and that is:The UK has fewer metropolitan areas, but it also has a lower population and...
Percent of Americans living in Urban and suburban areas = 82%
Percent of UK residents living in urban and suburban areas = 90%http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/...ing-cities
Crime occurs in metropolitan areas at a higher perceived rate than rural areas (something he said too) and more UK citizens live in metropolitan areas, so it would be expected for crime rates to be higher, irregardless of gun laws. But murder rate is lower even though that too should be higher in metropolitan areas. So, the UK seems to have that figured out. Basically, less access to instruments of death means lower murder rates. So the total number of metropolitan areas is not what is important, he is cherry picking again.
Crime rates in European nations have dropped too over a similar time frame. That means that the global economy is likely a major contributor, so nothing happening in the US is unique as far as dropping crime rates.
Gun crime has gone up 4-fold since they amended their gun laws, but that is a false positive in a way. It is true that those numbers have gone up, but they have gone up in the same way you would expect to see crime rates go up because you hire more cops. There is not really more crime, just more people getting caught. Think of it like this, you live on a road where the speed limit is and has been 35 mph for as long as anyone can remember and then one day, it is changed to 15 mph. Are the number of speeding tickets going to increase or decrease? They will increase because the restictions have been tightened making it easier to be considered in violation of the law and you have a generation of people who are not comfortable with the recent chances yet.
Another part of the puzzle that needs to be addressed is the frequency of mass shootings. The US is a statistical anomaly there too with a rate higher than other European nations.
Yes, the politicians have an agenda. So do the politicians on the pro-gun side. The point is that it is important to look through that agenda. I don't have cable. I don't watch the pundits. I would have been right on his side pretty much right up to the Newtown incident. Having a kid and being an hour away from something like that will quickly change your perception of such issues.
When has the media been honest about anything anyways? They over simplify on pretty much every issue because the people watching are not smart enough to understand all of the metrics.
He cherry picks data at the very end of his own video, committing something he is accusing everyone else of. He uses 2011 only, not the 2000's or some longer period of time. Using one years worth of data is misleading (again). He also only uses rifles in homicides. The point is not just that rifles are a problem.
Solving violent crime? Who is under the delusion that they can solve violent crime? Better education can help, but it won't eliminate it. He is building a pretty big straw-man here. I don't know of anyone who is saying that better gun laws will cause violent crime rates to drop, but if murder rates drop and mass shootings drop, that will be a huge step forward.
Basically, he makes all the same mistakes he is accusing everyone else of. None of his arguments actually support less or no gun restriction. The US does not have a crime rate or murder rate that implies more guns equals less crime. So, what exactly is he trying to say? It can't hurt to have this many guns and this few laws? The mass shooting statistics and murder rate say otherwise.
So perhaps Twain would have been better off having said that there are three different ways of lying: saying nothing, telling an untruth, and telling only the partial truth. This last part is concurrent with statistics in his original quote.
Friday, January 4, 2013
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? That is the...you know what? Just get them the shot.
A little over a year ago my wife and I began to sit down and have a series of serious questions on vaccinations. My wife was pregnant at the time and had been raised in a household that had become anti-vaccine over the course of her life (she had actually received most of her vaccinations as a kid). As such, she had become increasingly worried about vaccinations and the idea that they posed a threat to the kids receiving them. A threat that was to be taken seriously enough so as to not vaccinate them against diseases with very real and known effects on kids. I had not really taken the debate too seriously up to this point because my wife is intelligent enough to do her own research, and she was certainly researching the topic. But fear is a funny thing, and I found my otherwise rational and sane wife, inundating herself with largely anti-vaccine literature, only. She asked me to watch a documentary with her by PBS called "The Vaccine War" and it was not long after this that her anti-vaccine views quickly began to deteriorate.
My wife was certain that PBS would try to give both sides their fair share of face-time, as opposed to just watching a one-sided confirmation bias special. I am convinced they did, as was she. It was simply a case that the anti-vaccine side came off incredibly weak, with no credible evidence to back up any of its claims (a fact that repeats itself in any anti-vaccine literature as it holds up anecdotal evidence as viable proof), while the pro-vaccine side showed its side of the story time and time again with real evidence. She was still not convinced, and I admire her for that, but she continued to pour herself into the research in an unintentionally biased way. It finally reached a point where I had to bring to her attention the fact that her research was very one-sided. The timing was pretty much perfect, as she was beginning to realize that the only anti-vaccine advocates she could find, were...well...whack-jobs. Her frustration at being unable to find a single, credible study was beginning to build more and more. She made her mother aware of her growing frustrations, and as a concerned mother, she decided to find and send us some literature. This, as it would turn out, would become one of the final nails in the coffin for my wife's anti-vaccine views.
My mother-in-law sent us 4 books. One of them was an out of date publication from the 1980's. This particular book was pretty well ignored right out of the box as the author was not a believer in mental illness (my wife is a mental health therapist so...yea). The other 3 books however were brand new and all recent publications. So my wife began to read, and quickly found herself immersed in an obviously flawed book that had no more credible scientific information than the quacks she had been reading online. I no longer recall exactly what she read aloud, but one passage caused to me to drop what I was doing over the sheer stupidity of its claims, and pick up one of the other books to have a go myself.
The first and most noticeable aspect of the book I picked up, was that it was obviously not written by a scientist. That is not to say that all scientists write in a technical tone at all times, but the popular writings of a great many scientists, still have the tone and pacing of technical writing. This, was most certainly not that. In this book it made claims that mercury (proposed to be in the vaccines, although no mercury containing compounds are used any longer, and even then mercury is not harmful in such compounds, but I digress) was second only to plutonium as a poison. That statement makes no sense. If the danger level of an element is based on its ability to kill, surely those that cause instant death are substantially more dangerous? As such, both plutonium and mercury would not top the list. And it is not mercury in its elemental form that is dangerous, it is methyl mercury! These details were noticeably absent and further reading revealed more and more incongruencies, untruths, omissions of relevant information, and out and out misrepresentations of existing information. And it did not matter which book I opened, I found the same writing style and the same appeal to emotion instead of facts.
That was when I decided look at what the books had in common. All were published by the New Atlantean Press. My wife then noticed that the same name appeared on all 3 books, Neil Z. Miller. Once as an author, once as a co-author, and once as an editor, but all 3 read identically. A quick search by wife revealed Mr. Miller to be a journalist, not a medical professional, and also the owner of the New Atlantean Press. A self-fulfilling series of books, all saying the same thing, and all self-published with different doctors reviewing them, all of them also offering their own alternatives to vaccinations too. How convenient. That pretty well cemented my wife's concerns for vaccines. There was no credible research detailing the dangers of vaccines. There were no credible medical professionals with legitimate concerns. This was not the final nail though, one more was a mere few weeks away.
The week that my son was to be born (born on due date I might add), a brand new family member (less than a month old) fell ill. It was not clear from the outset what the illness was, but it ended up hospitalizing the newborn. It turned out to be pertussis, aka the whooping cough. A minor inconvenience for an adult, but potentially fatal to a small child. The baby was a member of a household that does not believe in vaccinations, and most likely received the illness from a sibling that was in contact with other children at school. The newborn was able to overcome the illness with the aid of hospital care, and is still growing and interacting normally with her siblings, but as I said before, fear is a powerful force. This last event was the death-stroke to our anti-vaccine discussions. It was obvious to my wife that these illnesses were a more serious threat than any supposed side-effect, and that they were very much still around (an outbreak of the whooping cough would also hit the area close to where we were living within a few weeks of our son's birth).
The point that any good scientist will raise to anyone that will listen, is that you should always ask questions. Being skeptical of the information that is out there is a GOOD thing. But the decisions you make, often do have real consequences and the vaccine debate is one such area. The anti-vaccine movement is relatively new to the US and you don't have to go back too far in world history to find vaccines as the champion of medical advancements, but the anti-vaccine movement is not one built off of credible facts or reliable sources. It is one based off of fear. I'll let you be the judge on which side has a stronger argument, but my suggestion is this, just get them the shots.
My wife was certain that PBS would try to give both sides their fair share of face-time, as opposed to just watching a one-sided confirmation bias special. I am convinced they did, as was she. It was simply a case that the anti-vaccine side came off incredibly weak, with no credible evidence to back up any of its claims (a fact that repeats itself in any anti-vaccine literature as it holds up anecdotal evidence as viable proof), while the pro-vaccine side showed its side of the story time and time again with real evidence. She was still not convinced, and I admire her for that, but she continued to pour herself into the research in an unintentionally biased way. It finally reached a point where I had to bring to her attention the fact that her research was very one-sided. The timing was pretty much perfect, as she was beginning to realize that the only anti-vaccine advocates she could find, were...well...whack-jobs. Her frustration at being unable to find a single, credible study was beginning to build more and more. She made her mother aware of her growing frustrations, and as a concerned mother, she decided to find and send us some literature. This, as it would turn out, would become one of the final nails in the coffin for my wife's anti-vaccine views.
My mother-in-law sent us 4 books. One of them was an out of date publication from the 1980's. This particular book was pretty well ignored right out of the box as the author was not a believer in mental illness (my wife is a mental health therapist so...yea). The other 3 books however were brand new and all recent publications. So my wife began to read, and quickly found herself immersed in an obviously flawed book that had no more credible scientific information than the quacks she had been reading online. I no longer recall exactly what she read aloud, but one passage caused to me to drop what I was doing over the sheer stupidity of its claims, and pick up one of the other books to have a go myself.
The first and most noticeable aspect of the book I picked up, was that it was obviously not written by a scientist. That is not to say that all scientists write in a technical tone at all times, but the popular writings of a great many scientists, still have the tone and pacing of technical writing. This, was most certainly not that. In this book it made claims that mercury (proposed to be in the vaccines, although no mercury containing compounds are used any longer, and even then mercury is not harmful in such compounds, but I digress) was second only to plutonium as a poison. That statement makes no sense. If the danger level of an element is based on its ability to kill, surely those that cause instant death are substantially more dangerous? As such, both plutonium and mercury would not top the list. And it is not mercury in its elemental form that is dangerous, it is methyl mercury! These details were noticeably absent and further reading revealed more and more incongruencies, untruths, omissions of relevant information, and out and out misrepresentations of existing information. And it did not matter which book I opened, I found the same writing style and the same appeal to emotion instead of facts.
That was when I decided look at what the books had in common. All were published by the New Atlantean Press. My wife then noticed that the same name appeared on all 3 books, Neil Z. Miller. Once as an author, once as a co-author, and once as an editor, but all 3 read identically. A quick search by wife revealed Mr. Miller to be a journalist, not a medical professional, and also the owner of the New Atlantean Press. A self-fulfilling series of books, all saying the same thing, and all self-published with different doctors reviewing them, all of them also offering their own alternatives to vaccinations too. How convenient. That pretty well cemented my wife's concerns for vaccines. There was no credible research detailing the dangers of vaccines. There were no credible medical professionals with legitimate concerns. This was not the final nail though, one more was a mere few weeks away.
The week that my son was to be born (born on due date I might add), a brand new family member (less than a month old) fell ill. It was not clear from the outset what the illness was, but it ended up hospitalizing the newborn. It turned out to be pertussis, aka the whooping cough. A minor inconvenience for an adult, but potentially fatal to a small child. The baby was a member of a household that does not believe in vaccinations, and most likely received the illness from a sibling that was in contact with other children at school. The newborn was able to overcome the illness with the aid of hospital care, and is still growing and interacting normally with her siblings, but as I said before, fear is a powerful force. This last event was the death-stroke to our anti-vaccine discussions. It was obvious to my wife that these illnesses were a more serious threat than any supposed side-effect, and that they were very much still around (an outbreak of the whooping cough would also hit the area close to where we were living within a few weeks of our son's birth).
The point that any good scientist will raise to anyone that will listen, is that you should always ask questions. Being skeptical of the information that is out there is a GOOD thing. But the decisions you make, often do have real consequences and the vaccine debate is one such area. The anti-vaccine movement is relatively new to the US and you don't have to go back too far in world history to find vaccines as the champion of medical advancements, but the anti-vaccine movement is not one built off of credible facts or reliable sources. It is one based off of fear. I'll let you be the judge on which side has a stronger argument, but my suggestion is this, just get them the shots.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Grand Theft Science
I want to start off this blog on a topic I imagine I will revisit more than once over the course of my blogging career (depending on its longevity of course). Creation "Science" and the Creation "Museum." There are a number of good youtube videos detailing some of the exhibits you will encounter in this fun-house parading as a museum. I have never had the...uh...pleasure of visiting this particular side-show attraction myself, but I do know some people who have. Some of those that have wandered it's exhibits have come out of it with the understanding that it is nothing more than an attempt at a biblical representation based on faith with animatronics thrown in for the kiddies. Others have however, come out of it thinking that they had just witnessed real science. The illusion complete, they make the mistake so many others do when confronted with something someone calls "science." They stop thinking critically about what is in front of them. Now, I could spend a good deal of time in this first post talking about the inaccuracies within, but this post is about something else. It is about the blatant disrespect, the plagiarism, and the outright theft of the hard-work of real scientists.
You see, whenever you see someone (or an organization) touting about this type of "science" to the public, it should be understood that everything in their exhibit it is not only horrifically inaccurate in its interpretation, but other pieces within are stolen from real scientists doing real science. It is the hard work of these scientists that is being used to push an agenda of biblical proportions. That animatronic T. rex? Stolen. The interpretation that it was a vegetarian and not a carnivore? Blatantly false and a complete disregard for the scientists who have devoted their careers to these animals. When I say the dinosaur is stolen, I don't mean they literally stole it. They did spend a good deal of money having it built after all, but what I mean is that the reconstruction of it, the idea of how it moved and how it stood and it's coloring and basically every detail of its anatomy and physiology, is hijacked from the scientists who have spent their careers studying these organisms. Imagine if you will that you are a master chef. You have spent your career perfecting a dish close to your heart. You set this dish loose upon the world for all to enjoy, and then someone else takes it, calls it their own, and begins to throw out the core ingredients that make it special. What is left is no longer your masterpiece of fine Italian cuisine, but a bland plate of spaghetti and meatballs with the name of YOUR dish plastered all over it. I suspect you would be outraged, and rightly so. These animals and plants that the creation museum displays are done so in complete disregard of the rest of the work the scientists who discovered, described, and reconstructed them did. The out and out lies that they spew forth about the geology of such spectacular places as the Grand Canyon and their misrepresentations of the Geological column is a punch in the face to all of the geosciences.
Look, I don't care what your religious beliefs are, as long as you keep them to yourself. If you don't ask me to believe it, great! If you don't push it on my son, great! But if you want to take the hard work of my colleagues and myself and misconstrue it to further you're own agenda, then we have a problem.
Sir Issac Newton once said "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Institutions like the Creation Museum stand on the shoulders of these giants in science, and act as if they own their work. They disregard them. They take their credit. They misconstrue their work. They blur the definition of science and ask people to take their opinions based on faith, something no scientist would ever ask of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)