This post involves neither food nor the weather, and I apologize for that. Especially since there's interesting weather in the west Atlantic, what with Tropical Storm Kyle probably reaching hurricane status in the next few days, and possibly merging with a storm system currently over the Carolinas to form one hell of a whopper.
Last night Obama and McCain had their first debate. Now, I must confess that though I am a Wobbly (albeit years behind in dues) and an Anarchist, I am going to vote for the Democrat. I can't say that I support him, but quite frankly the Republican ticket scares me. Yes, yes, I want to see the state and the capitalist system torn down, but until we have something in place (like the network of workers' co-operatives and collectives my partner wants to build, or a powerful revolutionary union like the Wobblies once were and will probably never be again), it would be foolhardy to take it out now. We should resist, and we should enlarge the spaces in which we live. But the far right is much better organized, and has much more space, and if the liberal system collapses, they are in a much better position to fill the vacuum than we are.
So, with that disclaimer, a few thoughts on the debate.
1. On economic policy: I vastly prefer what Obama advocates. I find difficulty comprehending howt the Reaganomics espoused by McCain has any credibility with anyone who isn't independently wealthy. Making green energy a central goal, and taking the bottom-up approach, are both the best thing that can be done in the liberal system. I would double-plus love it if some of that money went into grants and loans to start workers' co-ops, like in Venezuela.
2. On foreign policy: They did not sound too different to me. I found it curious how it was only mentioned in passing that the (U.S.-installed) Iraqi government wants the U.S. out now. This whole timetable question seems ridiculous to me--they asked for one. I mean, sure, any idiot could see through the claims that Iraq would have national sovereignty. I don't know whether I'm more surprised by the barefaced hypocrisy, or the fact that no one seems to be commenting on it. Also, though they did not sound too different to me, I get the impression most of the rest of the world (except Vietnam) would prefer Obama, and that's significant.
3. More on foreign policy: Barack said something that scared me, and reminded me of one good part to this whole obsession with Iraq. I remember noting a few years ago, in fact, that the recent resurgence of left wing populist movements throughout South America came after the CIA and State Department turned their attention primarily to southern and southwest Asia. Barack said that he would like to turn U.S. attention back to a number of places including Latin America. Bad, bad news. Look out Chavez--you might get that coup you're afraid of after all!
4. On earmarks: I am quite bothered that most of the examples of wasteful earmarks I've heard over the last week or so is money for scientific research. I mean, "bridge to nowhere?" That's wasteful. But money to study crabs mating or catalogue bear DNA? Or, better still, the millions of dollars that will finance VORTEX-II, part of which pays my current salary and will continue to pay me through my Ph.D.? I don't know, maybe the public has more interest in studying tornadoes. But out of simple self-interest as well as a belief that increasing our understanding of the natural world is a worthwhile project that deserves funding (which is why I am a scientist!), I hope that the next administration and Congress don't slash the budget of the National Science Foundation.
I think that's all for now. I remain with my evaluation that Obama would improve the general situation of the world, although I definitely do not consider him in a favorable light and could not in good consience endorse him--except to the extent that Palin-McCain are even scarier.
One last note: a few days ago I switched my position on whether or not "creation science" or "intelligent design" (different beasts, I know, but closely related) should be taught in science classes. The average scientific education of Americans is very poor indeed. People actually think there is evidence contradicting evolution, or that some kind of debate exists within the scientific community. Most people are taught science simply as a body of knowledge, and not also as a method for producing that knowledge. So most people cannot tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. For this reason, I would like every science teacher to take a week or so to teach kids about that difference. Both "creation science" and "intelligent design" are excellent examples to illustrate this difference.
Posts
Yes, they are the alt-right.
6 years ago
3 comments:
Or you could include about a week on basics of philosophy of science (e.g., how science learns, the distinction between science and non-science). Then present the students with evolution and ID/creationism and let them see the difference.
I think that would be a good approach, but I would also want to be sure to leave students with a list like this or that given by wikipedia's article on pseudoscience. For the purposes of general education, I would not want to rely on the average person's ability to recognize pseudoscience based on what they can remember about the philosophy of science. I think they would be better off if they had a general checklist in mind and if they came across someone claiming a scientific discovery but who satisfies several items on the checklist, to regard the scientific value of those claims as suspect.
There is a bit of a personality component to scientific skepticism. My brother is only naturally *slightly* skeptic when he comes across scientific and pseudoscientific theories, whereas my dad, mom, and sister are true skeptics. My mom and I are the most skeptical in the sense that we have analytical, rational, mechanistic, skeptical personalities, ideal for being scientists (we is..). We can both shred a primary journal article with skepticism like nobody's business. But my brother, no matter how much the rest of my family's tried to teach him over the course of his life, has a true personality type that makes him believe something at face value right away. That's his default. He gets excited about some article or news segment, and only later does someone like me or my mother deflate his balloon with pesky skepticism. In some ways, it's kind of cool that some people are like that--they're probably much happier in this world. Skeptics often do not have *enough* to believe in, and sure enough, the most skeptical people in our family are also the ones that get the most depressed about all the bullshit in the world known as 'reality'. But the truly scary people are the ones that play like they're "Rational Scientists", but still endorse pseudoscience when not at work and rabidly push conservative pseudoscience belief systems despite having to be well-versed in the scientific method in their careers--I had a physics professor like that--he said one day in the lecture hall to 300 students: "Every year I always get in trouble with the dean for this, but I don't think that science precludes believing in creationism--I'm going to state my beliefs (and take up class time), and if anyone wants to come to me after class, I would be happy to explain to them how I reconcile my beliefs in creationism with being a physicist by profession..." I think people's emotional attachments to belief systems can totally transcend any rational, conscious analysis any day. That being said, I still think it would be absolutely worth it for people to get more education in school about how to differentiate "evidence-based thinking" and "mechanistic-based thinking" from "making shit up because it has emotional appeal". Most people I know hardly care or even are aware that there's a physical or physiologic theory behind why things are done--they are by far more impressed with anecdote and emotional appeal. Like me, I choose my presidential candidates entirely on how much their voices annoy me on the radio. McCain--angry chipmunk. Palin--back-stabbing pink sweater girl in highschool who rats out on the people who do anything outside the norm because she's so desperate herself to be accepted as normal by the popular kids. Bush--chimp who has been taught to emulate human language. Obama--speaks like how he looks according to the onion: "he always looks like he's posing for a coin".
Cud.
Post a Comment