I don’t often take sides in scientific debates because I know so little about it.  I have, however, found myself grating my teeth often over the way that mainstream science and its critics interact.  As a result, I’ve come up with some (in my opinion) reasonable guidelines for talking about science.

• Don’t assume the uneducated voices on either side of the issue represent the issue correctly: I remember hearing someone (yes, in Texas) say, "Now, you don’t go believing that evolution junk.  It’s not biblical."  Such a statement would only be acceptable to certain creationists and would be rejected with qualification by intelligent design proponents; it clearly betrays that the person saying it was uneducated in the current evolution/intelligent design debate.  Note that by "uneducated," I do not mean "stupid"–I mean that these voices are uneducated on the particular issue.  Both sides of every issue in science have educated people in their ranks, but the press commonly resorts to "man on the street" polls for its stories.  These stories are open to bias because the author will tend to highlight the more uneducated comments of one side.
• Don’t assume the masses desire reasonable science: There was a time when scientific polls of the United States (had they been yet invented) would have determined that a majority of Americans believed blacks to be naturally inferior to whites.  The lesson from this travesty is that the public does not always desire what it ought.  I grate my teeth every time someone quotes the percentage of people supporting this or that controversial scientific issue.  This technique, too, is open to bias.  If the majority of Americans support stem cell research, they are either heathenistic or enlightened.  If the majority of Americans support intelligent design, they are either stupid or saintly.  If a scientific method or idealogy is scientifically sound or morally acceptable, then the scientists and the ethicists must make that final decision.  The people have a place, but it is subservient to the experts in the field.
• Don’t downplay the educated lay scientist: Lay scientists (or, more cynically, "armchair scientist"), of course, do not "do" science for a living, but there are many such people on both sides of any scientific  debate who know what they’re talking about.  My personal rule for evaluating a lay scientist is humility.  If the lay scientist is able to admit a role subservient to the professional scientist, then the lay scientist is worthy of attention.
• Don’t quote fuzzy statistics about a supporter base: A public relations stunt by the Discovery Institute displayed several hundred (I think) scientists who questioned Darwinian theory.  Instead of countering with, well, science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science displayed a list of scientists who believed Darwinian theory, except that all of them were named "Steve."  Elsewhere, I’ve seen statements like "99.9% of scientists believe that humans are affecting the climate"* without quoting a survey or even defining the term "scientists."**  The trouble with these stunts and statements is that all of them is thoroughly unscientific.  Instead of conducting a sound poll, people are relying on hearsay and unscientific methods to make claims about the state of the scientific community.
• Don’t believe that dissenters must use alternative methods to get their points across: Science is currently based on empirical observations and transparent reporting; all dissenters must work within that framework.  Moreover, convincing the mass of scientists requires interaction within their arena–their journals, their annual meetings.  And the mass of scientists should be willing to hear what the dissenters think, since science is not a dictatorship of the majority.  But the onus is on the dissenters to prove their points with rigorous research in scholarly publications.  Setting up alternative meetings and publications just furthers the perception that the dissenters are isolated from the scientific community.  No matter how difficult it is to put forth dissenting theories–and it is difficult, for good reasons and bad reasons–they must be put forth in the current scientific environment.
• Don’t encourage dissenters to interfere with scientific discourse: One of the dumbest moments in American science was the response to a JAMA article examining if the fetus can feel pain.  The authors determined that the fetus probably cannot feel pain.  I do not know if their conclusions are correct or if they used proper methods in reaching their conclusions–indeed, I have not even read the article.  Still, lack of knowledge did not restrain hundreds of people to send the editor-in-chief nasty letters and e-mails.  If the authors got it wrong, then the lay public should have stayed out of it and left dissent to qualified scientists–and such a policy should guide every public response to scientific discourse.
• Don’t assume that scientists are always rational beings: A while ago, an editor of a small publication in Washington, DC published an article that promoted an intelligent design theory.  Although the editor made the final decision to include the article, it should be noted that two to three other scientists saw and vetted the article before publication (peer review).  When the article was published, the editor received nasty e-mails and letters calling him a "creationist" and questioning his scientific integrity.  In other words: scientists are not always benign, disinterested creatures.  They are real people, with real personalities and personality flaws.  Certainly, a measured response would have been more appropriate, but we should not always expect such a response.
• Don’t believe that science should be used as a tool for political subversion: Recently, I was impressed by the Evolution 101 podcast of Dr. Zachary Moore when he spoke about the evolution of homosexuality.  Moore outlined the incidence of homosexuality among animals, and how it evolved.  I can’t endorse Moore’s science because I have not looked into the subject, but I can endorse his conclusions.  Because Moore is a "proud atheist," he could have used the podcast to take potshots at the "religious right," but chose not to.  Instead, he stated that his conclusion–that homosexuality has evolved in the animal kingdom–does not comment on the moral aspect of homosexuality in humans.  In other words, he was concerned only with stating the facts as he saw them, not with using the facts for a political statement.  He explicitely stated that he would leave the moral questions to others.  Moore’s example is one that all scientists, whether in the mainstream or dissenting communities, should follow.

*Presumably, the 0.1% work for the Bush administration.

**Are they academic researchers in climate research departments?  Are they high school science teachers?  Are they PhDs working for industry? 

I’ve started Austen’s Pride and Prejudice at least three times, maybe four. Each time, I found the book difficult to finish for one reason or another–but I am now on my way to finishing it, thanks to Librivox. Darcy and Elizabeth are just engaged to one another, and I am happy to finally be on my way to finishing the book.

The mission of Librivox is to record in freely-downloadable MP3s every book available via public domain. They typically use the Project Gutenberg archive, and volunteers from around the world record the files. Librivox proves to me that the Internet will not signify the death of the book, as some have complained. I say so because it is completely run by volunteers who have conducted the project out of love of literature. As long as people still love literature enough to spend extraordinary amounts of time on it, the Internet will never wholly eliminate the book.

Read his e-mail updates about his 11-month battle with cancer here. Read his Wikipedia entry here.

I have always been compelled, as a writer, to commemorate or memorialize tragedies when they occur. The problem with this tendency, of course, is that I’m never satisfied–my words never cease to annoy me when employed in such weighty matters. I think I am too preachy, too haughty, too sentimental, too cynical. Thus, I am glad that someone else has done a fine job of memorializing Ross Lence, and I commend you to the hyperlink in the previous clause.

I only knew Dr. Lence for a short time, but he has been profoundly influential in my life. To list the ways would risk dissatisfaction with my words; it suffices to say that I will miss him.

Matrimonied!

I was a groomsman for a friend from college…well, sort of.  The bride and groom had mixed parties, so I was on the bride’s side.  It was a good time, and an interesting cultural experience, as the groom’s family is from Uganda.  I offer them congratulations. 

Patriotism is no excuse for stupidity

While driving home, we ran into traffic jams because various dumb people parked their cars on the highways (and if you’ve ever lived in Houston, you know how important the highways are to the city)  to watch the fireworks.  Ugh.

Superman!

After the wedding, we went to a theater local to  our home to see Superman Returns.   It was campy, in a good way, but I was disappointed nonetheless.  Oh well.  I’ll wait for the  sequel.

—–