'Amateur' charge infuriates blogosphere - CNN.com

Makes me think:

1. We are definitely moving towards a mob society, where fast communication is more valued than deep thinking.
2. It's so much easier (and quicker) to get a group of people to "feel" the same thing than to "think" the same thing.

Trust us, this is *really* how it works...

So all this 'junk' in our genetic code turns out to not be junk! Makes me feel like ranting :) :


Questions:

1. So how much of our 'junk' matches the 'junk' of Chimps? Are we as closely 'related' as once thought?


2. Are geneticists 'really, really' sure they have a correct view of out genes now?


3. Is it possible - just possible - that scientists in other fields may have incorrect understandings of things such as, say, climate change? And if so, might it not make sense to take a cautious approach to addressing issues like humanity's impact on the environment?

I have no problem with science. It's just irritating when people try to build an accurate world view based solely on current scientific theory (and it's all theory). Case in point: a scientific theory that was embraced by most 'educated' and 'thinking' people in the first half of the 20th century:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

The Carnegie Foundation and The President of Stanford University - supporters of eugenics?

The 'science' of eugenics even seduced part of the Jewish people, millions of whom would ultimately suffer at the hands of eugenicists:

http://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1910-jewish-chronicle-eugenics.pdf

Science? Again, I have no problem with it. Let's just not confuse it with morality, nor make it the basis for our morality. Morality is foundational and must inform our science and philosophy, not the other way round.

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Freedom, not climate, is at risk

Well said, Mr. President...

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Freedom, not climate, is at risk:

Survivorship Bias

Good explanation of a phenomenon that affects:

-Financial Reports
-News Stories (ever notice that there seem to be 'rashes' of certain events, that then go away?)
-Scientific Studies

Stifling Debate

What truly frightens me about the global warming debate? That there isn’t one.
“Everyone knows it is happening, and that humanity is to blame.” is the pat answer to any heretic who dares question the ‘conventional wisdom’ on this subject. Ellen Goodman says deniers of global warming are on a par with deniers of the Holocaust (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/).

Is humanity spoiling the Earth? No doubt. Do steps need to be taken to stop and reverse the damage we’ve done? Absolutely. Are there incredibly rich individuals whose fortunes (read: power) have been built through activities which damage the environment, and whose self-interest leads them to pooh-pooh any talk that suggests human activity harms the environment? Definitely.

The problem is, there are equally powerful people who wish to exploit the specter of global warming for their own purposes. Do you think life-long politicians are interested in what’s best for their constituents or in consolidating as much power in their hands as possible? Isn’t it nice to have some awful crisis looming for the purpose of rallying people to your cause (read: expanding your powerbase)? Global warming is the left’s “War on Terror”: an amorphous and indefinable enemy who must be fought no matter what the cost to life or liberty.

It’s also a great lever for shouting down anyone who opposes you. Again the parallels with the 'war on terror' are striking: Do you question whether the US’s policy in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of global terrorism? Then the terrorists have already won! Do you question whether other factors such as solar activity or ancient climatological cycles which humanity does not possess the data to assess may be a significant cause of global warming? Why, then you’re the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. One might stand a better chance arguing for religious liberty in 17th century Salem, MA.

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the powerful stand to gain very little from real solutions. Real solutions require individuals to change their attitudes and actions. Political solutions involve moving vast amounts of wealth from point A (the pockets of those unable to protect their interests – i.e. the average tax payer) to point B (the pockets of those whose livelihoods or fortunes are built on such redistributions), with very little consideration given to the ‘purpose’ of such activities. Is your government or nonprofit project/program failing miserably? Well, you’re surely underfunded then!

Another part of the problem lies in our unwillingness to think - to sort through competing and conflicting sets of ‘facts’ to find the truth. That takes too much time, so we just go with whatever Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh has to say. Is it possible to not buy into Global Warming hook, line, and sinker yet still believe emission and efficiency standards for cars in the U.S. should be doubled?

This brings a couple of Alexis de Tocqueville quotes to mind:

"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."

"In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexis_de_tocqueville.html

More thoughts on this later…