communication. community. cognition.
Posts tagged Science
Dare to be Dumb
Jun 14th
“Smart” is not a matter of having smart answers; it’s developing smart questions. And often, to be Smart, we have to play Dumb.
How many of these statements go unchallenged?
- “It’s all about the conversation.”
- “Brands that engage succeed.”
- “You have to give before you can take.”
- “The future is Free.”
Insert your own favorites, and they don’t have to be from the realm of communication and marketing. They might be from economics, might be from politics, might be from sociology. The point remains – you have a new job.
Self-editor.
Self-corrector.
Self-adjuster.
And just what did we all do to earn that demotion? We started opting into technologies that allowed us to fill our cups with the same stuff we drank yesterday. We listen to the same voices, visit the same websites, and breathe the same air as we did yesterday. Technology has imploded the media, which is now understaffed and can’t deliver on the promise of covering everything – and business models have adjusted to give us what we want, instead of what we need.
Bottom line? We’re spoiled, and we’re wallowing in our own by-products.
Drowning in Echo
We surround ourselves with the same people – or in the case of social networks, the same types of people as the people we’re connected to now. We add in those we used to go to work with, and those we used to go to school with… and that’s okay. As long as it doesn’t get in the way of our need to be challenged.
When you surround yourself with 100 people who repeat the same mantra, day in, day out, you do more than start to believe it. You accept it as a fundamental premise by which everything else is to be judged. And when reality doesn’t jibe with our expectations, we’ll cling to the premise and start figuring out what other contributing factors got in the way of Natural Law.
We did this to ourselves. We wrap ourselves in these cocoons of interest, bound tight to those just like us. Identical peas in pods. We have shut out news and information sources that might challenge those premises. Self-exile from truth. We parrot the rest of the flock rather than be seen raising a squawk.
Can you Dare to be Dumb?
What starts as a silly or dumb question can shake a loose foundation. We just have to be willing to ask it.
- What is your basis for that assertion?
- What is the evidence?
- Do you have statistical proof?
- Do you have correlation?
What you might find is that others have been skating along, assuming others have known what they are talking about – and never taking the risk to be Dumb. But “Dumb” allows you to rethink everything, free of the untested and unsupported assertions of a crowd.
And in the end, what do you want? Popularity? Or impact and effectiveness?
The Rocky Beginnings of a Frustrated Reporter
Mar 23rd
I wrote before about what you might expect to get from this site, as a way to help me focus. The right focus can bring together some amazing conversations, as Venessa Miemis has been able to do.
Maybe a little personal backstory is in order.
I was/am a science and math nerd. In a big way.
I likely disappointed a number of my teachers by not pursuing a Ph.D of some sort, where I could make a real contribution to society. But there were two realizations I had about myself that played into that decision:
- I have a wide variety of interests among the sciences, and
- I have a distinct knack for explaining things.
Put those together, and you have a nice starter kit for a budding Science Journalist. (Lord knows there aren’t enough people making science interesting, exciting or tangible.)
The Path Denied
By the time I was to the point in college where you have to declare a major, I figured the best way to pursue this dream was to go through Geology. It has a little bit of physics, a little bit of chemistry, and a little bit of biology. It makes for a nice nexus across the disciplines.
In my year as a Geology Major, I was asked by professors and graduate assistants where I would specialize. After all, you can’t just get a degree in Geology. That’s useless! You must get a Ph.D, and that means focusing on either vulcanology, paleontology or petro-chemical geology. In other words, put myself in one of those silos. I had two professors in one semester who had neighboring offices, yet couldn’t even hold a conversation with one another because they were too deep in their own little worlds.
Very Important Science happens deep in those silos – but for me, the interesting science happens at the intersections of disciplines. Which meant even more school. And no guarantee I’d be able to exercise those whims of interest.
So — already working at a television station — I ditched the whole effort and got my degree in Broadcast Journalism, with a minor in Political Theory. Also graduated with 40 hours in hard sciences and calculus, which didn’t come very handy in a profession that is repulsed by math.
I am who I am
In the murky depths of my soul, though, lurks the unfulfilled destiny of the frustrated science reporter. One who keeps abreast of the new and interesting and exciting — which also might just be too complex for instant understanding. My bookshelf is proof.
My impetus to write and to share comes from a need to help others understand. And maybe I’m drawn to the things others are not explaining very well, because if others are doing the job on certain topics then I don’t need to.
Maybe I am in the right place at the right time. Journalism as a whole is imploding under the weight of outdated distribution models that aren’t cost-effective. “Specialty” writers are even more rare on staff, and are almost exclusively found in the freelance market. Maybe the service I provide here is a model for… well, something. I don’t know what.
But I do know that I enjoy writing. And explaining. It’s the bedrock of who I am, no matter what I am paid to do.
Taking the Long View
Feb 9th
(the following is mine and mine alone, and does not in any way reflect opinions or viewpoints of my employer.)
I understand when people get on indignant rants. You see something that is so clear to you, and you just feel like verbally slapping a few people across the cheek to wake them up, so they can see what is so plainly in front of their faces.
However, the Indignant Rant often reveals the boundaries of one’s concern. When I was a reporter, I recall many people who would call and berate me for not giving ________ more time and attention than it was getting. “But you don’t see, if they name Mr. So-and-so to the committee, it will mean the end of civilization as we know it!”
Okay, their lips weren’t foretelling the end of Western Civilization, but their body tics, tremors, and voice inflection certainly did. It was classic fight or flight, and it’s definitely not what our bodies evolved as a proper response to our anguish over the makeup of the school textbook committee.
The Whiffle Life
P.J. O’Rourke – in his classic Parliament of Whores, calls this the “Whiffle Life.”
My friend’s kid lives in a well-padded little universe, a world with no sharp edges or hard surfaces. It’s the Whiffle Ball again. The kid leads a Whiffle Life, and so does my friend and so do I.
The premise is that we’ve dumbed down our existence and taken the risk out of so many things, that we’ve literally knocked evolution for a loop. Some of us (in the modern, industrialized West) live in a world where our mistakes have virtually no consequences for survival. You can screw up often, and the worst that happens is you get a little unpleasantness. Much in the same way that a thrown baseball can hurt, so we replace them with Whiffle Balls instead.
When you live in a Whiffle World, you don’t worry about being eaten by hyenas, you worry about whether pets are spayed and neutered.
When you live in a Whiffle World, you don’t worry about your teeth rotting out, you worry about whether they are white enough.
When you live in a Whiffle World, you don’t worry about having access to safe drinking water, you fret over whether it’s the right flavor or brand.
When you live in a Whiffle World, you watch the thermometer like a hawk because of Global Warming, and doom the planet to extinction.
History in an Icicle
Yes, this is the Indignant Rant that reveals the boundaries of my concern. I happen to think that human beings are wonderful creatures, and we have shown an amazing capacity for creating beauty and hope. I also worry that in trying to preserve our accomplishments, we’re squinting at the tiny and ignoring the very real, big threats to everything we know.
I want you to look at this graph by J. Storrs Hall. It’s taken from a Greenland ice core:

Yes, that is indicative of temperatures increasing. But notice they’ve been going up since the 1830s. You could try to tie this to industrialization, but remember, this is just one sample from one location. What I want to do is change your perspective for a moment. Let’s roll back even further:

It would seem that 1000 years ago, we were warmer than we are now. But that’s not enough of a Big Picture.

Go back a little over 10,000 years, and look at where we were. Ice Age. Pay attention to that little uptick at the end that so many people are getting all frothed about. Watch where it goes when we dial the Wayback Machine to 50,000 years ago:

That tiny little tick mark at the end of that line, which is smaller than each of the commas in this sentence, is the danger? Seriously? Pay attention to the scale at the left of the graph. We’re looking at temperatures 10-25 degress Celsius cooler than what we have now. Human civilization, and agriculture, and iPods could not have emerged before now. And what makes you think we could survive when it does get cold again? Switching to the Vostok core in the Antarctic, we see this:

Where is that 150-year rise at the end, again?
Cultural Arrogance
I’m fairly certain, that even if the planet heats up a little more, that we could adapt. People along coastlines move a little inland. Arable farmland actually increases, so we’d be better able to feed the masses.
What worries me is that in concentrating on this tiny epoch of time, we ignore the real threat. It’s clear from the graphs that we live in an epoch that is an anomaly. Yet we pretend as though nothing ever happened before recorded history.
Every time someone shows you one of those pictures of a glacier from 150 years ago, ask them: “And just what is the optimal climate for the Earth?” They can’t tell you. But for some reason, the Arrogant Anointed have decided that the Earth is supposed to be exactly the way it was when their great-grandparents moved to Martha’s Vineyard. Or when their daddy was sworn into the Senate. It is foolish to believe the Earth is not in a constant state of flux.
There are people who believe God created the world 6,000 years ago. I am not one of them, and boy would I be pissed off if a bunch of them started crafting public policy that would wreck the economy, based on their belief that the world ought to be Eden, and Eden started the moment they opened their eyes and started drinking Enfamil.
There used to be astronomers who believed in the Steady-State Theory, that stars and matter must be continually created to fill the void left behind, as galaxies move away from each other. (Doppler red-shift tells us galaxies are all moving away.) Not as many do, because it requires a belief in spontaneous creation of matter.
And here we are today, with environmentalists who cling to the belief that our planet, the way it is today, is the way it has always been and ought to always be. They have absolutely nothing to base that belief upon. And in a way, they deserve even more scorn for that belief than the traditionalists who tout a 6,000 year world history.
I’m all for being a good steward of the environment, but before we wreck the global economy chasing a fantasy about a steady-state Earth, how about putting some research dollars into the threat we know is coming? How does man survive when it gets too cold? Are we going to move out and find new sources of food? Look for hospitable worlds elsewhere? We have the time and the resources to do it, if we don’t starve ourselves to death on granola and pray to Gaia as the ice envelopes us.
Fire From the Sky
Forget about how we’re overdue for an Ice Age for a moment. We know we’ve got at least a thousand years or so to lick that problem.
What about a comet strike? Or a sufficiently large meteorite?
In 1908, a piece of a comet nailed a remote section of Russia. It created an explosion and a mushroom cloud, and wiped out everything for miles around. If we didn’t know any better, it would have been called a nuclear bomb. In fact, it’s a good thing we didn’t know any better, because if it had happened 50 or 60 years later, the world would have been glowing from the remains of retaliatory strikes before anyone bothered to figure out it was a natural occurrence.
But what if the Tunguska comet had been larger?
Make it larger by a factor of 10, and it would have rocked the world. Make it even bigger, and it could wipe out nearly all intelligent life on the planet.
So while we’re dickering with Mars missions and Moon missions and all manner of foolishness, we’re ignoring the very real instant threat to civilization. (And that means all the puppies will die, too. And the Black Eyed Peas.) We’re investing next to nothing in discovering or tracking the large objects that sweep into near-Earth orbits. We’re investing even less in researching technologies that would allow us to alter their orbits, or even explode them remotely where they would pose less of a threat.
I’m talking about something that could strike tomorrow. Or a year from now. That’s the Indignant Rant that keeps me up at night.
The Big Picture
We’ll solve the plastics problem, and the Styrofoam problem, and the nuclear waste problem. We’ll figure out how to leave cleaner and meaner and smarter, because we’re humans and that’s what we’ve done for 10,000 years. Occasionally, in the middle of miles of steps forward, we take one or two back. That’s okay, because we learn from those missteps.
Or at least we do, when we bother to look back with enough perspective.
Flat Thinking
Dec 22nd

Headlines, ripped straight from the Razr
Aug 11th
From today’s New York Times:
Twitter has been described many ways. At its best, it has been called a revolutionary political tool and a low-cost marketing machine. At its worst, it has been dubbed a waste of time.
Now, two researchers are calling it a hedonimeter, a device that measures happiness.
Peter Sheridan Dodds and Christopher M. Danforth, a pair of statisticians from the University of Vermont, are hoping to harness the stream of messages flowing through the popular micro-blogging platform at any given moment to read public opinion and sentiment in real-time.
Sounds a bit similar in concept to a piece I wrote two years ago.
Yes, the application was an April Fools’ joke, but the concept isn’t.
Global Warming Can’t Handle Pressure
Jun 3rd
Some people want to classify me as a “climate-change denier.” Instead, call me what I am, a skeptic of the highest order.
I originally majored in geology because I wanted a broad science background to become a science reporter. My school wouldn’t have any of it, and instead wanted me to narrow down into a little box. I don’t like boxes so much, so I switched majors and went for a journalism major with a political theory minor.
I also don’t like people using bullying tactics in an attempt to make others go along. The scientists I looked up to never bowed to consensus, nor did they attempt to silence others with the billy club of popularity. Believe me, the moment you speak out against such things, people will come out of the woodwork to pick apart everything they can about you personally, because ad hominem is a great way to shut up dissenters without considering the merit of the argument.
[Ad hominem works both ways, by the way - as there are those who try to connect all environmentalists with a hidden agenda of socialism.]
Folks, no matter what they tell you, the science is not settled, and the case is not proven. Science is never, ever settled. And the academically-honest scientists will tell you that they aren’t making a scientific case for radical environmental change, they are asking for you to make an economic one based on Pascal’s Wager.
Betting on the Angels
Pascal’s Wager is a simple one: given the costs for believing in God (the entry fee, so to speak) and the risk/reward for the existence of Heaven/Hell – it makes sense to believe in God. The eternal reward is so great if you’re right, and if you’re not, you didn’t lose very much.
What we’re being offered on the environmental front is a variation on Pascal’s Wager. Worst-case scenarios are being trotted out, and we’re told that we simply “can’t wait” for the science to prove conclusively that we are beyond the point of global extinction. What’s the harm in living a little cleaner and greener, anyway?
Turns out, there can be quite a lot. Cleaner and greener is a great way to go if all things are equal, but they almost never are. Every choice has a consequence, there’s a trade-off and an opportunity cost: what else could we have done with that money? (Conversely, the opportunity cost of doing nothing at all about the environment is the same as Pascal’s Wager; going to Hell.)
Before you bet on the Angels, though, there are some things I’d like you to consider about the data regarding Climate Change.
Assumptions to Challenge
What is “normal?”
Are we talking about within a lifetime, or within a nation’s written history? Are we talking about centuries on the average, or millenia? Are we talking geologic time?
Oh my God, glaciers are retreating! (We are coming out of an ice age, you know…)
Oh my God, we could lose the polar ice caps! (Some estimates show that within the last 6-million years, we’ve had polar ice around 20% of that time. So polar ice is the exception, not the rule.)
Oh my God, the coastal cities will drown! (Ever see a map of Pangaea? Coastlines aren’t permanent.)
Oh my God, Earth is getting warmer!
That last one is even subject to some debate. Forty years ago, science was convinced we were heading into irreversible Global Cooling (caused by pollution.) And all of those computer models and projections failed to predict that the Earth would peak in 1998 and has been cooling since.
Can models be trusted?
Of course models can be trusted, to the extent they are programmed correctly. You can make a virtual model of a card game, and use it to predict which strategies work and when to double down. You can make very good assumptions over time about how to maximize your profits at the blackjack table. But what if you were playing blackjack and these starting showing up?
The +4 card forces you to draw an additional four cards, and would almost assuredly force you to go over 21. That’s not fair, though! That’s not a part of the game!
If the card starts showing up in real blackjack games but isn’t accounted for in your model, then who is at fault?
Models are only as good as their inputs. I have no doubt that the scientists working on climate change projections have every good and noble interest at heart, but their models have missed some pretty big influences over the last few years, such as El Ninos, sunspots, and variations of solar radiation. The models have been tweaked and poked, but will only be as useful as they are based in reality.
Fundamentally, it is a given that carbon dioxide levels are the engine for the warming as a greenhouse gas. This ignores other, more potent and influential greenhouse gases – and the pressures they exert.
Give or Take a Billion
The genesis for this post came from reading this article in Wired, about the possibility that Earth might be inhabitable for an additional billion years than previously thought.
King Fai Li and his colleagues at Caltech hypothesize that Earth’s atmospheric pressure has always varied, and that it could fall in the distant future, keeping Earth from frying for far longer than previous research had shown.
The theory here is that atmospheric pressure has always varied on Earth. A theory. Completely unsupported at this point, but the Caltech team is doing the math to see what the consequences might be. And why is he doing that math?
“I am glad that Li and colleagues have raised the issue of how overall variation in atmospheric pressure may have affected past and may affect future climate,” ecologist Ken Caldeira of Stanford University said in an e-mail. “This could be relevant for understanding climate change on the billion-year time scale.”
Despite this potentially important role, atmospheric pressure in the distant past has gone uninvestigated.
“We have a lack of data about the past history of the atmospheric pressure,” said Li.
What is that again? A lack of data? No one has even measured it before, and it’s only now being theorized that it has varied much (or will in the future). Which brings us back to all those climate change models:
- They don’t know nearly as much about the past as they’d like us to believe
- They use an arbitrary “norm”
- They have not shown any true predictive capability, even on the timescales and outputs we can measure.
And they want us to bet trillions of dollars that could instead be put to use for education, health, disease prevention, innovation, quality of life improvements, preventing hunger, relocation, or any of a laundry list of social goods that we might have instead?
They haven’t even accounted for the pressure. So for now, I refuse to bow to theirs.


