Be Careful What You Publish

I'm a little late in posting this, but I thought this ought to be discussed. We've talked a lot about the report of superluminal neutrinos and how the erroneous measurement was apparently caused by a loose cable and some clock drift. Well, apparently Dario Auterio and Antonio Ereditato both resigned from their positions as OPERA team leaders after the final investigations concluded and OPERA's collaboration board gave them a vote of "no confidence." I was personally just surprised at the direction all of this took.

Calculators, Social Media and Dumbing The Human Brain.

Bill Keller, the editor of the New Times, has written an article in which he suggests modern technology is great for so many reasons and yet he fears it is dumbing us down. Here are some interseting quotes:

On Memory:

Joshua Foer’s... best seller “Moonwalking With Einstein” recalls... what we trade for progress. Until the 15th century, people were taught to remember vast quantities of information. Feats of memory that would today qualify you as a freak — the ability to recite entire books — were not unheard of.

Then along came... Johannes Gutenberg. As we became accustomed to relying on the printed page, the work of remembering gradually fell into disuse.

On Calculating Skills:

My father, who was trained in engineering at M.I.T. in the slide-rule era, often lamented the way the pocket calculator, for all its convenience, diminished my generation’s math skills.

On Navigations and Penmanship: 

Many of us have discovered that navigating by G.P.S. has undermined our mastery of city streets and perhaps even impaired our innate sense of direction. Typing pretty much killed penmanship.

On Pattern Recognition:

Robert Bjork, who studies memory and learning at U.C.L.A., has noticed that even very smart students, conversant in the Excel spreadsheet, don’t pick up patterns in data that would be evident if they had not let the program do so much of the work.

“Unless there is some actual problem solving and decision making, very little learning happens,” Bjork e-mailed me. “We are not recording devices.”

On Facebook:

Last week my wife and I told our 13-year-old daughter she could join Facebook. Within a few hours she had accumulated 171 friends, and I felt a little as if I had passed my child a pipe of crystal meth.

On Becoming Cyborgs While Outsourcing Our Brians:

“This is the story of the next half-century,” Foer told me, “as we become effectively cyborgs.”  Basically, we are outsourcing our brains to the cloud. 

And Keller's Big Worry:

But before we succumb to digital idolatry, we should consider that innovation often comes at a price. And sometimes I wonder if the price is a piece of ourselves.... My inner worrywart wonders whether the new technologies overtaking us may be eroding characteristics that are essentially human: our ability to reflect, our pursuit of meaning, genuine empathy, a sense of community connected by something deeper than snark or political affinity.

Unfortunately I think he makes some good points.  On one hand these technologies make our life much easier and make things possible that would have never been possible without that same technology.  On the other, I fear relying too much on technology erodes at our basic intellectual faculties.

The other day a friend of mine said something like: "I could care less about studying philosophy. Who wants to sit around and do nothing except think about useless questions when we have TVs, Facebook and the internet in general which is actually fun."

Now, I am not trying to go onto some anti-technology rant. I love technology. But I think it is healthy to be aware of prices we may be paying to enjoy it. Losing math skills to calculators. Trading philosophy for watching 30 second sound bits on an internet site designed to telling you what you want to hear.  Having no need for a sharp memory when the information you need is just a few clicks away. Etc...

Thoughts?

BYU Law School #2 If Value Is Considered?

As a BYU alumni, I have to give a shout-out whenever I see something worthy of praise.  BYU has yet another reason to feel it gives an exceptional education for the money: Malcom Gladwell, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, ranks BYU's law school as #2 in the country behind the University of Chicago after "the school’s affordability [is taken into account] in its rankings".

Here are the top ten law schools, as reported in this Wall Street Journal article, after affordability is considered:

1. Chicago
2. BYU
3. Harvard
4. Yale
5. Texas
6. Virginia
7. Colorado
8. Alabama
9. Stanford
10. Penn

Anyways, congrats BYU for yet another example of providing a great education for the money!

How Much Should Scientists Extrapolate The Known To The Unknown?

We know an awful lot about the observable universe in the "low-energy" regime and a question that bugs my mind is: how much should we extrapolate what we know about the universe to regions we technically don't know much about? Three recent events have made me think about this:

1. Dr. Kolb and Turner, who probably gave the most enjoyable talks at the AAS Meeting, bristled at the idea that many cosmologists are convinced we live in a multiverse from extrapolating what we know about the observable universe and went into outright mockery of string theorists who have dreamed up branes, landscapes, etc... by doing the same thing.
2. Sean Carrol, who recently polled readers of how likely inflation was, suggested one of the reasons he only gives inflation a 75% chance of being real is that it involves energy scales that we know nothing about. (But in fairness to inflation, this leads to predictions that are verified so you can't put in in the same category as something like string theory. :))
3. Jonathan recently asked if it was fair to say the universe is flat globally if we only have data showing flatness "locally".  

Now, first of all I think there is one very good reason to extrapolate: It's the best we can do given what we know now!

But I guess one question that bothers me is: How much confidence should we put in our extrapolation of known physics to the unknown?

I will give you an overly simplistic example just to make sure we are on the same page.  What if we were living in a one dimensional world and this was our observable universe:

Now, what would we, living at that red dot, conclude about the whole universe from extrapolation?  Probably that we live on a sine wave.  And from x between -6 and 6 that assumption would seem to work very well.

But what if it turns out this was our universe:

As we see here, our assumptions based on extrapolation would be wrong.

Now many of you will think this is childish, but is it?

For example: there was a day when humans had good reasons to believe the earth was flat.  They extrapolated... and they were wrong.  There were others who had good evidence that the sun and stars orbited around the earth.  They extrapolated... and they were wrong.  There were others who had experimental reasons to think gravity can effect all other matter instantaneously. (Action at a distance)  They extrapolated... and they were wrong. Etc...

And so I wonder how likely we are to be falling into the same trap as our ancestors?  On one hand extrapolation is all, and is the most honest thing, we can do.  But on the other, history has had a way of punishing the extrapolaters.  

One should be said though: once new data does come demonstrating our cherished "extrapolated" theories are wrong, eventually the mainstream science community drops them and moves on.  History has shown that eventually mainstream science will lead toward the right answer as more data comes in on the matter.

So what do you think?  How much confidence should we scientists put in our "theories from extrapolation"?

Poverty, Education and Causation.

Jonathan Livengood has posted an interesting post on poverty, education and causation that I encourage everyone to read. (Speaking of causation, I remember being told in GR causation is something that is assumed in the development of the theory. Of course, I wanted to know why we should make such an assumption leaving my GR teacher speechless.  I mean, it seems fishy to me if it must be assumed because then what if our assumption is wrong? Anyways, back to the post.)

I want to just show one of his plots:

There seems to be an inverse correlation between test scores and poverty.  So the question becomes: what is causing bad education?  I think many of our policies target helping teachers do a better job.  But could the cause of bad education have less to do with the quality of teaching and more to do with general poverty?  Or in Jonathan's own words:

Moreover, if it were true that Poverty causes Achievement, the policy implications would be clear and important. In order to improve math and science achievement in the U.S., we wouldn't need to focus too much on teachers, teachers' unions, charter schools, and so on. Rather, we would only need to find a way to decrease poverty. Simple.   Okay, maybe not so simple...

Again, I encourage everyone to read his post and for me it reinforced the importance of getting causation right.

How Scientists See The World.

My family, including much of my extended family, enjoys going to national parks such as Yellowstone. However, I sometimes get the feeling that they wish I would spend a little less time explaining the science behind what we are seeing because frankly... I think it ruins it for some of them.

The comic, from Abstruse Goose, below helps me better understand why.

(However, I am also reposting Feynman's video on the same subject above in my defense as he shares the same sentiment about the issue I do.)

Enjoy!

The Scale Of The Universe and And It's "Best Theory".

Free Flash Games

Free Flash Games

Many of you have heard the phrase "use the right tool for the right job", and when it comes to physical theories the story is no different.  For example, I often hear that quantum mechanics is more fundamental and thus a better theory than Newtonian physics.  But is it always the better theory?  For example, does quantum mechanics describe the solar system better than Newtonian physics?  For all practical purposes the answer is a big "No Way!".

And, further, can Newtonian physics describe the large scale properties of the universe as well and general relativity?  Again the answer is no.

Look at the flash game above.  As you move the cursor back and forth, you see the universe at different scales.  And for each separate scale, a different physical theory becomes the best theory to use to describe that scale.  It really is the case that scientists are well advised, when describing the universe, to use "the right tool for the right job."

Question: But aren't the more fundamental theories are telling more about what is really going on?

Actually, it's hard to say!  For example, I've already posted on how some of the theoretical machinery going into our most fundamental theories of nature could just be clever mathematical models that just so happen to fit nature.  Not necessarily what is actually going on.   Furthermore: I'll give another example: is spacetime really curved, like general relativity says, or is something else going on like the interaction of a spin-2 graviton?  (Or something else entirely and yet the math just happens to work out making them clever models as opposed to the true reality!)

So, my advice to those who want to classify (and many do!) which physical theory is most superior or "most correct": I advise you to first ask what scale of the universe you are trying to describe.  Because, it turns out that each scale of the universe has it's own best theory.

A best theory for describing the cosmos at large... a different best theory for describing how a planes and rockets fly through the air or how bridges stand... a different best theory for describing how elementary particles interact... a different best theory etc...

Finally: It is this observation that allows cosmologists to think there may be a better theory than general relativity for describing scales larger then have been examined thus far.   Or: one reason why string theorists have good case for why there might be a better theory than standard quantum theories for describing the smallest of scales.

In short: the idea of a best theory is really scale dependent!

Click on the image to the right from XKCD.

How To Tell If You Are A Crackpot. (The Crackpot Index.)

Ever wanted to know if you, or someone you loved, is a crackpot?  Then this surprisingly helpful list, called the crackpot index, is for you.  What's so funny about the crackpot index, written by physicist John Baez, is it is all too true!

How does it work?  First you start of with -5 points and if your score goes positive, then on some level... you are a crackpot.  Think you can avoid a positive score?  Well let's look at a few entries on the list. (See the above link for the complete list.)

First, some common mistakes:

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Second, a telltale sign someone is a crackpot is that they advocate established science is fundamentally flawed:

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

Next, what's so funny about these next few is I know from experience they actually happen fairly often in some form or another.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 

And last of all, the ultimate test (If you want to be a legitimate scientist.) :

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Okay, so: if you were making such a list what items would you add? (Remember, go read the full list!)   Given this is weighted toward physics, what issues do you see pop up in your fields?

Should Being Religious Deny You A Job As A Scientist?

A very interesting article appeared in the Journal Science recently where a scientist, Martin Gaskell, was denied a job at the University of Kentucky (UK) "because he is an evangelical Christian".

From the Science article:

During the search process, a UK committee member discovered an article on Gaskell's personal Web site titled “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.” The article, based on talks Gaskell had given, “appeared to blend science and religion,” according to a brief filed by the university.

And further:

In an e-mail to Science, Gaskell called himself an “old earth theistic evolutionist,” a label that deems evolution a tool God used to develop life. In his deposition and his e-mail, Gaskell says he is not a creationist or a subscriber to intelligent design, both of which, to varying degrees, discount natural selection. However, his lecture notes cite work by astronomer Hugh Ross, who embraces an old Earth, as geologists do, but rejects evolution as the guiding principle for life.

Now, all this has been taken to court so we will yet see how this plays out:

“It's a rather intriguing case,” says Ehrich Koch, an attorney in Minneapolis... “It appears as though what the court is saying is both sides have arguments, and they may be able to prove their case.”

The trial is scheduled to begin on 8 February. On 1 March, Gaskell begins work as a professor at the University of Valparaiso in Chile.

Now what are my views?  First of all, I do think someone who is unable/unwilling to teach, defend and research mainstream science is someone who universities should avoid hiring.  That said, it would be unfortunate if you were denied a scientific job purely because you happen to be associated with a religion.

This story hits home, not because I share fanatical religious views about science with fundamentalist Christians, but because I would never want to be denied a job because it was discovered... brace yourself...  I was LDS.   I have always defended (and believe!!!) good mainstream science from evolution to the big bang to, etc...  In fact, I have now over a dozen journal articles as a graduate student, or soon to be journal articles, on physics related to the big bang and believe and advocate every word of it.  Furthermore, on this blog I have always tried to defend good, mainstream science.  But, there is always the worry that some committee won't care and will just tag me as some "crazy Mormon" whom they would like to not have as a new hire.

And: from Newton who "wrote more on religion than he did on natural science" to today with prestigious members of the National Academy like Francisco Ayala or the human genome's Francis Collins, one thing history has shown is: religious people can make some darn good scientists!

And I for one intend to be a darn good scientist myself.

So what are your thoughts, both on this specific case, and in general on whether being religious should be grounds to not hire a scientist?

Is The Idea Of An Enlightenment Dead?

Chris Mooney, a blogger over at The Intersection, gave an interesting 5 minute discussion where he despairs that the idea of an enlightenment may be as good as dead.  Why?  Let's read some quotes: (Or you can watch above yourself, between the 15 and 20 minute marks)

First: smart people are good at defending their preconceived notions:

We all think that, the longer you've been in school the more you've learned, you become more scientific in your thinking. You become more rational. 

NO! It doesn't work like that. In fact, the smarter you are the better you are at gathering information that agrees with with what you already wanted to believe anyways. And the better you are at arguing your point, the better you are at confirming your biases. In fact when arguments come at you, you've already got a armada of counter arguments. 

Unfortunately this is all too true.  In fact, we just posted on a poll that seem to suggest the more educated you are the more likely you are to side with your political parties views on climate change.  (And Chris discusses this very thing in the video.)

So: if you want someone to accept climate change, or any other issue that runs against someones world view, educating them further does not seem to mean they will be more likely to accept it!

Second: Many hoped that things like TV or the Internet will finally unite society, making us less ignorant of the world and therefore more likely to make correct decisions.  Unfortunately, this optimistic idea has failed and the media seems to only compounds the problem:

You have to throw human nature with the modern media system... The Internet came along fractionating the audience even further into self selecting the little pockets of information and their going for the stuff that they already agree with. So this confirmation bias, this sense that we're going to reaffirm ourselves, now we've got media that purposely allows us to do it.  

And so it is.

If you are right leaning there are websites and a dedicated 24 hour cable news network for you.  If you are left leaning you've got the same options from cable and the web.  If you are an atheist you have blogs like Pharyngula where you can find hundreds of other people to help reassure you that you are correct and people who are not atheists must be idiots. If you are religious... and so it goes.

On one hand smart people are great at gathering information and putting together clever arguments and on the other we have a well structured media system to assist them in their efforts.

And so Chris concludes:

We have to give up on frankly, the enlightenment.... central to the enlightenment... is this idea that truth triumphs, everybody becomes a better critical thinker. and society advances and we become more reasoned we become more knowledgeable... it's not like that.

Unfortunately, I fear he is correct.  Ultimately, the talent of being smart and resourceful mixed with the ease of finding whatever you want from the modern media will probably kill the idea of a society that converges on "truth" (whatever that means) and thus will kill the idea of an enlightenment.

Thoughts?

(Oh and Happy New Years!)

The Atheist's Catch-22. (Or the Ultimate Coincidence Problem.)

                                        Image via Wikipedia

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the universe is ultimately meaningless, without purpose and has no reason to care or cater to the needs of rational beings.  People who believe this I will refer to as atheists.

I find atheists to be in an interesting predicament since I'm sure only one of two things are possible:

1. There is a theory of everything. (In the scientific sense.)

In this case, even though there is no reason a meaningless universe should be set-up just right to be understood by rational beings inside and out, this just happens to be the case. (Oh how wonderfully convenient for us! :))  Or as Einstein famously said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible" 

Einstein was right, and this is the ultimate coincidence problem.  In physics, coincidence problems are ones where we find that, for whatever reason, we exist in a special situation in the universe.  One that just happens to be suited for our needs.  Physicists don't like these and so they are considered problems.

Well, then why do we find ourselves coincidentally in a meaningless universe that just happens to be so well suited for rational beings to understand inside and out?   Why is it so well suited to be understood completely through man-made constructs we call scientific theories?

2. There is not a theory of everything. (In the scientific sense.)

In this case science cannot explain everything in the universe.  People, like Hawking, trying to understand how the universe works fundamentally using science alone are doing so in vein. (And I am 100% pro-science, but if it cannot explain everything I have to admit it becomes limited in scope.)

People refer to problems with "god of the gaps" arguments with the assumption that all gaps will one day be closed by science.  However, if there is not a theory of everything (in the scientific sense) then there will always be a gap a mile wide! (I'm not saying God necessarily goes there, only that the gap exists.)  And since the gap is real, as the universe is real and science cannot explain all of it, this means something beyond science, or something that transcends science, is ultimately required to have a full understanding of our universe.

3. What I don't want to hear:

A. "This is just and attempt to prove Christianity."  I've said nothing of Christianity.  This coincidence problem would be independent of what religions, if any, walked the earth.  Don't try to sneak around the problem by attacking religion. That would be a strawman argument.

B. "You have abused the meaning of Catch-22, this isn't technically what the word means."  I realize this.    This is a blog not a dictionary and I chose the word that for whatever reason I enjoyed the best.

C. "What are you trying to prove?"  That being an atheist, you find yourself in an interesting predicament.  On one hand the universe is devoid of meaning and yet it just happens to be "set up" for rational beings to understand inside and out. (Again, how wonderfully convenient for us humans! :)) And on the other, if it cannot be understood inside and out using rational thought than using science to understand the whole universe on a fundamental level is pointless, and there will always be a "gap a mile wide" that something beyond or transcending science must fill. (Again, I did not say it is the Christian God... I did not say what it was except it is something beyond/transcending science.)

Ultimately, I am just trying to echo Einstein saying "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible" and find it odd that atheists are not equally perplexed by all this as much as he was.

My Hat Goes Off To Google's Engineers.

I remember a day when searching the internet you had to wait for results.  Google's search is now so fast you get results as fast as you type.  Try it out: Google Instant.

Here is a company that has found a way to bring information from across the entire world to you as fast as your fingers can explain what you are looking for on the keyboard.  My hat really goes off to these engineers!  Here's to a company who can on one hand can find a business model allowing them to give away their services to free and at the same time produces mind-blowing products!

Despite Hawking, Universe Existence/Origin Is Still A Mystery.

As you may have heard, Stephen Hawking says universe is not created by God because, in a nutshell, gravity exists:  "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".  Moreover, he believes M-Theory can fully explain our universe and therefore God is no longer needed.

At first I was going to stay out of this discussion since, as I said before, I believe the argument over science versus religion is often unfruitful.  But after reading some interesting comments by fellow cosmologist Peter Coles, whom also has written some good books on cosmology shown above, I decided to comment.  First, from Coles: (by the way, I've coauthored 4 papers with this guy.  Small world!)

It’s interesting that such a fatuous statement managed to become a lead item on the radio news and a headline in all the national newspapers despite being so obviously devoid of any meaning whatsoever. How can the Universe be “a consequence” of the theories that we invented to describe it? To me that’s just like saying that the Lake District is a consequence of an Ordnance Survey map. And where did the Laws of Physics come from, if not from God?

Stephen Hawking is undoubtedly a very brilliant theoretical physicist. However, something I’ve noticed about theoretical physicists over the years is that if you get them talking on subjects outside physics they are generally likely to say things just as daft as some drunk bloke down the pub. I’m afraid this is a case in point.

I agree.  Moreover, I find it funny that when Hawking and others find physical theories that can completely describe our universe, they seem to forget that certain questions about the universe still remain a mystery such that, as far as I can tell, can only be solved using tools beyond science.  For example, I am interested if science can ever understand these basic questions about the universe:

1. Why does the universe obey laws at all?  I've read several papers and textbooks written by physicists where they admit it seems unexplainable to know why the universe obeys laws.  Science may demonstrate which laws are being explained and how, but can science ever explain why? Furthermore, why do these laws happen to be mathematical in nature?

2. Why, of all possible physical theories, has the universe chosen to follow string theory?  First off, I must say my first reaction to Hawking's claim was: "So he feels comfortable replacing God with a highly speculative  theory. :)"  But given I believe string theory has a good chance of being the true "theory of everything", and for sake of argument I will assume that it is.  Fine, but can science ever show that it is impossible for a universe to exist without string theory being true?  If so, why did our universe select string theory of all theories to follow?  People will say: "It has to because it is composed of strings."  Fine, but then why is it, of all things, composed of strings?

3.  Why does the universe even exist in the first place? So that we can exist?  So that ...?  Hawkings says it is natural because gravity exists.  Fine, but that just kicks the can down the road.  Why does gravity exist in the first place? Etc...

4.  If the answers to these questions are always philosophical in nature, why bash religion? I admit that I have heard potential answers to these questions but they all have one thing in common: they are philosophical answers!  Or they say such questions are pointless which is again just a subjective belief.  But that's just it!  On one hand scientists have their own philosophical answers/subjective beliefs concerning these types of questions that bring confort to their minds but then go on to attack religion as being unscientific.  It's as if their unprovable philosophical beliefs concerning deep mysteries of the universe are okay but religious explanations for such questions are not to be tolerated.

So in a nutshell:  First, I do believe something like string theory is probably a true physical theory.  Second, I know from experience such theories can explain the existence of the universe "naturally".   But, why the universe happens to obey laws at all and why of all theories string theory was selected is, and I am sure will always be, a mystery to me.  As far as I can tell, such why mysteries will always be beyond the scope of science and can only be explained philosophically.  So if you are going to answer such deep questions about the universe with unscientific philosophy, why be so intolerant of "unscientific" religious explanations to the same questions?

College Football Players Want Playoffs... Just Don't Take Away The Bowl Games.

ESPN just conducted a confidential survey of current football players to find out how they feel about having a playoff system.  I found the results quite interesting, especially because whether you were on a BCS team or not seemed to be irrelevant for what your opinion would be.  From the above mentioned article:

In College Football Confidential, we polled 135 players from across the country. The panel we convened consisted of 72 players from BCS schools (63 from non-BCS conferences). Thirteen of our voters played in a BCS game last year, and 24 finished the year in the Top 25.

What we found was that players want a playoff -- but don't dare take away their bowl games (and the accompanying gift bags). --- Emphasis added.

Here are the results from the survey:

I happen to agree with the players.  On one hand I would be interested in the outcome of a playoff system of some type.  But you better not take away my bowl games either!!!

Realistic Economic Recovery Expectations.

This is not meant to be a political post!  I am not trying to state who is or has been right, wrong, to blame, etc... when it comes to the economy of this country.

The point of this post is to put into perspective the magnitude of what we face in terms of recovery. The plot above is from the Washington Post with accompanying text:

That's job growth per month on the X axis, and how many months that level of job growth would take to get us back to pre-recession levels on the Y axis. Notice that adding new jobs at a rate of 200,000 a month would take us 150 months -- or 12.5 years -- to get back to normalcy. So far, only April has seen more than 200,000 in non-census jobs growth -- and even then, just barely.

So basically, if job growth continues at the rate it has been recently, it will take another 12.5 years before we "recover" economically.  If this decade averages the best growth we ever experienced in a single year of the 1990s, it will take ~5 years.

I'm guessing the reality will lay somewhere in between.  That means realistically, no matter who is in office or what is their political officiation, the odds are it won't be until the end of the decade before we have recovered from this mess!

That's just a reality we will all have to deal with.  Thoughts?

More On Why The Private Sector May Be Better Than NASA.

I've already blogged about how I have no issue with the private sector taking over many of NASA's responsibilities, and that I'm not exactly crying the Constellation program was canceled.  From MBO:

For less than the cost of the Ares I mobile service tower, SpaceX has developed all the flight hardware for the Falcon 9 orbital rocket, Dragon spacecraft, as well as three launch sites. SpaceX has been profitable for three consecutive years (2007 through 2009) and expects to remain modestly profitable for the foreseeable future. The company has over 1000 employees in California, Texas and Florida, and has been approximately doubling in size every two years. A majority of the future growth is expected to occur in Texas and Florida.

Let's look at some realities:

1. The entire SpaceX program appears to be cheapter than NASA's service tower!
2. SpaceX is already profitable and is doubling in growth every year.

Why would I care if human spaceflight and hauling cargo is passed over to SpaceX? It appears to me that the private sector may do some things even better than NASA.  

And I've said it before:  The reality is the US is sooo advanced technologically that our private sector can do what most countries could only dream of!

So no gripping that cutting some of NASA's programs somehow puts the US behind technologically speaking. It appears this private route will be cheaper and profitable as well.  Go SpaceX!

Thoughts On New Atheism. (Yet More Pet Peeves.)

Time for another post for my pet peeves series. I would like to address this new atheism that seems to be promoted by more and more.

I will not be blogging much about this as I think promoting the literacy and the love for science is helpful, whereas the science vs. religion debate is fruitless. Those who spend all their time engaging it completely have their priorities mixed up. (Like any extremist-minded person does.) People: spend some time promoting good science and not always attacking things science says nothing about!

Seriously!

1. Firstly, I Don't Take Issue With Them Being Atheist.

Let me start out with saying I do not take offense that they are atheist. I actually understand where many are coming from. They see that many traditional claims made by religious people seem untrue (like the world being only 7000 years old) and see many religious people rejecting basic science like evolution. Furthermore, they think a world with no God fits the data better than one that does. They just don't see evidence for God in nature so they have a hard time believing God is there.

Fine. I'm not going to discuss this here. In am not attacking atheists in general but these new atheists who not only oppose religion but for whatever reason seem obsessed with it.

*Also, I apologize in advance if I appear to be stereotyping all atheists.* They are not all like this... but some are.

2. They're Being Hypocritical When They Make Claims Without Applying Basic Scientific Rigor.

A quote:

They trot out tired, half-truthful stereotypes, and they cherry-pick historical examples of religious wrongdoing while ignoring the innumerable instances in which the faithful have performed great acts of decency and charity.

I will make this simple for them to understand: They can't get their claims published in established, reputable, peer reviewed journals.

They will claim how important it is to use evidence, good intellectual rigor and tout how believable claims should be strong enough to stand the peer review process. And yet their new atheist claims usually are not! (And they hope we accept their unpublished claims!)

Where has Dawkins published a paper in a reputable journal demonstrating religion is more harmful than good? (As he claims.) Where are the articles showing religious people fall into the stereotypes they glean from cherry picking history? (As any good scientist knows not to do.) They reality is, when it comes to scientific rigor, new atheist are hypocrites. (Or show me their own peer reviewed journal articles backing such claims!)

Seriously!

3. Many Have Become Fundamentalists Themselves. (Often Belittling Scientists Who Are Better Scientists Then They Could Ever Dream Of.)

Some new atheists have become as fundamentalist minded as the very people they deride. They live in a world where everything is black and white with no grey. I personally know of many who can't stand someone is a great scientist... if they happen to even be understanding of religious people.

Even if I won a Nobel Prize for physics (which won't happen by the way) all they would see is the fact that I am LDS and wrote a post like this. For example, take the Templeton Prize winners. Many of these people are better scientists than the vast majority of all these new atheists will ever be and yet they are often derided and treated with ridicule.

Once you have crossed the line to demeaning scientists who are 10 times the scientist you will ever be because they find meaning in something beyond the realm of science... you have officially become an extremist.

Seriously!

4. Many Hide Behind Science To Promote Their Pet Agendas.

New atheists are no different than than politicians who use the the politicization of science to promote their pet agenda! The fact is: science neither confirms nor denies the existence of God and these people try to hide behind pseudo-scientific arguments to do just that. Anyone who tries to to use science to prove God does or does not exist is wasting everybody's time and is being just as disingenuous as the above politicians.

Science cannot prove the existence of God, the Easter Bunny or for that matter the existence of good, love, beauty, morality, etc... And yet they are so quick to write volumes on how foolish people are for finding meaning in the former entities and yet not the later ones. There is definitely a biased agenda at play here.

Seriously!

5. What They Should Do.

If you are an atheist who is concerned with the horrible level of science literacy in the world, fine. I'm not attacking that. What I am attacking is a hypocritical, non-rigorous, fundamentalist agenda some have taken up pretending it is somehow backed by good science!

What these people need to do is get their priorities in order:

1. Demonstrate the wonders and benefits from accepting good science.
2. Demonstrate how much progress has been achieved from humans using science at their disposal.
3. Stick to claims that can be backed by the peer reviewed literature and avoid pet agendas that have nothing to do with science.

Edit:

Since I wrote the above I wanted to add this for reference:

6.  Atheism Causes You To Be Unproductive And Unsuccessful In Life.

Look at the above two images.  This study clearly shows that while atheists have a higher IQ on average, they also end up with less money than other people on average.  Obviously atheism causes you to be unproductive, unsuccessful and live largely below your potential.  How many politicians, generals, famous actors and actresses or successful businessmen are atheist?  Basically if you are smart but don't want to amount to much in life, studies that you should take up atheism.

Obviously this is a joke, but one made to prove a point.  There are probably 100 reasons besides atheism to explain why atheists have above average IQs and yet cannot figure out how to make as much money as the average person or hold political office, etc...  I recognize this.  It would be dumb of me to jump to such conclusions from such a non-rigorous interpretation of data such as.

I just wish some atheists would give religious people the same courtesy.   I wish they would pause and ask themselves if they have sufficiently gone through the 100 reasons, other than religion, to explain the data they like to flaunt?  For a people with such high IQs, I must say it seems like such an intellectually stupid thing to do.

Please just stick to promoting good science!  Blanket lumping together and attacking religion in general is often done unscientifically, is unproductive and a waste of time. (It is as unproductive and intellectually disingenuous as me writing books on how atheists are just unsuccessful eggheads.) But then perhaps people prone to atheism are naturally good at being inefficient and unproductive and so I just have to realize that trying to tell such people to do something helpful with their lives won't work. Again, joke. :)

How Important Is Science Literacy In Society?

Everyone should take six minutes out of their day and watch this video of Neil DeGrasse Tyson speaking on the importance of science literacy at the World Science Festival. (I was pointed to this by Uncertain Principles.)

Here are some highlights I found interesting:

First: Avoiding Self Delusion.

Science literacy empowers you to know when someone is basically full of it...If you understand how the world works, and what the limitations are, then you can judge if someone is trying to exploit your... ignorance.

He gives an example of someone trying to sell you crystals with amazing healing powers.  He argues if you have good science literacy you will know you need to have answered questions such as: "How do they work?  What kinds of ailments do they cure?... How have you tested them?" etc...

Unfortunately, poor scientific literacy may lead to a society that is easily duped and/or will form opinons based on bad ideas.  Those with good science literacy realize the importance for backing up claims, an incredibly important trait as "we as a species are particularly susceptible to self-delusion".

Furthermore, knowing how to test claims should be absolutely crucial for wall street, governments, manufactures and society itself to make correct decisions.

Second: Scientists Understand Liberal Arts, But Often Liberal Artists Don't Understand Science.

Scientists by and large are often quite knowledgeable in areas outside of science.  If you go to the home of most scientists there will be Bach and Beethoven and Shakespeare on the selves...   

One thing I think that as a nation we should be embarrassed by is that the scientists-- you can do this experiment yourself, I've done the experiment-- the scientists, by and large, know more liberal arts than the science that is known by liberal artists."

He then discusses how at a cocktail party of scientists you will never hear them laugh how they never understood how to read Shakespeare or couldn't understand basic nouns and verbs.  However, if you go to a party full of people interested in liberal arts, they have no problem laughing about how they never understood the first thing about math.  Tyson wonders why this causes no embarrasement.

Or as said on Uncertain Princpiles linked above:

It should be exactly as embarrassing in educated company to say "I'm no good at math" as it would be to say "I'm no good at reading."

I'm biased but I think there is a point to be made here.

Thoughts?

Move Over NASA, Here Comes The Private Sector.

I've heard a lot of whining and complaining over Obama's decision to cut back on manned space exploration programs like Constellation.  A lot of it is centered around the idea that we may fall behind other countries in the "space race" sense.

However, the reality is the US is sooo advanced technologically that our private sector can do what most countries could only dream of!  So why shouldn't we let them?  Why use taxpayer's money to do what old fashioned competition and the free market may be able to do just as well?

The recent successful launch of the the SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket underscores that the private sector is moving into a position to do what only the government has been able to do so far.  I say let them do it.  From the Huffington Post:

A multimillionaire's test rocket... successfully reached orbit in a dry run for NASA's push to go commercial.  SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket achieved Earth orbit... drawing praise from NASA, the White House and others...

Friday's launch helps vindicate President Barack Obama's plan to give private companies the job of ferrying cargo and ultimately people to the space station, freeing up NASA to aim for true outer space. 

"This bodes very well for the Obama plan," said Musk, the co-founder of PayPal. "It shows that even a sort of small new company like SpaceX can make a real difference."

Don't get me wrong, the government will always need to fund basic science.  However, when it comes to hauling cargo to and from space or sending people to do photo ops on the moon and space stations, why not just let the free market foot the bill?  Seriously!

Interesting "Science" Behind What Motivates Us.

This video below is very interesting.  The first few minutes is what I was interested in. (So if you are busy, watching only the first few minutes is fine.)

They did a few studies where they asked people to preform tasks and gave them financial rewards based on performance.  (Like Wall Street does and swears by.)  They found that for menial tasks, this type of motivation worked great.  However, as soon as the task required an above average amount of cognitive ability, financial rewards actually have negative consequences!

Anyways, a very interesting video to watch, especially if you have been trapped into the unproven claim that money is the best motivator.