Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Right's Science Problem Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_rights_science_problem#17171 Post contents: Climatologists can come up with models, but that is not much different than economists when they do the same. The same kind and level of science told us about the upcoming ice age in the 1970s. As an engineer, about 20 years ago, I learned about error analysis. When you have a bunch of +/- 5% terms (and in climate they aren't all even that small) that grow geometrically over time, the same mathematics that predicts a 2 degree increases in temperature would show (in the mouseprint footnotes if at all in the publication) it is plus or minus 10 degrees. You CANNOT measure distance with an accelerometer. But you protest, it is just the integral of the integral of accelleration! Yes, but if there is an inaccuracy, the inaccuracy will increase with the square of the duration. So when standing still, you will eventually end up moving faster than the speed of light. If you wish, I can install such a speedometer/odometer in your car... And this is science and mathematics which goes back to Newton and Leibnitz. Very demonstrable, calculable down to many, many, decimal places. Darwinism or evolutionism or the rest has a different problem. Newer mathematics and science can measure complexity (separate design from randomness - Claude Shannon's information theory is the foundation). But life forms are very complex, and we can MEASURE and CALCULATE the amount of information required to jump the gaps, and there is no known force in the universe capable of producing such order other than intelligence. (I specifically don't say God, but I do suggest looking into nebulas or other locations in space for something which CAN self-organize since DNA and protein cannot do so by what the physicists, chemists, and mathematicians have proven). They say it happened contrary to known science, yet offer no experiment or suggestion likely to explain it. And I have to wonder, just as the patents were expiring on CFCs, we discover a "hole" in the ozone which turned out to be more hype, and somehow the billions of tons of chlorine Mt. Pinatubo injected directly into the stratosphere could not possibly be responsible - it must be the heavier than air CFCs which are far from the stratosphere and tend to go into the soil where they are digested by bacteria. Yet those poor ozone molecules swoon when they see a CFC 25 miles below, so we must ban them. (Aside: This makes air conditioning more expensive and toxic condemning many poor and elderly to earlier death and discomfort - apparently Benedict XVI approves of this in the form of the Montreal Protocols, perhaps he will approve of burning crops instead of oil so we can starve the poor as well as bake them, but theology doesn't always mix well with economics or science). Science should be a search for truth. Not merely an alternate dogma where dissenters are labeled heretics and burned for asking honest questions, nor as jumping off point to conclusions that demand we radically modify our behavior. For that matter, what the CDC already knows and publishes - but is utterly ignored by the media and politicians - on STDs would be something far more effective to have public policy change behavior. And we are doing it (wrongly from a liberty perspective but at least it is good science) on smoking. Infertility, disability, and huge expense even when things can be made tolerable are all effects of the sexual revolution, and there is plenty of science. But the promiscuous Prius owners are straining at the gnats and doing unspeakable things to Camels, or perhaps cigars as Ms. Lewinski can testify to. Sent at: 2008 08 28